[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 15, 16, AND 17, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-142
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Kristi L. Remington, Senior Counsel
Jim Schumann, Counsel
Lisa Smith Arafune, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
December 15, 1999............................................ 1
December 16, 1999............................................ 239
December 17, 1999............................................ 417
Statement of:
Huang, John.................................................. 42
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana:
Calls and fax transmissions from Stephens, Inc........... 315
Exhibit 4................................................ 228
Exhibit 5................................................ 230
Exhibit 6................................................ 232
Exhibit 7................................................ 234
Exhibit 11............................................... 570
Exhibit 13............................................... 575
Exhibit 15............................................... 54
Exhibit 17............................................... 56
Exhibit 18............................................... 59
Exhibit 19............................................... 61
Exhibit 20............................................... 64
Exhibit 21............................................... 72
Exhibit 22............................................... 74
Exhibit 23............................................... 76
Exhibit 24............................................... 116
Exhibit 25............................................... 224
Exhibit 64............................................... 580
Exhibit 65............................................... 589
Exhibit 67............................................... 593
Exhibit 68............................................... 597
Exhibit 109.............................................. 572
Exhibit 167.............................................. 318
Exhibit 168.............................................. 320
Exhibit 324.............................................. 612
Exhibit 328.............................................. 615
Exhibits 403-412......................................... 529
Exhibit 439.............................................. 550
Exhibit 440.............................................. 559
Prepared statements of...................................8, 242
Chenoweth-Hage, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho, prepared statement of.................. 237
Huang, John, prepared statement of........................... 45
LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio:
Exhibit 316.............................................. 169
Exhibit 317.............................................. 264
Exhibit 318.............................................. 266
Exhibit 320.............................................. 268
Exhibit 323.............................................. 270
Exhibit 337.............................................. 328
Exhibit 338.............................................. 330
Exhibit 441.............................................. 375
Exhibit 442.............................................. 409
Exhibits 446-450......................................... 440
Exhibits 452-456......................................... 447
Exhibit 501.............................................. 352
Exhibit 502.............................................. 355
Exhibit 513.............................................. 358
Exhibit 525.............................................. 473
Exhibit 532.............................................. 475
Exhibit 537.............................................. 477
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida:
Exhibit 31............................................... 94
Exhibit 32............................................... 153
Exhibit 33............................................... 151
Exhibit 34............................................... 155
Exhibit 35............................................... 157
List of 122 individuals.................................. 35
Recommendation for independent counsel by Mr. LaBella and
Mr. Freeh.............................................. 36
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut:
Exhibit 153.............................................. 489
Exhibit 174.............................................. 508
Exhibit 192.............................................. 522
Exhibit 417.............................................. 620
Exhibit 432.............................................. 622
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana:
Articles dated July 3, 1999 and March 23, 1997........... 208
Exhibit 97............................................... 221
Exhibit 98............................................... 278
Exhibits 99 and 100...................................... 281
Exhibit 101.............................................. 287
Exhibit 102.............................................. 290
Exhibit 103.............................................. 292
Exhibit 104.............................................. 295
Exhibit 105.............................................. 297
Exhibit 106.............................................. 300
Exhibit 107.............................................. 302
Exhibit 108.............................................. 306
Exhibit 207.............................................. 398
Exhibits 208 and 209..................................... 400
Exhibit 210.............................................. 390
Exhibit 211.............................................. 392
Exhibit 212.............................................. 394
Exhibit 378.............................................. 422
Exhibits 379 and 380..................................... 429
Expense record for John Huang............................ 219
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Article dated October 14, 1996........................... 81
Information concerning fines of $25,000 or more.......... 466
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Wilson, James C., chief counsel, Committee on Government
Reform, exhibit 354........................................ 636
THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Shays, Mica, Souder,
LaTourette, Waxman, and Norton.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C.
Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy counsel and
parliamentarian; Mark Corallo, director of communications;
Kristi Remington, senior counsel; James J. Schumann and M.
Scott Billingsley, counsels; Kimberly A. Reed, investigative
counsel; Renee Becker, deputy press secretary, Robert Briggs,
editor and assistant clerk; Robin Butler, office manager;
Michael Canty, Toni Lightle, and Maria Tamburri, staff
assistants; Nicole Petrosino, legislative aide; Leneal Scott,
computer systems manager; Lisa Smith Arafune, chief clerk;
Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil Schiliro,
minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel;
Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; Kristin
Amerling, Sarah Despres, David Sadkin, Paul Weinberger, and
Michael Yang, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Andrew Su, and
Barbara Wentworth, minority research assistants.
Also present: Ty Cobb and Jack Keeney, counsel for Mr.
Huang.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Government Reform will come to order. You may have
a seat right now, gentlemen.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' written opening
statements be included in the record; and, without objection,
so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits
and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in
the record, and without objection so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter
under consideration proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule
11 and Committee Rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking
minority member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem
appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes
divided equally between the majority and minority. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in this
matter proceed under clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule 11 and
Committee Rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority
member allocate time to members of the committee as they deem
appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes
equally divided between majority and minority. And, without
objection, so ordered.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Now that we have agreed to some of these
procedural matters before the committee, I read in Roll Call
that you are planning to conduct your own Internet broadcast of
this and future hearings, and I think this would be a positive
development if it is done right. I am a little surprised
because you and your staff never consulted with us about it.
As I understand the House rules, we would need unanimous
consent to proceed until such time as our committee rules have
been changed to permit this in-house broadcasting of committee
activities. I would not object today if we could commit
together to working together, you and the minority, to amend
the committee rules to address this coverage and to provide,
one, that the coverage will be in compliance with rule 11,
clause 4; two, that the coverage will be fair and nonpartisan;
and three, that the minority will have prompt access to a copy
of the coverage.
If you are willing to agree to those terms, then I will not
object to having the committee go ahead with this new Internet
live broadcast even though the rules, until they are changed,
won't permit it.
Mr. Burton. We agree fully with that, Mr. Waxman, and it is
our intent to do that. If there has been a misunderstanding we
apologize, because we have been planning on this and working on
this for several months. One of the reasons that we want to
have the Internet coverage is, first of all, it will give the
American people both the minority and the majority views on a
number of issues. It will give them complete access to our
hearings. Right now the media coverage of some of our very
important hearings has been rather limited, and in some cases
the media has interpreted things that have happened based upon
their own philosophy.
We think the American people deserve the unvarnished facts
in our hearings and in our investigations, and I think they
will get that because the Internet won't leave anything out. We
will make sure that the minority has full access to everything,
that there is fair distribution of the time allocated, as we
have in the past to both the minority and majority, and we will
have the rules amended at the first opportunity when we come
back in January.
Mr. Waxman. If the chairman would permit, I thank you for
that statement and your willingness to work together. I just
have to say for the record that it makes me nervous when any
agency of government--and of course our committee is an agency
of government--controls what would be sent to the media. And if
we have Internet television coverage of our hearing, and it is
our people or your people controlling who will be covered, what
they say--not what they say but who the cameras will turn on
and things along those lines--I would want us to make sure that
the ground rules are absolutely pinned down to be fair. I sense
from what you have said you agree with that.
Mr. Burton. I do agree with that.
Mr. Waxman. And on that basis, even though the Democrats on
this committee could insist on a vote to change the rules to be
taken before we would permit this to take place, we won't
object for today, and we will work together for future
hearings.
Mr. Burton. We thank you, Mr. Waxman. We will now proceed
with our opening statements.
I would like to welcome everybody back this afternoon. We
have a limited number of Members who are here. Obviously we are
in a holiday season and a lot of the Members have other
commitments. So we are probably going to have about five or six
Members here for the questioning of Mr. Huang and his legal
counsel, but I do appreciate the Members who are here being
here, and we will try to do this as expeditiously as possible.
Because of the tremendous number of questions we have, the
hearing will probably take 3 days and possibly 4 days to
complete. I know that is not good news for everybody, but we
haven't had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Huang or his counsel
for about 3 years now, and since we have the opportunity, we
want to make sure we make good use of it and complete it as
thoroughly as possible.
I would like to thank you once again for being here. I know
your schedules in your districts are very full with all the
holiday celebration. So I appreciate you being here.
For those of you who are following these hearings, this
hearing is happening during the recess, and as I said, you
won't see as many Members of the Congress here as you would
when we are in session. However, I expect other Members to join
us as we get underway, and they will be coming in and out
because of their schedules.
This is a very important hearing. We have been waiting for
3 years to hear Mr. Huang's testimony. For the last 3 years Mr.
Huang has been 1 of 122 people who have invoked the fifth
amendment or left the country. In our interim report which we
filed over a year ago, we noted that 17 people associated with
Mr. Huang had either taken the fifth or left the country. The
result has been a lot of unanswered questions. These are
questions that the American people deserve to get answered.
We voted to grant Mr. Huang immunity in October. He is here
today to testify and tell his story and answer questions. In my
view, it is better late than never. And, Mr. Huang, we welcome
you and appreciate you being here.
I want to say just a couple of things about how we are
going to proceed. This is going to take some time. We are going
to be at this for several days. We have a large amount of
material to go through, and there just isn't any quick and easy
way to do it. I plan to work into the evenings if necessary,
and I plan to go into the weekend if we have to. This is
probably the first and only time that John Huang will testify
in public, and we have an obligation to be thorough.
In many ways this is going to be more like a deposition
than a hearing. Anyone who has sat through a lengthy deposition
knows that it can be tedious at times, but I think it is
necessary to get this information on the record.
Normally, before we hold a hearing we have our staffs
interview a witness. In previous sessions, our staffs had
deposition authority. That was not extended during this
Congress, because at the time we initiated and instituted this
Congress we didn't think it was necessary, and when we have
staff interviews or depositions our staff goes over all of the
issues with a witness in advance. That way, by the time we get
to a hearing, we can focus on the most relevant facts. We have
not been able to do that this time.
At the time that we voted to immunize Mr. Huang, Mr. Waxman
asked that we do all of the questioning in public and I agreed
to do that.
So this is going to be a unique situation. We don't know in
advance what the answers to many of the questions are going to
be. We have an idea because we have received the FBI's
interviews. However, they didn't cover all of the issues that
we need to cover. At times I think this will be very
interesting and at other times it is sure going to be
monotonous. However, we have been working on this for 3 years.
We have waited a long time, and I think we need to be as
thorough as possible and I want to thank everyone in advance
for bearing with us.
Before I talk about the substance of the hearing, I want to
talk for a moment about the scheduling problems we have had.
They could have been avoided and what happened last week left
me a little frustrated.
My staff has talked for over a month with Mr. Huang's
lawyers, and we had planned to start these hearings yesterday,
for many weeks. It wasn't until last week after we noticed the
hearing dates that Mr. Keeney informed us that Mr. Huang was
scheduled to testify before a grand jury in Los Angeles
yesterday. It was clear that this appearance had been planned
well in advance, and I don't understand why we didn't know
about this earlier, but nevertheless we are here today.
Members of Congress had canceled events in their districts
to be here yesterday. I had a subcommittee chairman who wanted
to hold a hearing yesterday, and we had to cancel that. So we
had that hearing delayed until next year, and unfortunately,
because of Mr. Huang's testimony before the grand jury
yesterday, he had to fly all night on the red eye. He looks no
worse for wear, but it must have been a tough night for him.
Most people think that this foreign fundraising scandal
began in 1995 or 1996. It did not. This scandal was born in the
summer of 1992. Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas, and
he was running for President. James Riady was a billionaire
living in Indonesia. Mr. Riady flew from Jakarta to Los Angeles
in August 1992. He took a limousine ride with then-Governor
Bill Clinton. He promised to raise $1 million for Bill
Clinton's campaign. That set in motion a pattern of illegal
activity that was repeated over and over again in 1993, 1994,
1995 and 1996.
Foreign money was funneled to straw donors. Straw donors
gave money to the DNC and other campaigns. Campaign officials
claimed to have no idea anything suspicious was going on. It
happened time and time again with John Huang, James Riady,
Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ted Sioeng, Johnny Chung,
and Mark Jimenez.
The DNC ultimately returned more than $3\1/2\ million in
illegal money, and I noted that in the New York Times today it
indicated that money was not illegal, but--I can't remember the
exact word, ``improper''--those were illegal contributions. Not
improper, they were illegal.
John Huang's name and Charlie Trie's name were connected to
most of it. Since then we have uncovered more illegal foreign
money that the DNC still hasn't returned. In the fall of 1992
Mr. Riady worked with Mr. Huang to funnel about $200,000
through Lippo bank employees. It then went to the DNC, and it
also went to some State Democrat parties, including California,
Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri. Normally you wouldn't think that
an Indonesia businessman would think of directing contributions
to Missouri. Who was steering this money to all these States?
That is one of the things that we want to find out.
When we published our interim report last fall, we
published bank records and memorabilia that showed the
contributions were illegal. To my knowledge, not a penny of
that money was returned by any of those campaign committees.
More illegal money was given through the Lippo Group in
1993 and 1994. In 1996 the DNC received $450,000 from an
Indonesian couple named Wiriadinata. Forgive me if I don't
pronounce all these names correctly. The money came from
Indonesia, from a close associate of Mr. Riady. Mr. Huang was
listed as the solicitor of these contributions. This is one of
the many issues we will be asking him about this week.
The big question is why? Why did James Riady want to raise
$1 million for Bill Clinton's campaign? When you add it all up,
the Riadys and their associates gave almost $2 million to the
President's campaign and his other causes. Why? Did they like
his health care plan? Did they admire his position on social
security? I doubt it.
There was an interesting passage in John Huang's FBI 302
interviews. They were talking about the $100,000 that Mr. Riady
gave to Webster Hubbell. Mr. Huang was asked if there was a
purpose behind this money. He responded, ``everything has a
purpose.'' I don't know exactly what he meant. That is one of
the things we want to ask him about this week.
I doubt that we are going to get all of the answers today.
I don't know if Mr. Huang has all of the answers. We reviewed
John Huang's FBI 302 interviews. If there is a reason or a
purpose behind all this money, I didn't see it there.
If we really want to get the answers, we need to talk to
James Riady. He needs to testify. Mr. Riady hasn't set foot in
this country in 3 years. I understand from media reports that
his lawyers are trying to negotiate a plea agreement with the
Justice Department. From what I understand, Mr. Riady wants to
clear away his legal problems so he can come back into the
United States. If he wants to come back to the United States,
the first thing he should do is come forward and explain his
role in this whole fiasco to the American people. I think they
deserve some answers.
It is clear to me that the Justice Department had enough
evidence to indict Mr. Riady a long time ago. I don't know why
he hasn't been indicted. The Attorney General made a decision 2
years ago not to appoint an independent counsel. She invited a
lot of scrutiny when she did that. We will be watching very
closely to see if Mr. Riady gets a sweetheart deal.
I know what kind of deals Republicans got from Janet Reno's
Justice Department. There was a man named Simon Fireman. He
funneled about $120,000 to the Bob Dole for President campaign.
He got a $6 million fine. There is a company by the name of
Empire Sanitary Landfill. They gave $129,000 in illegal
contributions to Republican campaigns. They were fined $8
million. Another Republican who was responsible for fewer
illegal conduit contributions than Mr. Huang got a $5 million
fine. Unlike Mr. Huang, both of the Republicans got terms of
detention.
We will just have to wait and see what happens with Mr.
Riady.
The fact that James Riady hasn't been able to come back
into the country has not stopped him from keeping in touch with
the President. He showed up when the President was in New
Zealand for an economic conference in September, and the
meeting was captured on videotape.
Because Mr. Riady has thumbed his nose at the campaign
finance investigation, we wondered why the President would
greet him so warmly and how he could get a seat of honor at an
event the President attended. We asked the White House about
the meeting, and they were quick to supply two tapes that the
White House photographer took, and I would like for you to see
the tapes from the White House right now.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. OK. That is the end of tape one, and as you can
see, it doesn't look like much happened. As a matter of fact,
when the tape panned back to the President, he had just passed
Mr. Riady, and he hadn't really--it doesn't show him making
much contact with him, and you do see a long shot of the wall
over there where the TV cameras were. So let us take a look at
tape two the White House sent us.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. Now, you notice that the tape stopped just as
Mr. Clinton approached Mr. Riady.
Now, I would like for you to see tape three. This tape came
from a source not connected with the White House.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Burton. That shows a little different picture. The
White House tapes don't show it, but President Clinton really
did pay some special attention to Mr. Riady. This White House
is so consumed with covering things up that their taxpayer-
funded photographer wouldn't even allow a tape to be made of
the President shaking Mr. Riady's hand. No one minded the
President meeting Mr. Riady. They just didn't want anyone to
know how warmly he was greeted because of the problems
surrounding Mr. Riady.
Did the President ask Mr. Riady to come back and explain
his role in this scandal? I don't think so. The White House has
never shown an intense desire to get all the facts out. The
President should ask Mr. Riady and all the other people who
have stayed out of the country to come back and explain their
actions.
Some people say the American people don't care anymore,
that they don't want to know the facts. Well, I don't think
that is true, but the fact of the matter is we have a
responsibility on this committee to get to the bottom of it,
because illegal campaign contributions coming from foreign
sources and foreign governments were given to influence the
outcome of the elections in 1996 and 1992.
I think the American people really want to know if foreign
governments and foreign individuals are trying to influence our
elections. I think they want to know who their government is
beholden to. I think we have an obligation to finish what we
started. We have an obligation to the history books to get the
facts on the record.
Now, Mr. Huang, I have reviewed your opening statement and
I read part of it in the New York Times today, and I can't let
it go by without some comment. You make it sound like people
who are trying to get the facts out are somehow being unfair to
Asian Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I
want to make it crystal clear. Nothing in this committee's work
should be interpreted as a slight on Asian Americans or any
other ethnic group. There should be no roadblocks to the
participation of any American regardless of their ethnicity in
our political system. I am very sympathetic to innocent people
whose lives have been hurt by the campaign finance scandal, but
again, let me make it clear we have had to talk to a lot of
people, and the Department of Justice has had to talk to a lot
of people because you encouraged them to give contributions,
which was breaking the law, because they looked up to you and
because they trusted you.
Mr. Huang, you were the vice chair for the finance
committee at the Democrat National Committee. You are a very
sophisticated player in the U.S. political system. You
understand it. You knew the law, and when you decided to break
the law, you caused a lot of people to be hurt, and most of
them unfortunately were Asian Americans. I really hope you will
not try to blame the Justice Department or the Congress for
things that you are responsible for.
We have a lot of work to do. There are many, many issues
that we want to question you about, Mr. Huang. I haven't even
touched on most of them here. In the interest of time, I won't
now.
Let me once again thank you for being here, Mr. Huang, and
I want to thank members of the committee who traveled during
the holiday to be with us here as well, and Mr. Waxman, I will
yield to you for an opening statement.
[Note.--The FBI interview and summary of John Huang is
printed at the end of the hearing.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.016
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to waive my
statement today, but I thought more about this hearing, and I
thought about it and I realized that it was important to make
some facts and observations for the record and certainly part
of the record for this hearing.
The Burton investigation started in 1996 after the L.A.
Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, ABC, CBS,
NBC, CNN and other media sources broke stories about campaign
irregularities in the 1996 Presidential campaign. In the past
38 months, this committee has uncovered little new, but we have
settled into a familiar and predictable pattern.
Phase one begins with the chairman making a sensational and
unsubstantiated allegation. After that, a newspaper headline
follows, and then we move into phase two, when Mr. Burton
pledges he won't rest until he gets the facts because the
American people have a right to know.
Phase three involves getting the facts, which invariably
don't support the original allegations made in phase one. Now
this is a problem.
Phase four solves the phase three problem. That is when the
chairman accuses the White House, the President, Janet Reno,
the Justice Department or Democrats on this committee of
stonewalling, obstructing justice or covering up, and Mr.
Burton generally says he won't stop until he gets what he wants
because the American people have a right to know.
Phase five is always interesting because that is when the
White House, the Justice Department or the FBI capitulates, and
we actually receive the information, what was said to be a
smoking gun, but just as in phase three, that material never
seems to support the original allegations.
At that point we enter phase six. Forget the original
allegations, forget the facts, pretend it never happened and
don't admit a mistake. Instead, make new, sensational and
unsubstantiated allegations. Go back to phase one and hope no
one ever notices.
There has never been a congressional investigation quite
like this one. In 3 years, Chairman Burton has unilaterally
issued over 883 subpoenas. Now, let me repeat that because it
is really quite unprecedented: 883 subpoenas related to the
campaign finance investigation. To fully appreciate how
astounding that is, consider that from 1960 to 1994, not a
single chairman of any House committee ever issued a unilateral
subpoena. It is simply amazing.
Mr. Burton tries to rationalize this by claiming he has
been blocked at every turn, but the fact is that the committee
has received over 1.5 million pages of documents and deposed
over 160 witnesses. Now, the chairman indicated that in the
past he has deposed the witnesses before he ever had the
hearing, but today we are hearing from Mr. Huang without that
deposition preceding the hearing. Of those precisely 161 people
who have been deposed by the committee, only 15 were ever
brought to a public hearing. That meant the rest had to go
behind closed doors to be questioned over and over and over
again about every detail, some of which did not even relate to
the campaign finance investigation.
Could you imagine being called before a congressional
committee and being forced to answer questions behind closed
doors about every possible thing that the attorneys that work
for this committee might think could be useful to try to trip
you up or someone else up?
Well, Mr. Burton asked this committee to immunize 12
witnesses. Now, the committee Democrats have immunized all 12
witnesses. The reason that is significant is that the committee
needs a two-thirds vote, so they need our votes to immunize
witnesses, and we have gone along in every instance, even in
cases where it didn't make much sense. The committee has had a
virtually unlimited budget. We have spent over $7 million in
the last Congress alone, and we don't know the full figures for
this one. What do we have to show for this, aside from the fact
that we are now hearing from Mr. Huang? The Washington Post
wrote that the investigation ``runs the risk of becoming its
own cartoon, a joke and a deserved embarrassment.'' The New
York Times called it ``A parody of a reputable investigation,''
and Norm Ornstein noted it was, ``A case study in how not to do
a congressional investigation.''
Reputations have been recklessly smeared. Some of those
smeared have been public figures like Bruce Babbitt, Maggie
Williams, Hazel O'Leary, Cheryl Mills and Janet Reno. Others
have been ordinary citizens like Professor Chi Wang, whose bank
records were erroneously subpoenaed, or Chief Petty Officer
Charles McGrath, the career military officer in charge of the
office that was falsely accused of doctoring White House
videotapes, and Colonel Raymond Wilson, another career officer
who was wrongly accused of witness intimidation and mob tactics
for trying to respond to a legitimate Senate inquiry. Even
those who have done something wrong, like Webster Hubbell and
John Huang, end up in the strange position of being wronged
themselves when our committee gets involved.
On October 9, 1997, for instance, when Mr. Burton held his
first hearing with a supposed blockbuster witness David Wang,
the chairman promised that if Mr. Wang were granted immunity
and permitted to testify, his testimony would show that John
Huang, who is here today with us, illegally laundered campaign
contributions while a DNC official. As the chairman put it,
``This is the first time we have found an active person at the
DNC who was involved in money laundering, and we will be able
to prove that.''
Once granted immunity, Mr. Wang confessed to an illegal tax
and immigration scheme that was far more serious than his
conduit contribution violation, but he was immunized so no
prosecution could be taken against him. Even worse, the
testimony he gave to the committee about John Huang was
demonstrably false. His account was factually wrong and was
debunked as he appeared before our committee.
To this day, however, Mr. Burton refuses to acknowledge his
mistake and admit that his allegations about John Huang in that
particular instance were wrong.
Now, if we don't have a committee owning up to correct the
record, let's just at least look to the example set by the Wall
Street Journal. They ran an article last week, December 9th,
``Highly Publicized Horror Story That Led To Curbs On IRS
Quietly Unravels in Virginia Civil Court.'' And, in this
particular instance there was testimony in the Senate about how
an IRS agent stormed this man's home and restaurant amid a
misguided criminal inquiry. Well, when they finally got into a
trial, it became clear that those inflammatory statements made
in a Senate hearing turned out to be inaccurate.
If this investigation has a redeeming feature, perhaps it
is that future congressional investigations will have a model
of what not to do.
The Burton investigation has suffered from at least five
fundamental flaws that future chairmen should avoid at all
costs.
First, tread carefully when making allegations. I just
mentioned the David Wang fiasco, but that is not the only
unsubstantiated allegation made about John Huang. In April
1997, Newt Gingrich, who was Speaker of the House of
Representatives, alleged that, ``John Huang was clearly being
given secrets while going to the Chinese embassy.'' Mr. Burton
suggested on national television that Mr. Huang, ``May very
well have given information that he shouldn't to the Chinese
and others,'' and he could be a Chinese spy. Well, 2 years have
passed, and there is still no evidence to support these over-
the-top accusations, but they have resulted in over 7,000 news
stories about Mr. Huang, and in a strange and unfortunate way,
by raising the stakes, they have actually ended up minimizing
the serious violations that Mr. Huang actually committed.
Instead of recklessly crying treason, we could have worked
together on a bipartisan basis to shine a spotlight on conduit
contributions, but we didn't.
Partisanship is the obvious second flaw of this
investigation. Congressional investigations need to be
bipartisan to be credible, and all wrongdoing, Democratic or
Republican, has to be on the table. When this investigation
began, I offered to work with the chairman in a bipartisan way
with no holds barred. We would have looked at campaign finance
abuses, following the facts to wherever they may lead, whether
they be from Democrats or Republicans, let us find out how this
system is being abused, and, from my perspective, change what I
think is an inherently rotten campaign finance system.
Well, the chairman rejected that offer. I mentioned earlier
that, to date, Mr. Burton has issued 883 subpoenas. 874 of
those subpoenas have been issued to Democratic targets, and
only 9 have been sent to Republican targets. The fact is that
the Burton investigation won't ask any questions about
Republican wrongdoing.
Last August every Democrat on this committee sent Mr.
Burton a letter asking that we investigate a serious conduit
contribution scheme that involved Tom DeLay, one of the most
powerful Members of the House, No. 3 in the Republican House
leadership. A Republican businessman, Peter Cloeren, admitted
to participating in a conduit scheme that he said was suggested
to him by Mr. DeLay. Mr. Cloeren provided specific and credible
information that deserved further scrutiny. Not one subpoena
has been issued, no documents have been requested, and no
hearings have been scheduled. Remarkably, Mr. Burton has never
even had the courtesy to respond to our letters.
Now, it is important to keep in mind that the illegal
scheme that Mr. Cloeren participated in was indistinguishable
from the one Mr. Huang participated in. The only difference was
that it involved Republicans.
I know some people believe there is more than partisanship
at work. They genuinely believe that there is a clear anti-
Asian bias and that Mr. Huang has received such extraordinary
scrutiny and has been accused of treason without evidence to
back it up simply because he is Asian. Those feelings only
deepened when one Republican Senator called Charlie Trie's
actions, ``Classic activities on the part of an Asian who comes
out of that culture,'' and a House Republican joked that we
found only, ``The tip of the egg roll.''
And people are genuinely puzzled why Mr. Huang is being
singled out to testify for an unprecedented 4 days on conduit
contributions where the FEC has investigated literally hundreds
of individuals for similar violations over the past several
years. Some believe it is simply partisanship. Some see a clear
anti-Asian bias. Whether it is partisanship or bias, it is
wrong. A credible investigation can't be selective.
The Burton investigation's third flaw is inexcusable--
incompetence. One Republican committee member called it
frightening. Sometimes the mistakes, such as staking out the
homes of innocent individuals, have been simply embarrassing.
At other times, they are almost comical. When the chairman
released doctored transcripts of Webb Hubbell's telephone
conversations from prison, the doctored transcript quoted Mr.
Hubbell as saying, ``the Riady is not just--excuse me, the
Riady is just not easy to do business with me while I am in
here.'' That was the quote in the transcript released by the
committee. The actual tape, of course, was significantly
different. What Mr. Hubbell actually said was ``the reality is
it is just not easy to do business with me while I am here.''
Never mentioned Riady at all. The bottom line is that careless
mistakes undermine credibility. Just as important, booing and
fulminating should never replace genuine investigating.
Our fourth mistake is that the committee has often used
tactics intended to punish and intimidate witnesses into
providing information. Witnesses who don't do what the chairman
wants are routinely subpoenaed and threatened with contempt
even if they have legitimate reasons for their actions. One
witness who crossed the chairman was humiliated in a public
hearing simply for asserting his fifth amendment constitutional
rights.
Last, future investigators should not fall in love with
their theories of wrongdoing. The biggest problem in this
investigation is that Chairman Burton has been convinced from
the start that he knew what happened. As the chairman said in
one revealing interview, ``if I could prove 10 percent of what
I believe happened, the President would be gone. That is why I
am after him.'' And each time the evidence hasn't panned out,
it has only made him more sure he is right, and it seems to
have convinced him that everyone is in a conspiracy against
him: the White House, Janet Reno, me, other Democrats on the
committee.
In recent weeks it has even extended to the media. Despite
the fact that it has been investigative reporters from the
networks and other major newspapers that have uncovered the
scandal, Mr. Burton doesn't think he is getting enough
attention. He has accused the press of ignoring his work and
keeping the facts from the American people. So now the media is
also part of the conspiracy.
As a result, the chairman has spent thousands of taxpayers'
dollars installing this new camera system in this committee
room so he can broadcast the hearings himself. His staff calls
the expensive new system--at least they were quoted as calling
it in the press--``Dan-SPAN.''
Some of you who have closely followed the history of this
investigation will remember that last year the chairman
directed his staff to build a fake brick wall in the committee
room. That, too, wasted taxpayers' dollars. It ended up ruining
one of the walls in this room, and then the taxpayers had to
foot the bill to repair the wall. I don't know if the new
camera system will be worth the thousands of taxpayers' dollars
we are spending on it, but it does seem to be yet another
indication of lost perspective.
I want to thank everyone for their patience in allowing me
to make my observations part of the record, and I want to close
with a final word about Mr. Huang.
Mr. Huang, I think you owe the American people an apology
for the conduit scheme you participated in. No matter how many
mistakes the Burton investigation has made, nothing excuses
your illegal conduct, and I hope you will take full
responsibility for your actions today, and if any evidence
surfaces that supports the most sensational charges against
you, I won't hesitate to join Mr. Burton in condemning those
actions. At the same time, if there is no evidence to support
allegations of money laundering, spying and treason, all of
which you have been accused of, I hope the chairman and others
will acknowledge that fact and correct any false statements
that they have made.
I thank you for this chance to make these opening
statements. I look forward to hearing your testimony. I am
prepared, Mr. Chairman, to be here at these hearings as long as
you plan to hold them.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.021
Mr. Burton. Well, I am happy for that, Mr. Waxman. I just
might say before I yield to Mr. Mica for an opening statement
that the length of the hearings would not have been necessary
had we had the staffs being able to interview these people,
interview Mr. Huang. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, could you let us know exactly how
much time we will have? Are we going to have 5 or 10 to start?
Mr. Burton. We are going to go on the 5-minute rule. We
wanted to go on 10-minute rounds to be more thorough, but Mr.
Waxman insisted on 5-minute rounds. So we will start with that.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Waxman. You are not talking about the opening
statements, are you?
Mr. Burton. The opening statement, we will allow some
latitude there, but in the questioning it is 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. I think the gentleman has been recognized for
an opening statement. I assume those are generally for Members
5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. They generally are. Unless you object, we will
try to give the Members a little latitude since we don't have
as many Members here.
Mr. Waxman. I won't object, but I think that was the answer
to what I thought the gentleman was asking. Then when we get
into the questioning of Mr. Huang, as I understand it, we have
agreed to a half hour on the Republican side and a half hour on
the Democratic side for Mr. Burton and myself, a half hour on
the Republican side for the staff, a half hour on our side for
the staff, and then after that we will follow the regular order
of 5-minute questioning.
Mr. Burton. The half hour, as far as the staff is
concerned, does not necessarily have to follow right after
ours. So we will go directly to the Members after the half
hour.
Mr. Waxman. Those are the rules. We are going to follow the
rules.
Mr. Burton. That is fine.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
clarifying the time allocation.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
would like to ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in
the record some documents and information. First of all, just
to clarify the record, I think it is important that we list at
this point in the record, particularly after the remarks of the
other side in their opening comments, the list of I believe 122
individuals who either fled the country or pled the fifth
amendment, and the correct number and that listing I would like
inserted in the record.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.022
Mr. Mica. Furthermore, I would like in the record inserted,
I heard from the opening statement of--again, the minority
referred to 883 witnesses called by this committee in our
investigation. From the hearing in which we had Director Freeh
and I believe Mr. LaBella and other appearances before us, they
told us in fact that they had subpoenaed more or as many
witnesses as we had, and I would like that correct number from
the record.
Mr. Burton. Let me correct----
Mr. Waxman. Reserving the right to object, I didn't say 883
witnesses. I said 883 subpoenas.
Mr. Mica. Subpoenas, I am sorry.
Mr. Burton. I think that is what Mr. Mica is referring to,
but we will correct that.
Mr. Mica. They did in fact say that they issued more, if
not as many, as we did.
We also asked the question--I would like that made a part
of the record--about the proportion between Republicans and
Democrats, and I believe that is also contained in this record
and in a statement by the FBI. I would like that entered into
the record at this point.
I would also like to have entered into the record the
recommendation of both the chief investigator, Mr. LaBella, and
the Director of FBI, their recommendation for an independent
counsel, which is also contained in this record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
[Note.--The information referred to was received after the
hearing, and is printed at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Mica. I would also like to have entered into the record
the exact statement and my question in response from the FBI
Director in hearings before this committee that never before
had he seen anything on the scale of the activity that had
taken place that we were investigating. The only place I
believe--and I would like his exact response inserted in the
record--was with his dealing in the investigation of the mob,
and I would like those exact words put into the statement at
this point.
Mr. Burton. Are you talking about Louis Freeh, the FBI
Director?
Mr. Mica. Yes, his statement.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Freeh, over 65 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 on which you have been
involved?
Mr. Freeh. Actually, I have.
Mr. Burton. You have. Give me a run-down on that quickly.
Mr. Freeh. I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in
New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable.
Mr. Burton. So was that the only time you experienced something
like that?
Mr. Freeh. It went on for quite a while.
Mr. Burton. So the only time that you experienced anything like
this was when you were investigating an organized crime syndicate.
Mr. Freeh. There have been cases, certainly. You asked me about my
experience.
Mr. Mica. This is an important hearing, and why are we here
in December a few weeks before the holiday season or during the
holiday season for, many people may wonder. The fact is that
never before in the history of an investigation in Congress has
there been anything of the scope of corruption of illegal
activities of destruction and misuse of the campaign process.
We have also been delayed by an unprecedented blocking of
information, disappearance of witnesses, a lack of cooperation,
again unprecedented in the history of congressional
investigations.
The other reason we are here is that there have been
supposed investigations and there have been active
investigations going on to this date and we have been kept from
witnesses and from those we have attempted to learn the details
of what went on until this date.
Those are some of the reasons that we are here at this late
juncture. I believe it is absolutely critical that we are here
and that we continue to conduct this because never before has
the system to elect the Chief Executive Officer of this Nation,
has the system been so corrupted and the trail of money,
whether it is foreign contributions or conduit payments or
whatever, but this has really destroyed public trust and
confidence in our electoral process and particularly for the
highest office of the land.
So I think it is critical that we, one, expose the holes;
two, that we find out what were the controlling legal
authorities and, if they aren't there, that we make certain we
put them in place; and, three, that we disclose violations of
law and of that process that is so sacred, that defines our
very way of life, in having a Chief Executive Officer elected
by the people and a Congress that holds the whole process
accountable and a committee and subcommittee that I participate
in that conducts investigations and oversight so that our
system can be responsible, work and that the American people
can have faith in that system.
So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will open with a
brief explanation from my standpoint of what I think we have
seen these last frustrating 5 years. And one of the questions
is, what is really important? What are we trying to get at?
And sometimes when we bring a witness forward, we don't
necessarily find what we were wondering, what might be there.
Sometimes it seems that the administration is protecting lower-
level witnesses under the guise of ongoing investigations when
we are looking at some really critical fundamental things.
For example, I was one frustrated Member of Congress during
the impeachment debate because there is redacted materials that
had direct bearing on that impeachment debate, and we didn't
bring them forth because our side thought that the President
lying about sex with some little girl was more important than
getting to some fundamental things and because there were
ongoing investigations.
And this type of frustration to me leads--and I think many
American people are getting frustrated. What we know is, a fact
is, that our national secrets went to China. We don't know how
they got there. We know decisions were made that were
incorrect, and we don't know how they got there. We don't know
whether any individual did it, which individuals, which
connections of individuals, but we know that certain things
have happened in this country.
And part of our responsibility is not to focus on little
bits and pieces. And this is what some of our side does tend to
exaggerate on individual cases or get overexcited.
During the impeachment process, one Member of the
Republican party said that the Freeh and LaBella memos alleged
that it led to the President of the United States, which then
was discredited because that's not what the Freeh and LaBella
memos said. What the Freeh and LaBella memos said, which was
damning enough, was that they believed that there had been a
deliberate separation of the campaign finance investigations so
that, just like Nixon asked the Justice Department to do under
Watergate, there could not be an attempt to see what levels
this went up to, and it could have lead to the Vice President
or the President, but they didn't know because there had been a
deliberate attempt to see how all the pieces fit together.
That is the problem with the 122 people who fled is we
don't know how the pieces went together. That's the problem
with people taking the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment
says you can't incriminate yourself. Well, if you don't have
anything to incriminate yourself, you're not likely to plead
the fifth amendment. Now, whether it's the matter we are asking
is a different question. But the fact is if you take the fifth
amendment, presumably you have got something you don't want to
incriminate yourself.
We have had 122 people to do that. It's been a village that
won't talk. It has been a very frustrating process to the
American people and to us. Quite frankly, I don't think that
what we are likely to hear in the next few days is going to
lead us to any sweeping conclusions about any of the major
questions. It's just another piece.
What I saw in reading the 120 pages that I have gone
through so far is the seamy side of campaign finance. It is not
like other Members of Congress, other Presidents.
To compare what went on in this White House to other
Presidents and what goes on day to day here, which is bad
enough, and I was hoping that these hearings, quite frankly,
our committee and Thompson's hearings over time would lead to
changes in campaign finance laws, but they didn't because they
were blocked, because instead we got into partisanship, and
there wasn't--because people didn't want to acknowledge that
the origination of the year-round campaign in this
administration led to a different approach to campaign finance.
It is like comparing the flu to cancer, because with the
year-round campaigns, with the taking of occasional use of the
Lincoln bedroom into a constant hotel, taking occasional
breakfasts to constant breakfasts, taking radio broadcasts that
occasionally brought in contributors to a cash event almost
every time, to taking a group of people like the Asians--we are
not the racists, it is the people who told the Asians that the
only way they could get positions in the administration, the
only way they could get to a radio address, the only way they
could get to the Lincoln bedroom was to give money. That is the
racist approach. And that we took it from what--when you can
get it in the election year, people are focussed on the
election, but when you go year round, the off year is when it's
hard to raise money. And in the off year when you are raising
money, when you don't have an election, then you have to ask
what did the people want.
And when we see money coming in from Chinese intelligence
officials through some people, through the Riadys and
Indonesian interests and other people, through other people who
may want a change in a lower-level decision on Indian casinos,
we have every right in the world to have investigations and say
what is happening inside this administration; that all sorts of
decisions seem to be being made for monetary reasons.
And that part of my concern in pursuing this is that there
isn't an Alex Butterfield who had a tape that was unedited
going on. It's not clear we would ever learn what happened in
Watergate if he hadn't popped out at a congressional hearing
that there was a tape. It may be history will have to take
until we hear people writing books for money and coming
through, because we are just going at the edges.
And I think we are going to hear a number of days of very
disappointing testimony about how our U.S. Government works,
and it sickens my stomach. And I hope that part of this will
clean it up, and it will be a lesson to future Presidents. Do
not let your administration become what this administration
became.
I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for
conducting this hearing, but also for granting me the time.
I would tell you that, although having the opportunity to
see you and the distinguished ranking member at yet another
fundraising investigation right before the millennium is a
source of great joy. My excitement is tempered, however. It is
tempered for the reasons that have already been spoken about by
you, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Souder, Mr. Mica, that precious little has
been revealed in these hearings; and I think through no want of
trying on behalf of a number of the members of the committee.
And I would suggest that there are a number of reasons for
that result. I think clearly the fact that there have been so
many people who have expressed a strong desire to be a
participant in our political process by funneling cash into
campaigns, but have been unwilling participants in our judicial
system and have fled the long arm of the law and have
obfuscated, have stonewalled, have chosen to leave the country,
or who have sought refuge under what is certainly permissible,
the fifth amendment of the Constitution, has made this an
exceedingly difficult and in many cases a painful process for
people who are interested in finding out what happened in the
last election and the election before that.
Also the pace of the investigations and queries by the
Department of Justice, the choices that they have made at the
Department of Justice, the timing, the decisions or the
nondecisions, I think, has given at least this Member the
impression that Lady Justice is not only blind, but in some
instances deaf and dumb as well.
And, finally, the conduct of this committee that Mr. Waxman
talked about. I really think that we have missed a golden
opportunity to punish a number of people that deserve to be
punished for blatantly, blatantly violating the campaign laws
of this country. And I don't think it's confined to either
side. I listened intently to Mr. Waxman, and apparently
Republicans, and Republicans on this committee, are bad guys
and gals because of what we have done over the last 3 or 4
years. But I will tell you that there are some on this side
that want to get the President at all costs. Well that's
stupid. Likewise, there are people on his aisle that want to
protect the President at all costs. That's likewise as stupid.
The purpose of this investigation is to follow the money,
and if the money goes to the President of the United States,
then he and everybody in his wake should be punished. Likewise,
if it stops at a certain level, it stops at a certain level.
And I think today's hearing is a perfect example, with all
due respect to the distinguished ranking member, of how our
priorities are misguided.
I think that we have a witness before us today who,
although a number of things have been said about him,
regardless of whether he is a good guy, bad guy, the fact of
the matter is he has pleaded guilty to, I believe, about a
million seven in conduit contributions improperly made to
political campaigns in this country. He has a great deal of
information, from reviewing his FBI testimony, about the
enlightened way that the Democratic National Committee has
raised money from noncitizens in the last election.
It is my understanding that, rather than having a hearing
where we could ask laser-like questions wherein the answers
would be illuminating to not only the U.S. Congress but also
the people in this country, instead we are going to have 4 days
of a full deposition of Mr. Huang, creating great expense and
inconvenience to not only him, but to the committee, when this
could have been handled by a briefing by the competent staff of
both Members.
And then, quite frankly, Mr. Waxman, and I will be glad to
yield to you, you made it sound as if our staff, your staff and
the majority's staff, take these folks into a room with a bare
light bulb and rubber hose and beat the snot out of them. That
is not the way this thing happens.
The fact of the matter is that the lawyers that work for
you and Mr. Burton and the majority are competent, professional
people, who I think have done the best that they can.
Since I have used your name, I will be happy to yield to
you.
Mr. Waxman. I thank you very much for the courtesy of
yielding to me. Let me tell you how the rules were changed in
the depositions. The rules were changed--it used to be the
Republicans' side would ask questions of a witness in a
deposition for a half hour. Then the Democrats would have a
half hour, then the Republicans a half hour. Well, the rules
were changed, and the new rules said the Democrats have to sit
there however long it may take until the Republicans ask every
question they might possibly want to ask, and that amounted to
hours. And then if we had time, Democrats were permitted to ask
questions.
Questions were asked to witnesses that were absolutely
improper--about their drug use, their personal lives--that had
nothing to do about campaign finance issues. They objected. We
objected. And then the chairman said, well, the witness had to
answer the question. A witness under those circumstances had to
take his or her chance that this committee wouldn't hold them
in contempt of Congress. It was just far easier to answer
whatever questions were asked. People were abused.
And, again, 161 people went in for depositions. Only 15
ever came before the committee that had something worthwhile to
say in open hearings.
I think the American people, if you really want to let them
know the truth, let's have these questions asked in public. And
if they're abusive questions, let the public see that abusive
questions are being asked.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you, and if I can take back my time
because I only get 5 minutes unlike the other distinguished
members of the committee, the ranking member and chairman.
I just want to indicate there were 161 people who went in.
They all came out, to my knowledge. None of them are missing in
action, and all of them have survived. It is also my
understanding that the Democratic side may not have used their
time in the travel office investigation to ask questions.
Last, I think the point I am trying to make is we should be
able to do better than that on both sides of the aisle.
The last thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is the notion
which has already come up, and I think will come up rather
early in the witness's written statement as I reviewed it, is
that somehow the notion that investigating individuals who
improperly channel conduit contributions illegally to political
campaigns in this country is responsible for hate crimes in
this country is horse dung.
I thank you very much, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these
hearings.
And, Mr. Huang, it's good to have you here.
We had 121 witnesses who have failed to cooperate with the
committee based on a number of reasons. They fled the country.
They just simply didn't answer questions, and we didn't want to
pull them before the committee. And the vast majority used
their fifth amendment rights not to have self-incriminating
testimony. That was 122. Now we can say we have 121 who are
failing to cooperate, because you're here, and I think we will
learn a lot.
We will learn a lot about our corrupt campaign system. And
we will also learn about how people became corrupt using that
system, and that will be helpful. It will be helpful to hold
people accountable if we can, but it will also be important to
hold people accountable for changing the system that is
corrupt.
I think you may have brought it to a new art form. I don't
consider you a minor player here. You were in the DNC, and you
worked in Commerce, and Commerce became a polluted government
agency used in many ways to raise money instead of do its job
for the American people.
Bottom line, it's been against the law since 1907 for
corporate treasury money to be used in campaigns. It's been
against the law since 1947 for union dues money to be used in
campaigns. It's been against the law since 1974 for foreign
governments to contribute to campaigns. And it's been against
the law since God knows when for people to use Federal
buildings to raise money.
All four happened under the protection of it being called
soft money, the unlimited sums from corporations, labor unions,
foreign governments, and individuals. And I hope in the process
of holding you and others accountable that we wake up and
change this corrupt campaign system.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding these
hearings. It hasn't been easy for you to do this, and I
appreciate that you have persevered. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. May I have unanimous consent to say something?
I don't believe Mr. Waxman would object.
Mr. Shays. I would be happy to have him use the balance of
my time if he would like. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Souder. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut.
I think it's important for the record to show, and I think
most of us here would agree with this, that, often, we will get
off into arcane questions about whether money--why corporations
can't give money. But the reason for the law is the American
government and people were concerned that decisions could be
compromised by having money, conduits moving in either
unforeseen or enlarged sums. And that is why we have the
campaign laws. This isn't just some kind of technicality. And
it applies to both parties. And I know the gentleman from
Connecticut has been a leader and is concerned with this.
That is really why we are out here. We are not out here to
catch somebody because we want to get them. What we are really
concerned about is, OK, we saw the illegalities and what did
they impact in our government. And that is why we have to have
those laws.
Mr. Shays. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
Mr. Huang, will you stand to be sworn?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Burton. Be seated.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, shall I proceed with my statement,
please?
Mr. Burton. Yes, Mr. Huang, you can proceed with your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HUANG
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Waxman, members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear and address
whatever issues may be of interest to you and the American
people. I have long hoped for this opportunity.
Indeed, as you are aware, in 1997, I offered to testify at
the commencement of the Senate hearings chaired by Senator
Thompson. At that time, neither the Senate nor the Department
of Justice were willing to immunize my testimony as to
political fundraising for which I subsequently received
probation.
As the Department of Justice subsequently acknowledged, I
am not and never was a spy. I was honored to serve this fine
Nation and took my Department of Commerce duty as principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy
very seriously. I also took my role at the Democratic National
Committee very seriously.
In addition, while things might have gone easier for me
were I able to implicate the President or Vice President in
wrongdoing, I never had a base upon which to do so. In fact, I
maintain very high regard for each of these dedicated men.
The past 3 years have been a terrible ordeal for me and my
family and for many Asian Americans. While there are legitimate
and substantive issues to merit inquiry, such as campaign
finance reform and ensuring effective access to the political
process for minority groups, the focus instead has been on the
national origin of individuals like myself and attempts to tar
public servants that I, like other Americans, believe in and
have served. People seeking publicity have lied about me
repeatedly in the press and even before this committee without
consequence.
For example, a former Member of this body, Mr. Solomon, in
attacking the administration, accused me of economic espionage
on the basis of what I am advised was an anonymous source at a
cocktail party with whom, it turned out, did not even mention
my name or do anything other than perpetrate a rumor against an
unidentified Asian American, a rumor which Mr. Solomon was only
too eager to embrace and capitalize upon.
It is my hope that in the hearings this week the
questioning will be substantive rather than merely accusatory,
purposeful and of assistance to the American people to the
extent it contributes to the accountability of those who both
raised and received funds.
As for myself, I have made mistakes. Embarrassed and
saddened though I am by the unfortunate attention my conduct
and notoriety brought upon my community, the dated and isolated
offenses, which I have openly acknowledged, will not deter me
from my career-long efforts to promote understanding between
the citizens of the United States and those of China, Taiwan,
and the rest of Asia.
While the United States is a participatory democracy, too
few of its citizens participate, and many groups are without
sufficient resources to ensure the fair and dispassionate
consideration of their views, needs, and concerns.
Indeed, as the Department of Justice has concluded, my
motivation was not personal gain but was instead the
integration of Asian Americans into the political process of
their chosen country. This, of course, is merely an explanation
and by no means excuses my conduct, which, unfortunately,
remains largely misunderstood, except by the Department of
Justice and the court.
I along with my wife and two sons were deeply moved by the
fact that, after almost 3 years of investigation by the
Department of Justice and based upon the nature of the offenses
and my extensive truthful and complete cooperation, the U.S.
District Judge Richard Paez, after a thorough review of all
relevant facts, granted me probation. He did so in conformity
with the recommendation of the prosecutors who assured him of
the genuine nature of my remorse.
In addition, based upon weeks of interrogation of an army
of law enforcement agents and the staffs of independent counsel
offices, the Department of Justice advised the court at my
sentencing that it considers me a man of good character and
selfless honesty.
Moreover, the Department of Justice not only publicly
acknowledged my fitness to vote and wrote in support of
restoration of my right to do so, it also commended me to the
court as an individual uniquely qualified to serve Asian
Americans and this great country by building on my demonstrable
successes in weaving the Asian community into the intellectual
and political fabric of our collective society. The court
agreed. I am grateful for their confidence and for the
opportunity for continued public service within my community.
Not only am I deeply appreciative of the opportunity
provided by Judge Paez for community service, but, after
enduring years of scurrilous, ill-motivated, and false
allegations, I am eager to proceed both with my service and my
life. Those who know me well have honored me with their
continued respect and support. Some who view me only as a means
to a questionable end do both themselves and the Nation a
disservice and persist in unjustifiably demonizing me and other
Asian Americans.
While I am due criticism and am working at atonement,
character assassination alone, divorced from legitimate ends,
degrades not me but those who promote themselves not by deeds
but by resorting to demagoguery and vitriol.
Americans have nothing to fear from me, but they do have
much to fear from within. Hatemongers, bigots, and,
regretfully, even some of our elected officials continue to
tear at America's greatest strength, its diversity, in an
alarming and escalating pace.
The politics of pitting religious, ethnic, and racial
groups against one another threaten to harm this great country
at its foundation, as evidenced by the recent and unbearable
series of hate crimes resulting in the death or injury of a
Jewish American, African Americans, and Asian Americans in Los
Angeles, Chicago, and Bloomington, IN. Only through the
practice of compassionate, inclusive policies can communities
and the Nation overcome those who preach fear and exclusion.
And while I am by no means a perfect servant, it is to this end
that I devote my future.
In that effort, I am sustained by my family and friends,
whose love and support have enabled me to survive this 3-year
ordeal during which we have been largely defenseless in the
face of an onslaught of unfounded allegations. As a result, and
tired as I am after arriving in D.C. this morning after a long
day yesterday of cooperation with the Department of Justice in
Los Angeles, I am pleased by this opportunity to assist the
committee. I am looking forward over the next few days to
purging the misinformation which currently taints the public's
understanding of my efforts over time and to the creation of a
credible, factual foundation from which the committee, the
American people, and I and my family can move forward, ideally
with dignity.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Huang.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huang follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.151
Mr. Burton. Before I start the questioning, I would like to
make--go ahead and start the clock so this will be on my time.
I would like to respond just briefly to Mr. Waxman's comments,
first of all, regarding the new system we have here so that,
through the Internet, the American people can watch the
proceedings from gavel to gavel. We are not the first committee
to do this. We won't be the last. The International Operations
Committee is installing a system like this right now. The
Transportation Committee has had one for some time. And we
believe that the American people's right to know is extremely
important.
One of the great strengths of our society is the openness
of our government and to eliminate the doubt about various
things that happened in committee hearings, we thought it would
be a good idea and a relatively inexpensive idea to make sure
that the American people got unvarnished facts from our
hearings.
And as I said to Mr. Waxman at the outset, we are going to
make absolutely sure that there is fairness on both sides. His
statement today, which was pretty much an attack on me and the
way we have conducted our hearings, the American people saw
today unvarnished. You have a right to say those things. And I,
as the chairman of this committee, have a right to refute those
if I can.
And one of the things that I want to say is you made some
comments about Mr. Hubbell. I would like to refresh your memory
and tell you that, after the accusations were made, the next
day we released all 16 hours of the Hubbell tapes without any
change whatsoever. So within 24 hours of the accusations, all
Hubbell tapes were released to the American press and to the
American people.
Regarding the bias that we have and the bias that our
government has toward people on the Democrat side and people
involved in this campaign finance scandal, Mr. Huang really was
not fined any financial penalty whatsoever, although Mr. Huang
and Mr. Trie were involved in over $2 million, we believe, from
illegal conduit contributions that came from foreign sources.
And much of this money, probably 90 percent of it, has been
returned. So they were directly involved, and there is no
question about it or else the DNC would not have returned that.
While, at the same time, the Dole for President Committee
got $120,000, much less than the $2 million, from a man named
Simon Fireman. He was fined $6 million. The Empire Sanitary
Landfill, they gave $129,000. They were fined $8 million.
Another Republican who was responsible for much fewer illegal
conduit contributions than Mr. Huang had a $5 million fine. And
both of the Republicans got terms of detention.
Now, none of that has happened to any of the Democrat
conduit contributors that we know of--a $5 million fine, $8
million fine, $6 million fine. And so as far as the equal
application of justice, it doesn't appear to me that there has
been an equal application of justice by this Justice
Department. And I have talked about that a number of times.
And I said that I thought the Attorney General was showing
a bias, was blocking our investigations, wasn't cooperating
with this committee. And I said the same things with the White
House.
Now, I stand by what I said in the past. I understand--and
much of what you said today, Mr. Waxman, you have said time and
time again. You tried to make a comedy out of our hearings. You
tried to denigrate our hearings. You tried to say we have been
on a witch-hunt. You tried to say all kinds of things, and you
said it again today. And you have a right to say those things.
But the fact of the matter is we are determined, if it's at all
possible, to get to the bottom there of campaign finance
scandal, and we are going to be vigilant, and we are going to
continue.
And I fully expect at future hearings you will say the same
things over and over again. You will attack me over and over
again. But I want you to know, Mr. Waxman, I and this committee
will not be deterred, and now the American people can watch
gavel to gavel and judge for themselves from the questions and
answers of the witnesses whether or not we are being fair. And
I think that they are going to be pretty fair when they judge
what we do.
Let me start with the questions, Mr. Huang.
When was the last time that you spoke to James Riady?
Mr. Huang. I think around May or June this year.
Mr. Burton. May or June of this year.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. And when was the last time you spoke to Mochtar
Riady?
Mr. Huang. It was about the same time, sir.
Mr. Burton. About the same time.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Was that on a long distance call or in person?
Mr. Huang. No. I was visiting Jakarta.
Mr. Burton. You were in Jakarta?
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. Did you speak to any other individuals from
the Lippo Group at that time?
Mr. Huang. There were some Lippo employees at that time.
And because it was Mr. Mochtar Riady's 70 years birthday, I was
invited to attend.
Mr. Burton. OK. How much were you in contact with James
Riady during 1997 and 1998?
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Burton. How much were you in contact? How many times,
do you recall? Were you in contact with him a lot during 1997?
Mr. Huang. No. There was only one occasion I traveled in
Asia in 1987.
Mr. Burton. 1997.
Mr. Huang. 1997. I'm sorry. I did visit around August 1997.
I had occasion to meet with Mr. Riady in Singapore.
Mr. Burton. And in 1998.
Mr. Huang. That was 199--that was 1998, I'm sorry. 1999,
this year, I went to Jakarta.
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh. Do you know--do you recall the
substance of the communications you had with Mr. Riady during
those visits?
Mr. Huang. OK. In 1998, that was the first meeting I had
after all these campaign finance matter erupt. So for the last
previous few years, I never had an opportunity. Apparently he
read of a lot of articles and news account, watching on TVs. He
expressed some concern to see how I could hold on on this
matter. So, more or less, it was a concern about me.
Mr. Burton. Did you talk to them on the telephone in
addition to those meetings?
Mr. Huang. There was a couple phone calls like at Christmas
time, the New Year's, just saying Happy New Year. That's about
all.
Mr. Chairman, let me correct my statement and add a little
point in. Both of my trips I went to Asia in 1998 and 1999 were
approved by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Burton. OK. Did you receive any money from the Riady
family since September 1996?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did. Some gift money.
Mr. Burton. Some gift money?
Mr. Huang. Gift money, yes.
Mr. Burton. How much money was that?
Mr. Huang. The first time in--I believe is in the Christmas
time around 1997 was around $18,000. The second time during the
trips in 1998, I received $20,000.
Mr. Burton. So you received $18,000 in 1997 and $20,000 in
1998. And you say that was a Christmas gift?
Mr. Huang. No, it was gift money.
Mr. Burton. What was it given for?
Mr. Huang. As a gift. Because I have not been working for
all these years, you know. I was a friend, so probably he was
just showing a concern about me.
Mr. Burton. This was during the height of our campaign
finance investigation that they gave you these gifts?
Mr. Huang. I think that the investigation was still going
on, yes. I don't know whether it was the height or not, sir.
Mr. Burton. Were there any stipulations, or did they just
give these to you because they felt like you needed the money?
Mr. Huang. There is no stipulation, no.
Mr. Burton. Have you gotten any more money since the
$20,000 you received in 1999?
Mr. Huang. As I indicated, I made a trip in 1999 this year.
There was just a few thousand dollars to cover my travel
expenses.
Mr. Burton. So they paid your travel expenses over there
and back?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Burton. But in addition to the $18,000 in 1997 and
$20,000 in 1998--or 1998 and 1999, you have received no other
funds?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Have you read any of the campaign finance
depositions?
Mr. Huang. About myself, or about the others?
Mr. Burton. Have you read any of the campaign finance
depositions of yourself or anyone else?
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. Are you aware of any of the statements from any
of the witnesses regarding the campaign finance investigation?
Mr. Huang. I do not.
Mr. Burton. Have you watched any of the campaign finance
hearings or read any of the transcripts from any of our
hearings? Have you had an opportunity to do that?
Mr. Huang. With all due respect, I don't have a cable. I
really didn't have a chance to do that.
Mr. Burton. So you haven't heard or read anything of the
statements of the witnesses?
Mr. Huang. No. I read a newspaper occasionally, but I don't
even subscribe regularly to a newspaper on that, sir.
Mr. Burton. Have you had any contact with Charlie Trie
since the investigation began?
Mr. Huang. Yes. On one or two occasions very briefly,
because, sir, his wife was very ill. I believe she was
suffering from cancer while I was traveling in Asia, and people
told me about his wife's situation. I expressed a concern so I
called him just to express my sympathy on that.
Mr. Burton. But that is the only contact during the
investigation?
Mr. Huang. That is the only other contact, sir.
Mr. Burton. How about Maria Hsia?
Mr. Huang. She did call my home before. My wife answered
the phone, but I did not really speak directly to her.
Mr. Burton. And when was this?
Mr. Huang. This was I believe the one time this year. Now
there was some--one occasion at the beginning of the
investigation right after the 1996 matters came out, there were
some conversations, but it was not really detail. That was a
little bit--a few more minutes. It was a little bit longer
conversation.
Mr. Burton. Did the conversation relate in any way to the
campaign finance problems or investigation?
Mr. Huang. If I remember vaguely, there was--I am trying to
identify whether there was a copy--copy of checks which some of
her contributors have made, whether I have a copy for that or
not.
Mr. Burton. She wanted to know if you had a copy of the
check.
Mr. Huang. A copy of the check.
Mr. Burton. Did you have a copy?
Mr. Huang. Well, I was still at the DNC, though, sir.
Mr. Burton. You were still at the DNC?
Mr. Huang. Yeah. But, afterwards, I remember there was also
one conversation. But I cannot recall very extensive what the
detail was about.
Mr. Burton. Have you talked to Pauline Kanchanalak?
Mr. Huang. Not with her at all.
Mr. Burton. And Ted Sioeng and his family?
Mr. Huang. I had only one meeting with Ted Sioeng at the
beginning. It was in 1996. Why my--when my matter erupts, his
matter was not coming out yet.
Mr. Burton. You said when you would talk to Mr. Riady, he
said, how could you hold on or----
Mr. Huang. No. He was trying to see how I had held on.
Mr. Burton. How are you holding up, is that what he meant?
Mr. Huang. That's right. That's right.
Mr. Burton. So he wasn't asking any question about whether
you could keep quiet about something?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no, not in that nature, sir.
Mr. Burton. All right. Did James Riady fly from Indonesia
to the United States to attend the fundraiser with Governor
Clinton on August 14, 1992 in California?
Mr. Huang. I think 1986 you're talking about, right?
Mr. Burton. No, I'm talking about 1992 where James Riady--
did he fly from Indonesia to the United States to attend a
fundraiser for Governor Clinton in California on August 14,
1992?
Mr. Huang. Yes, he did.
Mr. Burton. James Riady entered the country with $24,400 in
cash. Do you remember what he did with that money?
Mr. Huang. That I don't know.
Mr. Burton. You don't know.
Mr. Huang. I don't know with the cash, no.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 15, and do we have that to put up or is
it in the book? I think you have a book, exhibit 15, if you
could refer to that. It is an August 12th, 1992 memo from
Melinda Yee to Annette Castro, providing information about Mr.
Riady so he could attend an Asian Pacific American Roundtable
discussion. Do you recall if James Riady attended the APA
Roundtable discussion on August 12, 1992?
[Exhibit 15 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.152
Mr. Huang. I do not recall there was any roundtable
discussion in August 1992, no.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall being at a meeting like that
on August 12th?
Mr. Huang. No. There was only the fundraising, the event on
August 6, 1992.
Mr. Burton. So you don't recall James Riady being at that
meeting?
Mr. Huang. I did not even know there was such a roundtable.
Mr. Burton. OK.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. On exhibit 17, there is a memo from Melinda Yee
to Governor Clinton. It has talking points for Governor Clinton
for the August 14, 1992 fundraiser. At the top, it says, the
event is hosted by Fong Eu and John Huang. Did you host that
fundraiser along with Fong Eu?
[Exhibit 17 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.154
Mr. Huang. I hope the date of the memo is correct. We did
have a fundraising event I was hosting with March Fong Eu in
honor of then-Governor Clinton, Candidate Clinton at that time
in San Gabriel, CA. That was a luncheon, fundraising.
Mr. Burton. And how did you become the host or co-host of
that event?
Mr. Huang. I was very much involved in the community
affairs, and also I was helping out the political causes
before.
Mr. Burton. That was with the Asian Pacific American
organization.
Mr. Huang. Yeah, called Pacific Leadership specifically,
yes.
Mr. Burton. Did you pledge to raise or contribute a certain
amount of money to become the host of that hearing or that
meeting?
Mr. Huang. Essentially, yes. It's about $100,000.
Mr. Burton. You pledged to raise $100,000?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 18 is a schedule for Governor Clinton
for the August 14, 1992 fundraiser. That is exhibit 18.
[Exhibit 18 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.155
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Did Mr. Riady, in fact, greet Governor Clinton
at the elevator prior to that event?
Mr. Huang. With the other people as well, like the Madam
March Fong Eu, the other community leaders, at the same time.
Mr. Burton. So there was a group of people?
Mr. Huang. There was a group of people.
Mr. Burton. So there was nothing specific about the Riady
meeting with him at that point?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. Were there any discussions at that
elevator, anything of substance, or just a greeting?
Mr. Huang. It was just a greeting, and then Governor
Clinton was escorted to the main dining room.
Mr. Burton. OK. On exhibit 19, if you could turn to that,
is a memo from Melinda Yee to Governor Clinton regarding a
limousine ride that Mr. Riady was supposed to take with
Governor Clinton on August 14th. Where did Melinda Yee get that
information about the limousine ride that was to take place
with Governor Clinton?
[Exhibit 19 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.156
Mr. Huang. OK. May I read this first, please, sir?
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Huang. That was through the request of Mr. James Riady
through me.
Mr. Burton. So you were requested by James Riady to set up
a limousine ride where he could talk to Governor Clinton?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Privately.
Mr. Huang. Right. Mr. Chairman, I might have made a mistake
on the date. If that August 14 is similar to the date I was
thinking about the fundraising event, then August 14 is
probably the correct date, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. How much did the Riadys give for that event
on August 14th; do you recall?
Mr. Huang. Well, as I mentioned to you, I committed for
$100,000. That is about all we did.
Mr. Burton. The Riadys gave $90,000 of that; is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. With all the companies all together,
approximately that amount, yes.
Mr. Burton. So it was from the Riady Group?
Mr. Huang. The group, yes.
Mr. Burton. And why did Mrs. Yee say that the Riadys gave
$100,000 when they gave $90,000?
Mr. Huang. I believe probably the other $10,000 is probably
coming from me and my wife.
Mr. Burton. So your wife gave $10,000. Was that her own
money?
Mr. Huang. Myself and my wife.
Mr. Burton. It was your own personal funds?
Mr. Huang. At that time, it was.
Mr. Burton. Would Melinda Yee have thought that this
$10,000 was going to be coming ultimately from the Riadys
through you?
Mr. Huang. No. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Since Mr. Riady was not a United States citizen
and since he then permanently resided in Indonesia, did anyone
express to him any concerns that it was illegal for him to
contribute money to the--to a U.S. political campaign?
Mr. Huang. No, sir. If I--if I remember correctly, Mr.
Riady at that time still had the green card status, sir.
Mr. Burton. Was he living in the United States?
Mr. Huang. No, he was traveling back to Indonesia. But he
still had the green card status. He maintained a home in the
United States.
Mr. Burton. But he was living in Indonesia.
Mr. Huang. He spent a lot of time over there at that time,
yes.
Mr. Burton. All right. How did Melinda Yee know that James
Riady had the potential to give much more? That is a quotation
she used.
Mr. Huang. I can't speculate. Maybe just all the impression
she had on the group, the size of the group, the business the
Riady family had.
Mr. Burton. Did you indicate in any way to her that the
Riadys were capable and willing to give much more?
Mr. Huang. If I did give that impression, I don't remember
at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Was Melinda Yee aware, to your knowledge, that
Mr. Riady was going to give much more by funneling it through
his companies and employees?
Mr. Huang. The detailed parts, no. No. How the money is
going to be funded, no, was not known to any of the other
people, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Well, before the limousine ride took place, did
you know that Mr. Riady was going to tell the then-Governor
Clinton that he was going to raise $1 million for him?
Mr. Huang. I did not, no.
Mr. Burton. Until after then--right.
Mr. Huang. But, however, I do know the fact that he did
indicate he really wanted to give something; he ought to give
more instead of less.
Mr. Burton. I'm not sure I understand. He would give less
because he was concerned----
Mr. Huang. In other words, he would give a large amount and
have a greater impact that way.
Mr. Burton. I see. Apart from the information in Mrs. Yee's
memo, did Governor Clinton have any other information to
believe that James Riady lived in Indonesia at that time? I
mean, he knew he flew in from Indonesia to meet at this
fundraiser. Did he know, aside from flying in for the
fundraiser, that he was living in Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. No. I don't know what Mr. Clinton knows about
that. But I suspect Mr. Clinton would know because the Lippo
Group is quite extensive. They have a position in different
parts of the world.
Mr. Burton. If you could look at exhibit 20, now, it is a
chart of Lippo-related contributions that were given prior to--
before the August 14, 1992, fundraiser. Were David Yeh's
contributions given for the August 14, 1992, fundraiser?
[Exhibit 20 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.162
Mr. Huang. I could not really tie that in it at this point.
It could be at this time, sir.
Mr. Burton. Are all of these contributions that you see
illegal? And if not, can you identify the ones that are legal
and explain why they are legal?
Mr. Huang. I am not a lawyer at this time to judge about
that, whether they are legal or not on the surface on that,
sir.
Mr. Burton. Well, as you can see, you have got David Yeh.
You have got Jane Huang. You have got Hip Hing Holdings and the
Riadys, both James and Aileen.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, yeah, let me consult with my
lawyers a little bit, sir.
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Huang. At that particular moment, Mr. Dave Yeh was a
green card holder. At that time, I believe he was legal. He
could legally give. For instance, my wife is an American
citizen. She could give. And the Hip Hing Holdings was the U.S.
entity at that time and also had a U.S. revenue, and I believe
at that time they could give. James Riady and Aileen Riady were
green card holders, so at that time I believe they could give.
But later on when things developed and some of the money, I
believe, they were somehow being reimbursed or taken care of.
Mr. Burton. They were being reimbursed from the Lippo Group
in Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. Except the Riadys' money, which I certainly have
no doubt that they were being reimbursed. They were very rich
themselves already.
Mr. Burton. I understand. But the others there, you or your
wife, David Yeh and the others were--to your knowledge, were
they reimbursed by the Lippo Group in Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. I did not check for sure, but I believe they
were probably taken care of like Mr. David Yeh.
Mr. Burton. In Indonesia.
Mr. Huang. No, he was not in Indonesia. He was in Hong
Kong, Mr. Dave Yeh.
Mr. Burton. But the money was coming from over there, and
he was being reimbursed.
Mr. Huang. It could be there from there, yeah.
Mr. Burton. Who was David Yeh?
Mr. Huang. Mr. David Yeh was the president of the Lippo
Bank California, later on was transferred to Hong Kong as the
managing director of one of the group companies that handled
real estate in Hong Kong.
Mr. Burton. Where was he living at the time?
Mr. Huang. At the time, I believe he was just being
transferred to Hong Kong.
Mr. Burton. So he was living in Hong Kong?
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Was David Yeh--well, you said you believe he
probably was reimbursed for his contributions.
Mr. Huang. I don't know for sure. The reason I speculate
there is because the matter relating to me, I was taken care
of. I believe some of the executives who made a contribution
were also being taken care of.
Mr. Burton. Now, were you and your wife reimbursed for that
$10,000 that you contributed through your bonus in 1992.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. And that was from the Lippo Group in Indonesia.
Mr. Huang. Yes. From the Lippo entity somewhere, yes.
Mr. Burton. Who was the DNC or Clinton-Gore contact for
these contributions?
Mr. Huang. In 1992, I believe, was Mary Leslie.
Mr. Burton. Mary Leslie.
Can you look at exhibit 21 now? It is a DNC donor card for
James Riady's $5,000 contribution to the California Democrat
party on August 13, 1992. Do you know who filled out that donor
card for Mr. Riady? Do you know who filled it out?
[Exhibit 21 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.163
Mr. Huang. The donor card's handwriting I don't know.
Mr. Burton. It was not your writing?
Mr. Huang. That was not my handwriting. Excuse me, it does
not appear to me to be Mr. Riady's handwriting either.
Mr. Burton. Did anyone tell Mr. Riady to put Lippo Bank
U.S. as his business address even though he lived in Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. I don't know. I don't know what happened there.
Apparently people might have the impression that he was over
there.
Mr. Burton. Now, the Hip Hing Holdings $50,000
contributions for August 14, 1992, if you could look at exhibit
22, there is a--it's an August 17, 1992, memo from you and Agus
Setiawan--I hope I pronounced that correctly--to Mrs. Ong Bwee
Eng. Did you request a $50,000 Hip Hing Holdings contribution
to be reimbursed?
[Exhibit 22 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.164
Mr. Huang. That memo has my name, but I believe that was
sent by Mr. Agus Setiawan.
Mr. Burton. Well, now, did he--are you saying that he asked
that the Hip Hing Holdings contribution be reimbursed?
Mr. Huang. That item was listed there. Mr. Chairman, let me
explain to you, routinely on a very regular basis whatever
expenses incurred in Hip Hing Holdings, the comptroller of the
company, meaning Agus Setiawan, and my colleague at that time,
would send a report back to Indonesia to indicate how much was
spent during that period of time and would request for
replenishment of the money coming back.
Mr. Burton. So even though your name is on there, you are
saying that Mr. Setiawan is the one who initiated that?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, by no means I shirk my
responsibility on this part, because my name was there. And
also I was more or less had senior position in that operation.
So I take responsibility of that part, sir.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 23, if you can take a look at that,
it's a wire transfer from the LippoBank Limited to Hip Hing
Holdings. Where is LippoBank Limited located?
[Exhibit 23 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.165
Mr. Huang. It is not really readable on my copy here.
Mr. Burton. Where is LippoBank Limited located?
Mr. Huang. That was located in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Mr. Burton. Jakarta.
Does that $146,500 wire from LippoBank, does that include
reimbursement for the $50,000 Hip Hing Holdings contribution?
Mr. Huang. Yes, it is.
Mr. Burton. It does?
Mr. Huang. Uh-huh.
Mr. Burton. Were you and Mr. Setiawan aware that it was
illegal to reimburse a political contribution?
Mr. Huang. At that time probably it is totally--I did not
really think about that issue at that moment, at that moment.
Mr. Burton. You did not know it was illegal at that time?
Mr. Huang. Did not think of it as this was done.
Mr. Burton. How many times prior to the limousine ride did
you or James Riady speak to Governor Clinton on--in August
1992?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe in that year Mr. Riady had ever
spoken to Mr. Clinton then. But I did have one or two
occasions, because, during the campaign trail, I met with then
Governor Clinton. One time I believe is in February, the other
time was probably March. If I am not mistaken, I also had
arranged a get-together session for him to meet with some
Chinese-American or Asian-American community leaders in
Chinatown, Los Angeles in April.
Mr. Burton. In April of that year?
Mr. Huang. In that year, yes.
Mr. Burton. Was the purpose of the limousine ride solely so
Mr. Riady could tell Governor Clinton about his plan to raise
$1 million for his campaign?
Mr. Huang. I don't know that that was our original
intention for him to tell Mr. Clinton personally that or not.
But that was the occasion--because it was a long time since
they both had met after Mr. Riady left Little Rock, AR. So it
more or less just get acquaintance on that issue.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if Mr. Riady wanted to discuss
banking issues or international business with Governor Clinton
during that ride in the limousine?
Mr. Huang. I didn't think those issues came about, Mr.
Chairman. The ride was very, very short. It was virtually from
point of the restaurant in San Gabriel to go to another
location in the same town, in San Gabriel, probably no more
than 5 minutes or 10 minutes ride, sir.
Mr. Burton. Why would Mr. Riady want to give $1 million to
then Governor Clinton's campaign for the President? That is
quite a bit of money. I know they are very wealthy people, but
why would they want to give $1 million? Would they expect
anything in return for that, or what did they want for that?
Mr. Huang. I really could not really speak of--speak of Mr.
Riady's mind, but if you want me to speculate, I can do that.
Mr. Burton. Go ahead.
Mr. Huang. As I indicated to you earlier, you know if we
really want to contribute, even contribute $10,000
contribution, but may not create a big impact. If you really
want to make an impact, you want to make a very large amount of
contribution. It's a better impression that way.
Mr. Burton. OK. But if you want to make an impact, for what
reason do you want to make the impact?
Mr. Huang. So people would notice of you, you know, on that
basis.
Mr. Burton. They would notice you, so you would have
influence and be able to get things done; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. You would get attention, more or less, I think.
Mr. Burton. From whom?
Mr. Huang. From the candidate or from campaign or other
people. You know, you have a different status. The larger
donors definitely have the better status. Definitely.
Mr. Burton. So they have more access?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. OK. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You started off your
half hour time period for asking questions by reacting to some
of the criticisms that you heard in my opening statement, and I
want to point out that if you read the statement over
carefully, you will find the harshest of the comments were not
mine, but attributed to reputable news sources and even
Republican staff people and Members.
And I also want people who may be watching this hearing to
know that notwithstanding the fact that the chairman said we
are going to have free and open coverage of what goes on in
these hearings, they are on C-SPAN coverage, gavel-to-gavel
complete. In a sense there is a redundancy to have a committee
control its own gavel-to-gavel coverage.
I just want to point out that we have gavel-to-gavel media
coverage, so everyone can see everything that is said at this
hearing. But what the American people won't see is what is not
called before the members of this committee: serious campaign
finance violations and allegations of violations that have been
ignored by this committee. The chairman alone has issued
subpoenas. So Members on our side have asked him to pursue an
investigation into various allegations that have come up over
the last several years about serious Republican fundraising
abuses.
For example, there is a Republican National Committee
chairman, Haley Barbour, who worked with a group called the
National Policy Forum, and he got millions of dollars into this
National Policy Forum from a noncitizen in Hong Kong named
Ambrose Young, and then he used that money to help Republicans.
It appears from what I have heard of it to be illegal. We asked
that it be investigated, and it wasn't.
There is a group called the Triad Management Services. This
is a group that advised Republicans on how to launder campaign
money and avoid the limits under the law.
There were allegations as well about Republican fundraising
on Federal property. For example, there was a Republican party
to come and meet Senator Dole when he was a Senator for $15,000
in the Senate Caucus Room; or for $45,000, you could have met
and had lunch with then Speaker Newt Gingrich. And we will go
into it again now and then later.
The most serious of the allegations is the one made by a
fellow named Peter Cloeren, who said that he was asked by the
Majority Whip Tom DeLay to make a conduit contribution to a
Republican House candidate. Here is the fellow who made the
contribution saying how he was told and asked by a Republican
leader, a Republican leader, to make this illegal contribution
and we can't get the chairman to even respond to a letter of
the Democrats asking to investigate it.
We asked at one time that this committee in looking at
campaign finance violations try to find out why the Republican
leadership in 1997 wanted to give a $50 billion tax break to
the tobacco industry. And, of course, it followed the
Republican National Committee receiving $8.8 million from the
tobacco industry.
So you who are watching this hearing will see what goes on
today. But what you won't see is what the chairman doesn't want
you to know about, and those are serious violations by
Republicans. That is why this whole investigation is not
credible. I am not saying there have not been serious
violations of the campaign laws by Democrats and by Mr. Huang.
But if this were a legitimate investigation, we wouldn't be so
limited in our ability today to present--or not just today, at
any other time--to get to the bottom of things, to get the
facts wherever they may lead us.
Mr. Huang, you have admitted that from 1992 to 1994, while
working for the Lippo Group headquartered in Indonesia, you
took part in a scheme to make illegal conduit campaign
contributions. These are serious offenses. They are felonies.
And you have pled guilty to a felony violation of the campaign
finance laws for making these conduit contributions. No one
should minimize these or tolerate these violations. They are
serious and deserve punishment. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. These are the kinds of things that
unfortunately have happened too much in the abuses of our
campaign laws. Congressman Shays, as a member of this
committee, introduced a bill which I supported to try to plug
up the complete abuse of the campaign finance system. The
reality is that all those limits and restrictions, whether they
be on corporation contributions or labor union money, or all
these phony organizations that are set up to receive the money
and then spend more than individual candidates can spend, these
are tolerated now and acceptable and have become par for the
course.
I think what you did, Mr. Huang, was scandalous, but I
think what is being done every single campaign--and now this
coming year will probably be done in a greater magnitude than
what we saw even in 1996 and 1998--it is just quite scandalous
and needs to be repaired.
You are the central figure in the allegations of campaign
finance abuse during the 1996 Presidential election because of
conduit contributions. That is what you pleaded guilty to.
My staff has done a LEXIS-NEXIS search of media records
that mention your name. Since October 1996, there have been
over 7,000 articles that mention your name in newspapers around
the country. The reason you have been the center of so much
attention is that Republicans in Congress have repeatedly
alleged that you were part of a Chinese conspiracy to influence
the United States elections, that you gave national secrets to
the Chinese, and that you were part of a scheme involving
President Clinton and the DNC to knowingly solicit illegal
foreign campaign contributions.
We even heard some of these allegations and innuendo in the
opening statements of some of my colleagues today. These
allegations of conspiracy and espionage are extraordinarily
serious, extraordinarily serious. And I voted for immunity so
that you would testify today because I wanted to learn whether
they were true and to find out what really did and did not
happen during the 1996 Presidential election.
My approach to questioning you is different than the
chairman's. The chairman has scheduled your testimony for 4
days of hearings because he wants to conduct this hearing like
a deposition. He apparently wants to ask you about virtually
everything that you have done since 1992.
In fact, I was told that he has over 100 pages of questions
that he is intending to ask you. He has told us to be ready to
meet here until late tonight, tomorrow, the next day, maybe the
day after.
Three years ago, when we began this investigation, that
might have been appropriate and might have made some sense. But
today we know what the central issues are, and those are what
we should be asking you about. So I am going to ask you about
the major allegations that have been made in this
investigation, and let's get those statements on the record.
You are under oath. You are testifying before us under a
grant of immunity, so you can tell us the truth without fear of
prosecution. And you are under oath, and if you do not tell us
the truth, you will be guilty of perjury.
Mr. Huang, do you have any knowledge that would implicate
the President of the United States in any illegal activity?
Mr. Huang. No, sir, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Do you have any knowledge that would implicate
the Vice President of the United States in any illegal
activity?
Mr. Huang. No, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Do you have any knowledge that would implicate
the First Lady in any illegal activity?
Mr. Huang. No, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Do you have any knowledge that would implicate
the Democratic National Committee in any illegal activity?
Mr. Huang. No, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. One of the first allegations about your conduct
was made by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the Wall
Street Journal in October 1996.
According to Speaker Gingrich, the Riady contribution which
you arranged ``makes Watergate look trivial.'' He went on to
allege that ``we have never in American history had an American
President selling pieces of this country to foreigners.''
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.168
Mr. Waxman. In essence, Speaker Gingrich was alleging that
President Clinton was selling U.S. foreign policy in exchange
for campaign contributions that you helped to arrange. That is
treason.
Is it true, were you involved in a scheme to buy favorable
policy decisions for foreigners with campaign contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did you ever have any conversation with the
President or any of his advisors in which the President or his
advisors discussed making a policy decision in order to benefit
campaign contributors?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Are you aware of any evidence of any kind that
supports Speaker Gingrich's allegation that the President was
selling pieces of this country to foreigners?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. One of the major allegations that has been made
is that you were part of a conspiracy involving Charlie Trie
and Johnny Chung to funnel illegal campaign contributions from
the Chinese Government to the President with the President's
knowledge.
Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma was one of the many who
made this allegation, and I want to quote what he said on the
Senate floor earlier this year.
``John Huang, Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, James Riady and
others with strong ties to China were deeply involved with the
President's knowledge in raising Chinese-tainted cash for the
Clinton campaign.''
I want to ask you about the assertions made in this
allegation. Were you part of a fundraising conspiracy involving
Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung, as Senator Inhofe and others
have alleged?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Were you part of a conspiracy to raise campaign
contributions from the Chinese Government?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Do you have any knowledge about any efforts by
the Chinese Government to make illegal campaign contributions
to President Clinton?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Part of Senator Inhofe's allegation is that
President Clinton knew that you and others were raising
Chinese-tainted cash. Chairman Burton has made similar
allegations about the President's knowledge. Is this true?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did President Clinton participate in or have
any knowledge of efforts to raise illegal foreign campaign
contributions as far as you know?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did you ever have any discussions with the
President about who you were raising campaign contributions
from?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Another major allegation is that you were a
Chinese spy. Let's get that on the table. Speaker Gingrich, for
example, went on national television in April 1997, to allege
that ``John Huang was clearly being given secrets while going
to the Chinese embassy.''
Chairman Burton made a similar accusation on national
television in February 1997 when he said that ``Mr. Huang may
very well have given information that he shouldn't have to the
Chinese and others.''
In fact, when Chairman Burton was asked on national
television whether you were a Chinese spy, he alleged, ``that's
a possibility.''
Let me ask you about this well-publicized possibility. Are
you now or were you ever a Chinese spy?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Have you at any time ever given any classified
information, directly or indirectly to the Chinese Government?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did anyone ever ask or suggest that you pass
classified information or any other information to which they
were not entitled, to the Chinese Government?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Another accusation is that if you were not a
Chinese spy, you were in effect a spy for the Lippo Group.
Former Congressman Jerry Solomon, who was the chairman of
the House Rules Committee and a Member of the Republican
leadership, repeatedly made this allegation. For example, he
alleged on national television in June 1997, that you gave
national secrets to the Lippo Group. Specifically, he stated,
``Mr. Huang was passing on classified information both dealing
with economic espionage and breaches of national security to a
foreign corporation with connections to the Chinese
Government.''
These allegations made front-page news, and they were
treated very seriously. Are Mr. Solomon's allegations true?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Are any part of them true?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. When you were at the Department of Commerce,
were you an agent of the Lippo Group, as Mr. Solomon has
alleged?
Mr. Huang. Would you repeat the question again?
Mr. Waxman. When you were at the Department of Commerce,
were you an agent of the Lippo Group, as Mr. Solomon has
alleged?
Mr. Huang. I missed the agent's name. I was not, no.
Definitely not.
Mr. Waxman. Well, you have immunity. Did you do anything
for the Lippo Group while you were at the Department of
Commerce?
Mr. Huang. No, sir, no.
Mr. Waxman. Have you at any time ever given classified
information to the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Waxman. Did anyone ever ask you to give classified
information to the Riadys or Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did you ever use your position at the Commerce
Department to help the Riadys or the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Another major allegation is that you were
illegally laundering campaign contributions while you were
employed at the DNC. Here is what the chairman said about these
activities in September 1997, to the Associated Press, ``there
is no question that Mr. Huang did this. This is the first time
we have found an active person at the DNC who was involved in
money laundering. Mr. Huang, while he was an executive at the
DNC in the finance area, was laundering money, and we will be
able to prove that.''
Was Mr. Burton right? Did you launder campaign
contributions while at the DNC?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that you
requested the Justice Department to provide this committee with
the notes from a number of FBI interviews. Mr. Chairman, may I
have your attention? You asked for the Justice Department to
give our committee a number of FBI interviews related to Mr.
Huang and the campaign finance investigation. And I understand
the Justice Department agreed to provide these notes, they are
called 302s, to the committee this afternoon. I think we have
received some of them.
I would like to request at this time that you also ask the
Justice Department to provide the committee with the notes from
the FBI interview of former Representative Jerry Solomon.
Chairman Solomon told the media that he knew of evidence that
John Huang committed economic espionage and breached our
national security by passing classified information to his
former employer, the Lippo Group.
I believe the American people have the right to know what
the evidence was that Mr. Solomon had, if any such evidence
actually existed. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if you
will agree to ask the Justice Department to provide Mr.
Solomon's 302 along with all the other 302s to this committee
this afternoon.
Mr. Burton. I have no problem with that. We will request
that from the Justice Department.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, you have said that you facilitated a number of
conduit contributions between 1992 and June 1994. In some
instances you identified Lippo employees who could legally make
contributions and solicited contributions from them with the
understanding they would be, ``taken care of'' by James Riady.
In other instances, you made the contributions yourself and
expected to be reimbursed in your annual bonus. And you also
prepared memos to get reimbursements from overseas for
corporate contributions made by Lippo's U.S. entities.
This sounds to me like a pretty elaborate plan. It was
blatantly illegal. Didn't you know that this plan was illegal?
Mr. Huang. I knew that it was not proper. I was sorry for
that, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. Waxman. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Senator Lieberman said in the hearings that
were held in the Senate, ``Non-public evidence presented to the
committee demonstrates a continuing business intelligence
relationship between the Riadys and the People's Republic of
China Intelligence Service.''
Now, that is classified information which we cannot bring
out in this committee. But I suggest that you and I and the
committee probably ought to check with the intelligence
agencies to take a look at that because Mr. Lieberman probably
had that information. He is a Democrat Senator.
Mr. Waxman. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to join
with you in getting that information. But we have Mr. Huang
here and he is under oath and he is under immunity.
What do you say to the chairman's quote from Senator
Lieberman?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, would you repeat? I'm sorry about
that.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Waxman. Sure.
Mr. Burton. Senator Lieberman said, ``Non-public
evidence,'' he is talking about intelligence evidence from FBI
or from CIA, ``presented to the committee demonstrates a
continuing business intelligence relationship between the
Riadys and the People's Republic of China Intelligence
Service.''
Mr. Waxman. Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Huang. I don't know whether it is the intelligence
service or not, but the Riady group does have some business
partnership with some Chinese corporations in Hong Kong. I
don't know if that's what he related to or not. I don't know
that entity in Hong Kong or entities in Hong Kong where is the
arm of the Chinese, you know, espionage units or not. At that
time, I certainly did not know. At this moment, I don't even
know.
Mr. Waxman. And this scheme that you did know about,
because you engineered it, did you at any time question whether
it was proper to make these conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not.
Mr. Waxman. You felt that it might not be proper or legal.
Why did you decide to break the law?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Waxman, in the human life, sometimes you
have to make decisions in a crossroad and sometimes, you know,
you have to make decision. By not making decision is also a
decision. By that time I made a decision to continue that. And
I certainly regret those things that happened at the time.
Maybe it was anticipation probably it would not be found out.
Mr. Waxman. That is usually what people think when they
break the law.
Mr. Huang. That's correct, sir. I definitely regret that.
Mr. Waxman. But what you did was a serious violation of the
law, and I think you owe the American people an apology.
Mr. Huang. Yeah, I do, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. In August of this year, you reached a plea
bargain with Justice; and I understand that you pleaded guilty
to making illegal conduit contributions. According to the
Justice Department's announcement of your plea, you were
``responsible for arranging approximately $156,000 in illegal
campaign contributions from Lippo Group overseas to various
Democratic and Republican political committees ``between 1992
and June 1994.''
So I want to ask you about these activities in some detail.
I understand that the individuals who were involved in
these conduit contributions were primarily James Riady and
other Lippo executives. Is that right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Was the DNC aware that these contributions were
illegal conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Was the President or Vice President aware that
these contributions were illegal conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. In your statement to the FBI, you indicated
that James Riady told you about a limousine ride he took with
then-Governor Clinton in August 1992 in which Mr. Riady told
Mr. Clinton that he would like to raise $1 million for his
Presidential campaign. Chairman Burton has said that this
conversation proves that the President was a knowing
participant in the illegal conduit contribution schemes.
Here is what the chairman said on national television on
November 2nd of this year. ``Huang said that James Riady told
the President he would raise $1 million from foreign sources
for his campaign. The President knew that James Riady was doing
it. He knew that it was foreign money coming in from the Lippo
Group in Jakarta, Indonesia, and he didn't decline it. He
accepted it.''
Is the chairman correct? Did the President know that these
contributions were illegal?
Mr. Huang. No, I have no knowledge that the President knows
about it. I don't believe that the President knew about this.
Mr. Waxman. To the best of your knowledge, in their
conversation did Mr. Riady in any way indicate to the President
the source of the money that he was going to raise?
Mr. Huang. No, I have no indication that way.
Mr. Waxman. At the time Mr. Riady had the conversation with
the President, he was a legal permanent resident of the United
States. As such, he was legally entitled to make campaign
contributions or to raise contributions from others; is that
right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. Let me ask you the bottom-line question. Did
you ever at any point in time have any conversation with
President Clinton where you indicated to him that any foreign
or illegal contributions were being made, or did he ever
indicate to you that he had any knowledge of foreign
contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, you've been accused of soliciting
illegal foreign contributions while working at the DNC in 1996.
Let me ask you a series of questions that cover the entire time
period that you worked at the DNC as a fundraiser. That was
from December 1995, to October 1996.
While at the DNC, did you ever knowingly solicit or accept
any foreign political contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. While at the DNC, did you ever knowingly assist
any foreign government or company to funnel money in any form
into the U.S. political system?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did anyone at the DNC or at the White House
ever ask you or suggest to you that you solicit illegal
contributions of any kind?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did you ever talk to the President or Vice
President about the source of any political contributions you
solicited?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Did anyone at the DNC know that foreign
contributions were being made?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, you are here under oath. You are
also here with a vote for immunity so you cannot be held
criminally liable for your conduct except if you lie to us. And
if it turns out that you did lie to this committee, while Mr.
Burton and I don't see eye to eye on many things, he and I will
be working together to ask that there be a prosecution for
perjury against you.
I've asked you a series of questions that go to the most
serious allegations that have been made against you for the
last 3 years. I want you to take a moment and reflect on your
answers and tell us if there is anything else you think we
ought to know about relating to those questions that I asked
you.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Waxman, I'm sorry, I don't have any reason
to have any knowledge that I answered your questions
incorrectly at this time, sir.
Mr. Waxman, also, I don't know what the report is about. I
did not have any benefit----
Mr. Waxman. You do not have any benefit of----
Mr. Huang. No. You have the benefit of reading whatever
report is being supplied by----
Mr. Waxman. You know the truth of what you know.
Mr. Huang. I answered the questions truthfully to all those
interrogations or investigations.
Mr. Waxman. And my questions to you today, you have
answered truthfully?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, our committee has had its share of
blunders and mistakes. In fact, we have been called a parody of
reputable investigations and a case study on how not to do an
investigation. And I want to ask you about one of our true
lows.
In 1997, we had a hearing we held with a fellow named David
Wang. This hearing was held in October 1997. Prior to the
hearing, the chairman told the Associated Press that the
hearing was going to prove that John Huang laundered illegal
campaign contributions while at the DNC. He said this was,
``the first time in my memory we have seen evidence of such
blatantly illegal activity by a senior national party member.''
In the hearing, David Wang testified before this committee
under oath that you, Mr. Huang, came to his place of business
in Los Angeles in August 1996 and gave him cash in return for a
campaign contribution. I introduced evidence that showed that
this could not have happened. This evidence included hotel
receipts and affidavits to show that you were in New York, not
Los Angeles, on the day in question.
The Democratic members also suggested that perhaps this was
a case of mistaken identity. In fact, Representative Kanjorski
said that perhaps the person that Mr. Wang met was Charlie
Trie, not John Huang.
Now, we had all the receipts showing you were in New York.
We had clear evidence that show that you were in New York on
the day that Mr. Wang said that you went to his place of
business in Los Angeles. And in light of that evidence, I asked
the chairman to retract his allegation. And to this day,
however, the chairman has refused to correct the record.
I'd like to now ask you about what really happened. Mr.
Huang, was David Wang telling the truth when he said that you
met with him in August 1996 while you were at the DNC and gave
him cash to make an illegal conduit contribution?
Mr. Huang. No, sir, Mr. Wang was not telling the truth.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I have additional proof that Mr.
Huang is telling the truth here today. The committee recently
received the FBI notes of the FBI interviews with Charlie Trie.
In these notes, Mr. Trie says that it was he, not Mr. Huang,
who met with David Wang. I ask unanimous consent to introduce
these FBI interview notes into the hearing record at this
point.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Just 1 second. Pardon me.
The FBI has asked us not to release those or put those in
the record yet because there is information they would still
like to redact, and I have told the FBI Director and the FBI
that we would honor that. So I don't think we should put it in
the record at this time until they have made the redactions
that they think are necessary.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I think they should be in the
record. I think you are mistaken. But I will withdraw my
request, and we will talk further about it.
Mr. Burton. Once the redactions are made, we will check
with the FBI. I have no objection once that happens.
Mr. Waxman. But I think once this information comes out,
and I know you share my view, the American people ought to have
all the truth, it will be clear that you were mistaken, we all
make mistakes, and you were mistaken about Mr. Wang's
accusation that Mr. Huang came to his place of business. And if
that is true that you were mistaken, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that
you will admit that there was a mistake and that was an
allegation, the allegation you made based on that, that was
based on incorrect facts.
Mr. Burton. If there is a mistake in the record, we will
correct that.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, before I start my 5 minutes, I
would just like to ask a question. We have had 30 minutes from
the chairman and the ranking member, and then from this point
on we're going to be going in 5-minute segments and then
continuing to come back. So we'll do 5 minutes, the next
person, and just keep going down and doing that; is that
correct?
Mr. Burton. That's correct, until we are ready to finalize;
and then we will have 30 minutes for staff.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Would you like a break, Mr. Huang?
Mr. Huang. Please, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. We'll take about a 10-minute break. We stand in
recess until the call of the gavel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. Mr. Huang, what we were discussing was nothing
of major significance. Since you and your legal counsel flew on
the red eye, we assume that you are kind of tired. So what we
are going to do is go until 6 o'clock today and then we will
recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock rather than go to
later in the evening.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I am supposed to tell the truth. I
did not fly red eye. I did arrive at 1 o'clock. So it is not
considered red eye fully on that basis. But my eyes are red.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Huang, it is good to have you here.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. And I am going to take your statement as I think
you mean it. It seems somewhat conciliatory. It seems somewhat
regretful. But I also want to take what you say to coincide
with your statement. I need to first ask you what you mean by
saying, ``I've made some mistakes.'' What are the mistakes
you've made?
Mr. Huang. As far as the illegality, you know, funneling
the funds, campaign contributions.
Mr. Shays. So what are the mistakes?
Mr. Huang. The campaign contributions. Talking about during
1992 through 1994, that period of time when I was with Lippo,
there was a lot of money being handled through me and funneled
through me. Essentially, I meant that, sir.
Mr. Shays. You are 1 of 79 people who have exercised their
right to use their fifth amendment privileges for self-
incrimination, and it is a right that is available to all
Americans and you had that right and you exercised it. But you
were one of so many. And being the non-lawyer that I am, you
begin to get a feeling when there are so many that there is
something here that people do not want us to know.
I am going to focus in eventually on security issues
because that is an area that my subcommittee is responsible
for. But my understanding is, since 1985 through July 1994, you
worked for the Riadys in various capacities. You worked for
them, the Lippo Group, and so on. You worked for the Riadys. Is
that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. And then my understanding is that from July 1994
to December 1995 you worked for the Commerce Department.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. And then since then, excuse me, from December
1995 to October-November 1996, you worked for the Democrat
National Committee.
Mr. Huang. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. And you raised money from the Riadys when you
worked for the DNC.
Mr. Huang. I did not raise from the Riadys, though.
Mr. Shays. From someone who gave to the Riadys? I mean,
were the Riadys not involved in any of your campaign
fundraising efforts?
Mr. Huang. Somebody----
Mr. Shays. I don't want to split hairs here. I want you to
be accurate.
Mr. Huang. Yes, somebody's family had partnership with
Riady's family business.
Mr. Shays. So you raised money from the businesses of the
Riadys?
Mr. Huang. No. No. No. Individuals.
Mr. Shays. Individuals who worked for the businesses.
Mr. Huang. Whose family had partnership with Riady's family
business.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
Mr. Huang. But to my knowledge they are green card holders.
Mr. Shays. Would it have been illegal for you to raise
money from the Riadys when you worked for the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Shays. Would it have been illegal for you to have
raised money from the Riadys? You seem to want to make clear to
me that somehow during that time while you worked at the DNC
you did not raise money from the Riadys but you raised money
from people who had business acquaintances and agreements with
the Riadys.
Mr. Huang. Because I had the knowledge at that time Mr.
Riady has relinquished his green card status back to the United
States and he was no longer holding the PR, so-called permanent
resident status in the United States, he was not eligible to
take care of any further.
Mr. Shays. Well, you could have raised soft money from
them. That is not a campaign contribution.
Mr. Huang. But he did not have the status, though.
Mr. Shays. The bottom line is you chose not to raise money
from the Riadys but from people who worked for the Riadys in
that business relationship.
In 1997 you had a gift of $18,000 from the Riady family;
and in 1998, $20,000 from the Riady family; and in 1999 they
paid your travel expenses to go to Jakarta, correct?
Mr. Huang. I paid before. They gave me back the money, yes.
Mr. Shays. Now, so the picture I see is a relationship from
1985 to really now, a relationship with the Riady family.
Mr. Huang. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Shays. And the one distinction you want me to be clear
on is that when you worked at the DNC you chose not to raise
any money from the Riadys?
Mr. Huang. They could not give either in my mind, yes.
Mr. Shays. And when you say, ``mistakes,'' would you define
any of those mistakes as illegal?
Mr. Huang. Yes, it is.
Mr. Shays. Now, tell me the illegal things you did.
Mr. Huang. The reimbursement part. In other words, although
I was legally able to give money, but I was reimbursed later on
by the Riadys.
Mr. Shays. And is that the extent of your testimony before
this committee? That is the extent of your illegal activities?
Mr. Huang. That's one part.
Mr. Shays. OK. Give me the other parts.
Mr. Huang. Because I have knowledge about at least some of
the----
Mr. Shays. Let me just say something to you. I'm not going
to be satisfied if you tell me that you didn't have knowledge
at the time that this was illegal. Let's just agree that if it
was illegal, whether or not you knew it, it is illegal.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, please clarify the times you you're
talking about.
Mr. Shays. I do not want to clarify times. I want to know
what illegal acts you have done. And you regret all of them and
you have immunity for all these illegal acts. I do not want to
know the ones I know. I want to know the ones you know, too.
Mr. Huang. OK. I was not supposed to be reimbursed for all
the campaign contributions that I made, but somehow I did, or
reimbursed through those money.
Mr. Shays. And that is your testimony before us? That that
is the extent of any of the illegal acts that you have done?
My time is up. I will come back. Is the answer to the
question yes? Is that the extent of all your illegal acts?
Mr. Huang. I also knew the other people being reimbursed as
well, that was not proper--that was not illegal--that was
illegal, I'm sorry.
Mr. Shays. And that's the extent of all the illegal acts
you have done?
Mr. Huang. To the best I can comprehend, yes.
Mr. Shays. We will talk some more. Thank you.
Mr. Huang. Yes, please. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, I wanted to discuss with you some of your
participation and some of the events surrounding the
Presidential debate which took place in East Lansing, MI,
October 19, 1992. I am going to be referring first to exhibit
31. And if you have that there, if you might pull that up and
we can put that on the screen.
On a document for the Presidential debate in East Lansing,
MI, on that date, October 19, 1992, James and Aileen Riady are
listed as guests along with Melinda Yee's name. Again, their
names are listed as guests along with Melinda Yee's name next
to theirs.
By the time of the debate on October 1, 1992, Lippo related
contributions topped some $570,000. Is that figure
approximately correct to your knowledge?
[Exhibit 31 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.170
Mr. Huang. I don't know for sure, but it's definitely over
a few hundred thousand dollars, yes.
Mr. Mica. And the Riadys personally contributed--we have
$410,000 of that total. They also contributed hundreds of
thousands of dollars at that point?
Mr. Huang. I don't know exactly the date, but they did make
quite a few hundred thousand dollar contributions approximately
that time, yes.
Mr. Mica. The document listing the guests for the East
Lansing debate lists a James and Aileen Riady. Next to their
names is the name of Melinda Yee, apparently signifying that
Yee, a DNC employee detailed to the Clinton-Gore campaign, was
the person who arranged for their invitation. Melinda Yee was
also the individual who informed Governor Clinton about the
limousine ride and James Riady's $100,000 contribution to the
August 14, 1992, fundraiser.
The questions that I have are as follows: The list that is
on exhibit 31 is a guest list to the October 19, 1992,
Presidential debates in East Lansing, MI. On the second page it
lists James and Aileen Riady. Did Mr. and Mrs. Riady attend the
Presidential debate in East Lansing to your knowledge?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Mica, they did not attend, to the best of my
knowledge.
Mr. Mica. They did not. Did the Riadys fly in from
Indonesia with the intent of intending to attend the debate?
Mr. Huang. I don't know if they were in Indonesia or not.
But I do know they did not attend, because I attended it.
Mr. Mica. Did Melinda Yee arrange--was she making
arrangements for the Riadys to attend, and then were you
substituted in their place?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't quite recall right now for sure, but
I did not know exactly. But I do know that I did attend and my
wife did attend.
Mr. Mica. Well, did you work with Mr. Riady to arrange the
contributions so that someone could attend the event? And I
guess originally it had been Mr. Riady who was going to attend.
Mr. Huang. I was not sure whether it was related to the
contribution or not. Apparently, during that period of time,
there were guests on the list by DNC, you know, being
recommended to be invited.
Mr. Mica. But did you get there through Mr. Riady's
contribution or through contributions that you personally had
made?
Mr. Huang. Well, I was actually raising the money at that
time from various people in the group, Lippo Group, so I don't
know the determination on the invitation list was because the
money being raised was a key factor or not.
Mr. Mica. But, again, I am trying to find out at this
juncture in October, were you the recipient of money that was
given for you to participate in the event or was the money
given from the Riadys for the Riadys to participate in the
event?
Mr. Huang. You know, at that period of time, to my best
recollection, I was giving the money, my wife was giving the
money, and certainly at that time part of the money was given
by the Riady family, as well.
Mr. Mica. What were you doing at that time?
Mr. Huang. In 1992, I was still working for Lippo Group in
California.
Mr. Mica. And what was your approximate income at that
time?
Mr. Huang. At that time----
Mr. Mica. 1992.
Mr. Huang. Probably $150,000 in that range.
Mr. Mica. And how much did you give in 1992 to the either
the campaign or the inaugural committee?
Mr. Huang. Solid campaign, I could not really recall
exactly. Probably over $30,000 or $40,000 at least.
Mr. Mica. Were you reimbursed by Mr. Riady or the Lippo
Group for those funds?
Mr. Huang. Later on, yes.
Mr. Mica. What about the funds that were--now, I see some
funds in your name and is it Jane? Is that your wife?
Mr. Huang. That's my wife, yes.
Mr. Mica. And she was also contributing funds I guess in
her name also?
Mr. Huang. Yes, when I talk about the total amount, it was
including my wife's contribution also.
Mr. Mica. And was she also reimbursed for those
contributions?
Mr. Huang. I was handling, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. The money came to you and the checks were
written.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, are we doing double----
Mr. Burton. We are doing 5-minute rounds right now. So if
you like, we will be back to you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to apologize, Mr. Huang, for the fact that each of
us are taking kind of different lines of questioning and
because we could not get in the rules 10 minutes where you can
kind of get an order to it. You will see I am going to be
asking a series of questions regarding Mr. Hubbell, and I'll
come back to that every so often. So you will kind of see a
pattern here, but your mind is going to be pretty tired because
you are going to be moving between different scenarios because
we could not get a longer questioning period.
The first question I would like to ask is, when did you
first learn that Webb Hubbell needed financial help?
Mr. Huang. Probably in spring of 1994.
Mr. Souder. Was this at a reception? I believe your FBI
deposition said it was at a reception in the spring.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, can you hold on just a second?
Essentially, the news I've learned I believe from Mr. Doug
Buford of the law firm from Little Rock, AR; and, basically, I
believe he mentioned to me I was told he was indicating Mr.
Hubbell needs some help, financial help.
Mr. Souder. Was that at the reception where you first heard
it?
Mr. Huang. No. That was a phone call separate.
Mr. Souder. So you first heard it at a reception. And then
Mr. Buford, was he talking about Mr. Hubbell's children?
Mr. Huang. No. I believe I heard that through phone call
ahead of time from Mr. Buford. The reception was in Washington,
DC, and I was given a business card later on from Mr. Hubbell.
Mr. Souder. I want to go back to the reception where it
first started. Was it at the White House, at the DNC? What kind
of reception was it?
Mr. Huang. I cannot remember the location of the reception.
I do not believe it was in the White House, though.
Mr. Souder. Do you believe it was a political reception, or
you don't remember?
Mr. Huang. I do not remember.
Mr. Souder. You have said before and here on the record
that it was in the spring. Mr. Hubbell called Lippo Bank twice
on May 19, 1994. Do you think that was approximately the time
that the reception?
Mr. Huang. I would believe, if your records indicating the
phone call is made in May, probably that reception was
happening before that already.
Mr. Souder. Because it also shows up a little bit later in
June that you have said that Mr. Riady asked you to set up a
meeting. So probably the order here was that you heard at a
reception that he needed help, and clearly he made some calls
on May 19 to the Lippo Bank. And then do you know approximately
the date when Doug Buford would have called you?
Mr. Huang. I cannot really speculate. I do know for sure it
is prior to that.
Mr. Souder, in terms of the sequencing on that, the best I
can recollect is I learned this information from Mr. Buford
through phone call indicating he was needing the help and also
learned somebody was trying to set up a trust fund for the
children. And then, over time, I had a conversation with Mr.
Riady about the fact and that Mr. Hubbell needed help. And then
the reception, probably there was a chance I met with Mr.
Hubbell and there was an indication to Mr. Hubbell saying Mr.
Riady might be coming back to the United States in June
sometime.
So I'm pretty sure the main call was pursuing for when
might be the appointment for exactly the time they might be
able to meet. I was trying to arrange the meeting at that time.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain for the record who Doug
Buford is?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Buford is an attorney with Wright, Lindsey
and Jennings. It is a law firm in Little Rock, AR. He's also a
friend of mine and also to the Riady family.
Mr. Souder. So it is Bruce Lindsey's law firm?
Mr. Huang. Former law firm yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. And he was a friend of yours when you were
previously with the Bank of Arkansas and others?
Mr. Huang. I know him not that early.
Mr. Souder. Did you know him in Arkansas, or did you know
him only once you came to Washington?
Mr. Huang. I knew him when I was still with the Lippo Group
in California then.
Mr. Souder. When there was any of these contacts to you,
when you first heard he was needing help in or the trust and/or
the trust fund regarding the children, was there any mention in
the same discussions about the independent counsel
investigation or his cooperation?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not know that.
Mr. Souder. In other words, it was not even discussed not
necessarily in toto?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. I mean, it seems just to a casual observer that
there have been a lot of concern and a lot of discussion
anytime Webb Hubbell would have been around about what is
happening in the counsel's office. So you did not hear any kind
of concern about Mr. Hubbell and him feeling persecuted or what
these crazy Republicans in the House are going to do next?
Mr. Huang. To the best of my knowledge, I did not. It did
not register in my mind at that time.
Mr. Souder. After you heard that Mr. Hubbell needed help,
did you discuss it with Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Souder. And when approximately would that have been?
Mr. Huang. Again during that springtime. Probably April,
May, around that time.
Mr. Souder. But before the visit in June?
Mr. Huang. Definitely, yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. Multiple times?
Mr. Huang. Occasionally Mr. Riady will call and continue on
average, like once a week, or checking in what's going on in
our operation in the United States. So we talked about various
things.
Mr. Souder. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Riady about Mr.
Hubbell's problems and why he was having problems, that he was
being investigated and because of that reason he would need
money?
Mr. Huang. Not in detail.
Mr. Souder. What does ``not in detail'' mean?
Mr. Huang. My hunch is Mr. Riady probably has the CNN and
overseas he would know about that. I just mention to him he's
really in trouble and he needs help, information to him about
somebody trying to set up a trust fund on that basis. The trust
fund's only limit--I believe a person can only give up to
$15,000 maximum. I passed those information to Mr. Riady.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I will return later.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, I want to go back to your opening statement for
just a second; and then I want to talk to you about some
Presidential fundraising events that happened back in 1996.
One of the things that struck me in the first paragraph of
your opening is you said, ``in addition, while things might
have gone easier for me and were I able to implicate the
President and the Vice President in wrongdoing, I never had any
basis to do so.'' And that is what you answered in a question
from Mr. Waxman. But I think that you stand convicted, do you
not, of conspiracy to defraud the United States of America that
stems from the illegal political contributions that you made
and Lippo Group entities made between 1992 and 1994? That's the
crime, basically, that you stand convicted of, is it not?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. And the sentence that you received was 1
year of probation and a $10,000 fine; is that right, too?
Mr. Huang. And also 500 hours community service.
Mr. LaTourette. I was just struck when you said that things
might have gone easier for you. I think, I was a prosecutor for
6 years, and the only thing that could have gone easier is if
they had given you nothing. That is a pretty good sentence. I
do not know if Mr. Cobb and Mr. Keeney were your lawyers, but
if they were, they are excellent lawyers and they are to be
commended for negotiating that agreement.
But then when you were talking to Mr. Waxman, and I want to
be real clear about this, that crime to which you stand
convicted today was for activities that occurred between 1992
and 1994; is that right?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Specifically in response to Mr. Waxman's
series of questions, you indicated that while at the DNC, the
Democratic National Committee, that you engaged in no illegal
activities and, likewise, that you are not aware and that you
did not participate in the making of any illegal contribution
either to the Democratic National Committee or President
Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996. Is that right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. There was just a television program on
recently where they would ask a series of questions and they
had lifelines where you could phone a friend or 50/50. And I
would ask you, is that your final answer, that you did not
commit the same type of conduit scheme to defraud the United
States of America in 1996 that you engaged in between 1992 and
1994?
Mr. Huang. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Let's talk, then, about some
fundraising events that took place in 1996. And I want to turn
your attention first to one that occurred on February 19, 1996.
You are familiar with that fundraising event?
Mr. Huang. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. LaTourette. And it is my understanding that that was
the first major fundraising event that you might have been
involved in after you went to the DNC; is that correct, also?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Do you remember what the goal of that
fundraiser was?
Mr. Huang. Actually, I tried to set $1 million, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. And is that a figure you established for
the fundraising event? Was that a figure given to you by the
DNC, the Presidential campaign? How did you come at $1 million?
Mr. Huang. I set the goal for $1 million, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. And do you recall--if this was on February
19th, do you recall when you would have started beginning the
planning for that event?
Mr. Huang. Yes, ever since I joined in the DNC, starting
from December 1995.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you recall communicating to anyone else
that you needed to raise $1 million at that February 19th event
in order to get the President's attendance at that fundraiser?
Mr. Huang. Maybe, yeah.
Mr. LaTourette. And, in fact, do you recall such a
conversation with Charlie Trie----
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do.
Mr. LaTourette [continuing]. That the $1 million would be
required to secure the President of the United States's
attendance at this fundraising event?
Mr. Huang. I really cannot, Congressman, equate million
dollars to get the President coming here. Probably lesser
amount you can get the President coming here. So I set my goal,
hopefully I can raise $1 million. That would be the first time
the Asian American community raise that kind of money on
record.
Mr. LaTourette. You just mentioned ``Asian American
community.'' Was there a target audience or group that you
hoped to solicit to attend this event on February 19th, or was
it anybody that was inclined to give President Clinton money to
run for re-election?
Mr. Huang. Primarily the Asian American community, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. And the price for this event, my
understanding, was $12,500 was the cost of a ticket to attend
this event; is that right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. And that included not only the dinner on
the 19th but also a breakfast the next morning with the Vice
President of the United States, Mr. Gore?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Was there another requirement as to a
different contribution level to be entitled to sit at the head
table at that event?
Mr. Huang. I did not set that level, but people--some of
the people might have given more money. Some of the people
might have historically made supporting Democratic party, which
is known to everybody, and also because of diversity, for the
diversity basis, I try to have a different Asian American
community to be represented on the head table as well, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you select the composition of the head
table at that event?
Mr. Huang. Primarily yes, yes, myself, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you, as you sit here today, and maybe
we can go in the next 5 minutes if you don't remember, do you
remember what the head table was comprised of at the February
19th fundraiser?
Mr. Huang. I can remember some of them.
Mr. LaTourette. Can you just name them for us?
Mr. Huang. Pauline Kanchanalak.
Mr. LaTourette. Pauline Kanchanalak?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
I think either Mr. Ted Sioeng or Mr. Ted Sioeng's guests. I
just need to go back to the list to know.
Mr. LaTourette. That is fine. We can talk about that in a
little bit. I am not trying to stump you, but we will go over
some names maybe in my next 5 minutes.
But specifically, Charlie Trie, and maybe the chairman
asked you, when did you meet Charlie Trie?
Mr. Huang. The first time probably in the summer of 1994. I
heard of him much earlier, but the first time I met with him
was in summer of 1994.
Mr. LaTourette. According to the information that I've
reviewed, Charlie Trie was a very active donor to the
Democratic National Committee, but he was not an active
fundraiser, if you understand the distinction, in that he would
contribute money on his own, but until you got to the DNC,
based upon what I've reviewed, is the first time he became a
solicitor of others. Would you agree with that observation?
Mr. Huang. That I would not know, but he was--he was a
donor at that time, already established record in front of DNC
before I arrived at the DNC.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you have conversations with him to
encourage him to become not only--continue as a donor, but also
be a solicitor of others?
Mr. Huang. I did. I did encourage him to do that.
Mr. LaTourette. After he got to the DNC?
Mr. Huang. That is right, because I was trying to set a
goal for $1 million. I need everybody's help. That's why I
asked him.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Huang.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have got 5 minutes now. I basically covered, I think, the
essential important questions in this whole investigation, and
I appreciate your answers to them, but I'd like to ask some
clean-up questions if I might.
Mr. Huang, there have been a lot of allegations about the
relationship between the Lippo Group and Webster Hubbell.
William Safire, for example, wrote in July of this year, ``we
will never know if the $100,000 that the Riady family paid
Hubbell was, in Thomas Jefferson's phrase, `hush money' to keep
him from telling prosecutors about the part played by his Rose
Law Firm `billing partner' Hillary Clinton in his sham deal.''
Mr. Huang, that is what Mr. Safire had to say. You had a role
in the payment to Mr. Hubbell. Was the money paid by the Lippo
Group to Mr. Hubbell hush money?
Mr. Huang. To the best of my knowledge, it was not.
Mr. Waxman. What do you know about the money Mr. Hubbell
received from the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. Basically was a help from a friend, a friend
that's in trouble.
Mr. Waxman. Why do you think Mr. Hubbell was paid this
money?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady was just trying to--based on the
friendship, would just like to help him.
Mr. Waxman. To your knowledge, was the President involved
in any way in the decision of the Riadys to hire Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't know about that.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, while working for the DNC, you
played a role in organizing an event at the Hsi Lai Temple in
California in April 1996. The event was attended by members of
the local Asian American community, along with Vice President
Gore. Since then there have been allegations that members of
the temple made illegal contributions to the DNC. In fact, one
woman, Maria Hsia, faces trial next year for conspiring with
temple leaders to make conduit contributions.
Now, let me ask you, Mr. Huang, did you know anything about
these alleged conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. I did not know.
Mr. Souder. Parliamentary inquiry. May I make a
parliamentary--at that time, did Mr. Waxman----
Mr. Burton. Gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Souder. We have a lot of redacted material related to
that particular fundraiser. Are we going to be allowed to ask
questions about that? What is the standard going to be in these
hearings?
Mr. Burton. We can ask questions as far as the redacted
material is concerned. That has been redacted by the Justice
Department and the FBI. But questions can be asked of Mr.
Huang.
Mr. Souder. Continuing my parliamentary inquiry, then
people should realize that when we get answers, that he may not
be able to say certain things, and we may not be able to put
certain things in the record that would clarify those questions
because we are restricted as to what we can talk about.
Mr. Burton. Yes, I think that's correct. I think you can
stipulate that in your questions.
Mr. Souder. I thank the chairman and the gentleman for
yielding, and he should get the time. I apologize.
Mr. Cobb. May I ask a question in response to Congressman
Souder's question?
Mr. Burton. Well, we normally don't allow counsel to ask
questions.
Mr. Cobb. I just want to make sure that my client
understands the ground rules because he indicated that Mr.
Huang may be under some restriction as to what he can answer,
and I don't--that's not my understanding.
Mr. Burton. There is no restriction whatsoever on questions
that he may want to answer, and I apologize, but the counsels
are not allowed to answer questions. That's a very strict rule.
Mr. Waxman, we are going to give you additional time.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate Mr. Souder's point because I think the
essential thing with redacted information is that if we had
that information, we are not permitted to make it public, but
we are certainly permitted to ask you questions about what you
know about matters that we may have had some information about,
and I asked you whether you knew anything about these alleged
conduit informations at the Hsi Lai Temple.
Mr. Huang. I do not, I do not know.
Mr. Waxman. And did the Vice President know anything about
these alleged conduit contributions, to your knowledge?
Mr. Huang. I don't think so. I don't believe he did.
Mr. Waxman. Were you at that event?
Mr. Huang. I was at that event.
Mr. Waxman. Was it a Democratic party event, or was it a
community event?
Mr. Huang. I have a misgiving in explaining those things. I
don't know I should at this particular time or not. Originally,
there was a fundraising event supposed to be in a different
location, and there was supposed to be a community event in the
Hsi Lai Temple, but later on the scheduling problems and
everything was planned, so we had to combine everything
together. So, so I don't know how to answer that. Basically
it's a lot of community people coming in.
Mr. Waxman. A lot of community people from the Asian
American community were at this event?
Mr. Huang. A lot of community people came into the event,
yes.
Mr. Waxman. And the Vice President was there, but were
there other officerholders there?
Mr. Huang. Some. I think one of the supervisors in L.A.
County, Don Knabe, he was invited as a guest.
Mr. Waxman. I think he's a Republican, the last time I
checked.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Waxman. You have admitted soliciting contributions for
Bill Clinton and the DNC in 1992 and 1993, but you also
solicited and contributed money for a variety of national and
local candidates, including Republican Senators such as Al
D'Amato, Mitch McConnell and Larry Pressler. I'd like to ask
you about those contributions. Did you contribute money to
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Waxman. How much money did you contribute?
Mr. Huang. I don't know if it was $1,000 for myself and
another thousand for my wife or not. It could be only $1,000 at
this time.
Mr. Waxman. Why did you make this contribution?
Mr. Huang. The reasoning is at that particular moment we
were trying to push the immigration bill. So we can, we can
do--get help from the Democratic side, so we thought we need to
get the help from the Republican side as well. I--so I think
that was conscious decision from then in the PLC, Pacific
Leadership Council's member, we need to do something for the
Republican Senators as well.
Mr. Waxman. And was that your reasoning in giving to
Senator Pressler and Senator d'Amato as well?
Mr. Huang. The other minor reason was Elaine Chou Lin was
also introducing Senator--not Senator d'Amato--I am talking
about Mitch McConnell again. She was also there.
Mr. Waxman. She was. Was that his wife at the time?
Mr. Huang. Not then. She was a very distinguished, you
know, Chinese American community leader then. Now, she's his
wife. For Mr. D'Amato was a--was a different reason. There were
more reasons, because I receive a call from Mrs. Elaine Chou
because I was a banker then, was in the banking business, and
she was asking would I support Mr. D'Amato because Mr. D'Amato
was coming in town, indicating Mr. D'Amato was in the Banking
Committee. So with his recommendation I did support Mr.
D'Amato.
Mr. Waxman. I'm out of time, but these don't seem like
they're significant to me. Do they have any significance to you
and to the reason we are holding this hearing? Do you have
anything to tell us about it that might show some significance
in regard to these contributions?
Mr. Huang. The only thing is that these funds were
reimbursed later on.
Mr. Waxman. They were reimbursed?
Mr. Huang. They were reimbursed later on, into one lump sum
group basically, whatever the contribution I made, and I
totaled it up, and in a future date I got reimbursed. So this
is a part of that.
Mr. Waxman. So these are part of the conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Were the individuals like Senator McConnell
ever made aware of that money being conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Well, we probably ought to tell them about it.
They may want to send some of that back.
Let me ask you about the temple. You had 11 nuns who have
taken a vow of poverty that each gave $5,000. To whom did they
give that money?
Mr. Huang. I believe the check was made out to DNC, if I'm
not mistaken.
Mr. Burton. Who took the money? Did you take it?
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. Who did?
Mr. Huang. A stack of checks was handed to me on my way
from Los Angeles to----
Mr. Burton. So you had the stack of checks in your
possession?
Mr. Huang. No. Through--in an envelope through Maria Hsia.
Mr. Burton. But you saw the checks?
Mr. Huang. I did not really examine the checks.
Mr. Burton. You didn't look at the checks?
Mr. Huang. Until I get back to----
Mr. Burton. When you came back to Washington, did you look
at the checks?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Burton. Did you see that they came from the nuns?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I knew they came from nuns, yes.
Mr. Burton. Where did you think the nuns got that money?
Mr. Huang. All right. Here's the understanding, Mr.
Chairman. In our culture, in our society, some nuns or even
individual, they made a lot of money. They may decide--feel
their life is still empty, they gave the money.
Mr. Burton. You thought the nuns actually gave the money
themselves?
Mr. Huang. No. They gave the money to the temple, for
instance. They gave every property to the temple. Basically
they're very wealthy themselves. There are quite a lot of
people like that.
Mr. Burton. I know, but where do you think the nuns got the
$5,000 that they gave to the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I was told some of these nuns were very wealthy,
it was their money.
Mr. Burton. So you believed that the 11 nuns gave the
$5,000 themselves?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. You had no doubt about that?
Mr. Huang. I did not at the time.
Mr. Burton. Let me go back to my original line of
questioning. Why did Mr. Riady need to tell President Clinton
in the back of the limousine that he was going to give him $1
million for his campaign?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. Burton. Who proposed that he ride in that limousine
with President Clinton? Did you have anything to do with that?
Mr. Huang. I had something to do with that.
Mr. Burton. Why did you arrange for Mr. Riady to ride in
the back of the limousine?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady would like to have chance to have a
little moment with Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't know anything about the million
dollars he was going to talk about?
Mr. Huang. At that moment, no, in terms of how much amount
he was trying to do.
Mr. Burton. Were there other people that were involved in
asking that Mr. Clinton ride in the limousine, like Melinda Yee
or Bruce Lindsey or Governor Clinton or Rahm Emanuel or Melissa
Moss?
Mr. Huang. I would not know about that.
Mr. Burton. But you arranged for him to ride in the back?
Mr. Huang. The primary persons that I was contacting was
Melinda Yee, because Melinda Yee at that time was working with
the DNC.
Mr. Burton. But she didn't say anything about anybody else
asking her about meeting with Mr. Riady in the limousine?
Mr. Huang. I did not recall there was any other persons
were involved.
Mr. Burton. When were you told that he was going to be
taking that ride, was it just before, or was it some time
before?
Mr. Huang. It was before.
Mr. Burton. Just recently or some time before? Was it a day
before, a week before?
Mr. Huang. Very close to the event, because they could not
really find out what would be the format for them to meet.
Mr. Burton. Who told you that?
Mr. Huang. I don't know if that was Melinda Yee or not. I
tend to think it was Melinda Yee.
Mr. Burton. It wasn't Bruce Lindsey or Rahm Emanuel or
Melissa Moss?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not know Bruce Lindsey then.
Mr. Burton. OK. When did James Riady conceive the plan, or
do you know when he conceived the plan to give $1 million to
the President's campaign?
Mr. Huang. Probably a few weeks before that.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't know about it until the
limousine ride?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not know about the limousine ride.
Mr. Burton. Did you know about the million dollars that was
going to be offered to him before the ride?
Mr. Huang. I was trying to explain to him, Mr. Chairman,
remember when I testified to you, originally tried to mention
he was friends, we need to support him, and I was suggesting
something like that much less amount, if we need to support,
maybe we should support like $100,000. He was thinking about
the concept if he really want to support, why not support a
much larger amount.
Mr. Burton. So you suggested to Mr. Riady a $100,000
contribution before the limousine ride?
Mr. Huang. That was way back, a few weeks back already.
Mr. Burton. But it was well before then?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. Who else besides Mr. Riady knew about this plan
of giving a large amount of money to the President before the
limousine ride? Did you convey that to anybody else besides Mr.
Riady?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no, no.
Mr. Burton. You didn't tell anybody else that?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. How long did that limousine ride last?
Mr. Huang. Probably about 5, no more than 10 minutes, if
it's--the driver drive slowly. As I testified to you earlier,
Mr. Chairman, the two locations was already in the same city,
in San Gabriel.
Mr. Burton. Who was in the car besides the President and
Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I don't know because everything is under
security. So they all went into the elevator, go all the way
downstairs to the parking lot.
Mr. Burton. So you don't know if Bruce Lindsey was in the
car with him?
Mr. Huang. I would not know, sir.
Mr. Burton. Were any notes taken of the conversation that
you know of between the President and Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I would not know, sir.
Mr. Burton. Following the limousine ride, did you and Mr.
Riady discuss what happened?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And can you tell me what he told you?
Mr. Huang. He said he mentioned to--I could not say the
exactly words, but I can paraphrase as close as possible, sir.
He said he would like to help Mr. Clinton for his campaign or
fundraising, whatever, raise $1 million and Mr. Clinton's--Mr.
Riady showed me the response of Mr. Clinton was very surprised
suggestion.
Mr. Burton. Did Mr. Riady indicate that he wanted anything
in return for the million dollars?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no, no, sir.
Mr. Burton. He just wanted to give it out of the goodness
of his heart?
Mr. Huang. Right. Mr. Chairman, he likes to help friends.
They knew each other.
Mr. Burton. Well----
Mr. Huang. And also----
Mr. Burton [continuing]. I wish I knew some friends like
that. Just give him $1 million for his campaign out of the
goodness of his heart.
Mr. Huang. To give a political contribution, certainly you
will get some recognition on political fronts. Mr. Riady
probably has multiple purposes in doing so, you know, for his
business and also----
Mr. Burton. So you believe he had some multiple purposes,
but you don't know what they were at the time?
Mr. Huang. I can speculate for you right now.
Mr. Burton. You cannot speculate?
Mr. Huang. I can.
Mr. Burton. Can you speculate right now?
Mr. Huang. For the status, as I mentioned already, you
know, the standing, and also the benefit for the business,
later on he would get recognition, and also can tell the people
in Asia he knows Mr. Clinton, and all these things probably
would be part of the benefits that I think he might be able to
get.
Mr. Burton. But you don't know whether or not he discussed
anything in particular with Mr. Clinton?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no, no, sir.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Huang, given the 5-minute process, we are--
keep doing 5 minutes, going to the next, so I am just going to
review where you are with me. Where you are with me is that you
made a statement that said you regretted your mistakes. You
didn't call them illegal actions, so it is illegal actions plus
mistakes. Where you are with me is basically that--the
recognition that you worked for the Riadys from 1985 to July
1994; you worked for Commerce from July 1994 to December 1995;
and you worked at DNC, Democrat National Committee, from
December 1995 to October/November 1996 where you raised money.
And where you are with me is that afterwards your relationship
continued with the Riadys. They gave you a $18,000 gift in
1997, $20,000 gift in 1998, and they paid for your travel to
Jakarta in 1999. So that's kind of where we are at.
You then acknowledged that you regretted illegal acts that
took place in 1992. I want you to spell out what those illegal
acts were. What did you plead guilty to?
Mr. Huang. I get reimbursement for my contributions. I knew
some of my colleagues who were reimbursed, and I also--I forgot
to mention to you in the last round, I just thought of that--
and also I gave some of my colleagues money for them to write
checks, but that was a relative small amount.
Mr. Shays. That was money that wasn't necessarily yours
that you gave to others to write out?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yeah.
Mr. Shays. That was money from whom?
Mr. Huang. From me first, and later on I also reported that
back to Mr. Riady.
Mr. Shays. Not from you first. It was--OK, I am sorry,
sorry. Then you were reimbursed later?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. From whom?
Mr. Huang. From Mr. Riady.
Mr. Shays. What was the amount, total amount, of these
transactions during the 1992 cycle?
Mr. Huang. Directly related to me was--I can only go by the
report that the government has investigated on that.
Mr. Shays. No, you can go by what you did. You'd know what
you did.
Mr. Huang. I really don't have exact records right at this
moment. Probably I can only think about is based on records,
about $150,000 something.
Mr. Shays. OK. Well, here is what we are going to do.
Tomorrow when you come back, I want the real number, not the
record number. I want to know all of those transactions, not
the ones you necessarily pleaded guilty to. So that's the
difference here. The difference is you pleaded guilty to
something, you have an agreement, and that's what you were
guilty of according to the court. But I want to know what you
did that extended beyond that that you didn't plead guilty to,
and you can provide that information to me tomorrow.
Mr. Huang. OK, sir.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Thank you.
Now, my understanding is that you didn't plead guilty to
these actions, and you may not feel you are guilty, but these
are mistakes as well. According to our information, you raised
$3.4 million when you were at the DNC, and that so far $1.6
million had to be returned. They had to be returned because
they were illegal contributions.
Mr. Huang. I still do not know the real reason behind this,
behind the returning of that $1.6 million. I did not really
have the privilege of knowing that. DNC did not really tell me
about that. I don't know what the true reason on that, but at
the time when I collect those money, I did not have any of
those information, whether it was a decoy or not.
Mr. Shays. It would be helpful for you to be prepared
tomorrow when we go through that number, and we will go through
each of the numbers and why they were returned. They were
returned because they were illegal contributions. Believe me,
the DNC or the RNC is not going to return money if they, in
fact, were raised legally, and with all the ways you can get
around the law and be legal, it's really significant when you
have to return the money because you can raise money from
corporations and labor unions and from foreign governments and
have it not be illegal technically under the law if it's soft
money. So this is money I would like to have you explain.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Shays. Yes, I'd be happy to.
Mr. Waxman. I would just like to make a point. He may or
may not know about the source or reason for the return of the
contributions by the DNC, but as I understand it, in some cases
the DNC returned money if they did not have sufficient
information to know whether it was a legal contribution, as
well as contributions they knew to be illegal.
Mr. Shays. Maybe what you could do is you could come
tomorrow and provide us the information on why they took the
$1.6 million and gave it back because they wouldn't have done
it unless they felt they needed to.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you for giving me the homework
assignment. I am simply informing you from the press reports
that I have read that they gave some back and for reasons, but
you can ask the DNC. I have no knowledge myself.
Mr. Shays. Reclaiming my time, it is just since I yielded
to you and you seem to have an opinion about it, maybe I think
then you can share the information. The bottom line is the DNC,
the DNC returned $1.6 million, and I'd like to know why they
returned $1.6 million that you raised, and we will go through
that, but I suspect that's also a mistake, and you did it while
you were at the DNC. You raised this money while you were at
the DNC, correct?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, I really did not know why we returned
that now.
Mr. Shays. Did you raise this money while you were at the
DNC?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. It is money returned, some of it illegal, and
yet in response to Mr. Waxman's question, you said the DNC did
not do anything illegal. You were an employee of the DNC. I
want to make sure that you aren't splitting hairs here. If you
raised money as an employee of the DNC, the DNC did something
illegal.
Mr. Huang. No. At the time when I raised the money, DNC did
not know those things were illegal.
Mr. Shays. Right. And your testimony is that you didn't
know any of that money was illegal?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, at the time when I raised it.
Mr. Shays. Now--but it is also a fact that just because you
didn't know it doesn't make it illegal, I mean, we don't have
that convenience, and to be able to say, since I didn't know it
was illegal, therefore it is not illegal--it was illegal, and I
wonder if your answer to Mr. Waxman was as candid as it needed
to be. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I want to seek my 5-minute round
now.
Mr. Burton. You had 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. That was in the last round. If the gentleman
would permit, because I would like to be able to respond to
some of the points that were just made.
Mr. Burton. The reason we have a limitation of 5 minutes,
and we are just going right down the line, and we'll come back
to you.
Mr. Waxman. But point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are in the
second 5-minute round. I have not had a chance to do that. We
did the round, you concluded the first 5-minute round, and then
we started the second 5-minute round, and we are going to Mr.
Shays.
Mr. Burton. We are going in order. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Shays. May I be clear on one thing. I make an
assumption that you said 30 minutes each. So, Mr. Burton, you
used your 30 minutes, and you used your 30, so the same thing
would apply to you, I guess, as well.
Mr. Burton. It would, but we'll go ahead and let Mr. Waxman
go now. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Before you all applaud yourselves for being so
generous, the rules are that when you have a 5-minute round,
each Member gets 5 minutes, and it goes back and forth, and you
will hear only from Republicans from here on out in asking
questions.
If you receive--if you solicit a contribution working for
the DNC, and you don't know that it is illegal, and you receive
it, and the DNC doesn't know it's illegal, that doesn't mean
you committed any illegal act or the DNC committed any illegal
act; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Waxman. But Mr. Shays is correct, it is an illegal
contribution because the person who gave it might have given it
improperly or illegally.
Mr. Huang. That's after the fact.
Mr. Waxman. Is that your understanding? So I have heard--
and I don't know what the DNC records are, but I am sure this
committee has asked for it, and so some way or another maybe we
can get that information out--the DNC after the Presidential
election in 1996 found out that some of the contributions that
they had received thinking they were legal turned out to have
been improperly made to them, and they gave some of them back.
Is that your understanding as well?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. Now, I also understand that some of the
contributions they received, they couldn't figure out whether
they were legal or not, and because they didn't have sufficient
information, it didn't make it illegal, they just--because all
this turmoil was going on in the press, and the Republicans
were screaming and yelling, they just returned the money to the
contributor and for no particular reason, except the
appearance. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Huang. That is best I can understand, yes.
Mr. Waxman. So before Mr. Shays gives you a homework
assignment and gives me a homework assignment, he ought to ask
the members of the staff of this committee that subpoenaed over
a million documents from the White House and the DNC and
everybody else in sight to give us this information, because I
don't know if you are going to be able to answer questions you
don't know anything about, and I am certainly not going to be
able to answer questions that I don't know anything about.
So I want to put that on the record, and have people
understand, it is the same if Mr. Shays receives a campaign
contribution or Mr. Burton or I, and we don't know that it came
from somebody that was not entitled to give us a contribution.
We try before we receive it or when we disclose it to make sure
that it wasn't a corporate contribution, which would be
illegal. If we find it is corporate, we return it. If it were a
corporate contribution, it is not illegal unless the person
making the contribution knew that it was illegal to give it.
Sometimes people give a contribution, they write a check
out of their corporate account, and then we draw their
attention to the matter and return the contribution and say we
can't accept it. If we knew it were corporate and accepted it
and used it, then that's a different story.
I wanted also, just because I have the time and a few
minutes--Mr. Burton seemed shocked that anybody would give a
million-dollar contribution out of the goodness of their heart.
Well, people don't give contributions out of the goodness of
their heart. Maybe Mr. Riady was doing it because he wanted to
impress upon President Clinton that he was giving him or going
to raise for him $1 million, and as you indicated, he had a
multiplicity of motives; isn't that right?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Waxman. He wasn't doing it just out of the goodness of
his heart. I am conjecturing, but he wanted the status of
riding in the limo with the President?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Waxman. Being able to be someone who could call on the
President as one of his major supporters and friends? There are
a lot of friends people have in politics, and friendships
defined under our crummy campaign finance system as people who
give us money--they become our friends. They're the ones that
get access to us. They are the ones that are meeting in the
congressional offices all the time.
The tobacco industry happens to be a very close friend of
the Republican party. They gave $8.8 million to the RNC. Now,
they got a tax break, which they couldn't hold onto when it
became public, of $50 billion, and there is an organization
called Amway. Their founder, Richard DeVos, and his wife gave
$1 million to the RNC in April 1997. During the 1997 budget,
Speaker Gingrich worked to secure tax breaks worth more than
$200 million for Amway. Well, I don't know Mr. DeVos, but I
know he's a very devoted Republican. He probably idealogically
likes the Republicans and wants to help them succeed, but it
doesn't mean that he wouldn't come and ask for some assistance
from them.
There is a Texas businessman by the name of Harold Simmons,
and his family, they gave $1.5 million to Republican candidates
since 1980. The 1997 budget gave them a $60 million tax break.
Now, are these quid pro quos? They didn't maybe say, ``I
will give you this money and you give me a tax break.'' They
suddenly became friends of the people who were able to write
the tax laws because they control the Congress. So, if
anything, Mr. Shays ought to understand, because he said it
over and over again, this campaign finance system is
disgustingly corrupting because people are out raising money
all the time, and the limits that we used to have, that try to
bring some sense to the laws, are out the window. It used to be
when we ran for Congress, we can get no more than $1,000
contribution per person. Well, sure, but you can give $10,000
of corporate money to the Republican or the Democratic party
building organizations, and then they run the commercials.
The American people know this system stinks. Some people
have tried to change it like Mr. Shays, but if you go down the
list of the members on this committee, I don't know, most of
them probably voted against Mr. Shays' bill. I voted for it,
and the purpose of this investigation should have been to
change the campaign finance system. Instead, as I have said
over and over and over again, and will continue to say, the
purpose of this hearing, since it is only looking at campaign
issues relating to Democrats, is to use the taxpayers' money,
$7 million in the last Congress, to try to figure out ways to
make the Democrats and President Clinton look bad while we all
look bad when we have a campaign finance system that we have at
the present time where people are out raising money. Even the
chairman is raising money, I am raising money, everybody is
raising money. And then our friends who give us money want to
come in and talk to us about things of mutual interest.
My time, I see, is up, but I felt that I really ought to
throw this information out there. Let's not kid anybody about
what's going on. We have got a system where everybody is out
raising money, and it invites corruption on the part of people
involved in it.
Mr. Burton. I will take my 5 minutes real quickly here. As
time goes on, we will get back into the Riadys and the Lippo
Group ties to the PRC intelligence agencies. We know through
Johnny Chung that $300,000 was given to him to be given to the
President's reelection committee. He testified under oath about
the head of the Peoples Liberation Army's intelligence agency,
and Mr. Chung, Johnny Chung, knew that he was subject to
perjury charges as well if he lied. So the People's Liberation
Army intelligence agencies, during the time that espionage was
taking place at Los Alamos and they were given nuclear secrets,
were giving money to the President's reelection committee, and
that's a fact.
Now, Senator Lieberman said, and I said this earlier,
quote, nonpublic evidence presented to the committee, that's
intelligence information, demonstrates a continuing business-
intelligence relationship between the Riadys, the Lippo Group,
and the PRC intelligence service. So once again you have got
the People's Liberation Army in Communist China tied to the
Riadys because of our intelligence services stating that. Now,
we can't go into details, but that's fact.
Now, Mr. Riady, a member of that group, gave $1 million to
the President's campaign. He knew it was illegal. Now, that's
different than somebody doing something even though it might be
illegal here in the United States, because we are talking about
a foreign government or a foreign entity that has ties to the
People's Liberation Army and their intelligence apparatus
giving $1 million, and we don't know what the reason for that
was. So there is an awful lot of things here that we ought to
be concerned about.
In addition to that, let me talk about what we were talking
about earlier and what Mr. Shays was talking about. You knew
that you had given or raised money illegally, you have already
admitted that.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. When did you know that that money was illegally
raised?
Mr. Huang. It was starting from 1992.
Mr. Burton. From 1992. So you went to the DNC as one of the
financial fundraising leaders over there after you knew you had
broken the law, and you had raised money illegally, you knew
that. Now, after you went over there, you raised $3 million,
and $1.6 million was returned because it was illegal. Now, you
have sworn under oath here to tell us the truth, and you said
that you didn't know that money was illegal, but you know it
has to raise a question in some of our minds. You knew you were
raising money illegally back in 1992, 1993 and 1994, but when
you went to the DNC, you raised $3 million, $1.6 million of
which was returned, and you are saying you did not know that
was illegal money?
Mr. Huang. That is correct. At the time when I raised the
money, I did not think the money I raised was illegal, when I
was in DNC.
Mr. Burton. When you were at the DNC, you did not think it
was illegal?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. But the money you raised prior to that, back in
1992 and 1993 and 1994, you knew that there was illegality
involved then?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. So when you went to the DNC and you raised this
$3 million, you didn't continue the practice of raising the
money illegally?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. And yet $1.6 million was returned because it
was illegal?
Mr. Huang. I did not know again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I know, but the point is you can understand why
we might be a little bit concerned because you raised money
illegally knowing it, and then you come to the DNC and you
raised $3 million plus, and $1.6 million is returned, just like
the other was illegal money, and you are saying you didn't know
that when you were at the DNC.
Mr. Huang. The matter, it was illegal during 1992 and 1994,
Mr. Chairman, was related to a very close group which is within
the Lippo Group executive. It was not going outside that group,
as you probably know from the--from the records, but when I was
in the DNC, I did not really go into the practice. I didn't go
to the--you know, the general public's basically and----
Mr. Burton. I think you can see, Mr. Huang, how we have
some concerns and maybe some doubts in the back of our mind,
because if it was illegal here, and you were raising money and
you knew it, and then you go to the DNC and you raise $3
million, and $1.6 million is returned because it is illegal,
you would think that you might have known that because you were
doing it previously, it was a previous mode of operation.
Let me go back to some other questions because I want to
stay on this one theme that--or one issue that we were looking
at regarding the limousine ride, because there are a lot of
things that we are going to try to get to regarding that. Did
anyone suggest that Mr. Riady should not give $1 million in
contributions to the President's committee or to the DNC?
Mr. Huang. You talking about raise $1 million?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Did anyone say he should not do that, raising
it from the Lippo?
Mr. Huang. I have no knowledge on that.
Mr. Burton. When he told you that, did you say anything to
him about, hey, that might not be the right thing to do because
it is money coming from a foreign corporation?
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. You didn't say anything?
Mr. Huang. I did not say anything.
Mr. Burton. Are James Riady and President Clinton the only
two people who can say what actually happened in that
limousine? To your knowledge, was there anybody else in the
limousine who could say what happened?
Mr. Huang. The obvious two person, I don't know anyone else
who might know.
Mr. Burton. Maybe you can look at exhibit 24 in your book
there. It is a chart of the Lippo-related contributions after
Mr. Riady made his $1 million promise to President Clinton, if
you can look at that. Were all of these people either Lippo
employees or spouses of Lippo employees?
[Exhibit 24 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.203
Mr. Huang. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. They were.
Were all of these contributions made to fulfil Mr. Riady's
promise to raise $1 million?
Mr. Huang. That would be part of the plan, yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall any more contributions toward Mr.
Riady's goal that are not listed there? Do you recall any other
contributions toward Mr. Riady's goal that are not listed in
that list?
Mr. Huang. Now, this list, Mr. Chairman, was during the
1992, that period of time. Later on there was some more names.
Mr. Burton. Those--that list is from 1992?
Mr. Huang. 1992 and 1993, around that period of time. All
these things were handled through the hands of--through my
hands.
Mr. Burton. Yes, I understand that.
Were any other contributions that you know of given based
upon the commitment that Mr. Riady made in addition to those? I
mean, is that the only group of people that gave money?
Mr. Huang. There will be more than that.
Mr. Burton. There would be more than that?
Mr. Huang. There would not be too many more on that.
Mr. Burton. And you were the one that was in charge of
soliciting this money for the Riady Group?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my first part of questioning, Mr. Huang, I went over the
contributions prior to the Presidential debate and leading up
to the debate, and I think you testified that there were
hundreds of thousands of dollars that, before that, went to the
Riadys, and then you said you had also contributed tens of
thousands at that point in 1992, and you also received conduit
payments and also said your wife had participated. Actually you
had performed that activity for your wife.
What I'd like to do is to move now into the Asian Pacific
Advisory Council [APAC], which was set up by Nora and Gene Lum
in California, and its inaugural event was October 27, 1992, in
Los Angeles. Did you attend that event?
Mr. Huang. I did attend.
Mr. Mica. In her deposition--and you see, you fit into the
bigger picture of how things took place and who did what in
this, and again, different parts of this scheme to funnel huge
amounts of money into the Presidential campaign and other
activities, some of it, again, from foreign sources. In her
deposition, congressional deposition, Melinda Yee denied any
involvement with APAC or APAC Vote apart from the fact that she
said she attended the APAC Vote's award ceremony in 1992 along
with Maria Haley as staffers from the Clinton-Gore campaign,
although Melinda Yee was being paid by the DNC at that time.
Are you aware of that, and she was at the event?
Mr. Huang. Melinda Yee was at the event, yes.
Mr. Mica. Yee said that APAC Vote was not affiliated with
the DNC in any way. However, their--in their proffer to the
committee, the Lums state they opened an office for an
organization affiliated with DNC, and that exhibit 33 is dated
October 12, 1992. It says, I authorize Nora Lum, and it's
signed Melinda Yee, director of constituencies, and she's
setting up that vote project. Is that correct?
[Exhibit 33 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.204
Mr. Huang. I have no knowledge about this arrangement.
Mr. Mica. You have no knowledge, but she was at the
organizational thing, and I'd point out for the committee that
this is contrary to the information given in her deposition.
Exhibit 32, just before that, is a letter to your wife, I
believe, thanking her for a contribution to this Asian Pacific
Advisory Council [APAC], and it's signed by Nora Lum. Is that
correct?
[Exhibit 32 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.205
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Mica. Further, documenting the involvement of Melinda
Yee for the benefit of the committee and the record, I refer to
exhibit 34, which shows extensive involvement in a memo from
Melinda Yee to Nora Lum discussing all of the details relating
to this fund. Do you have any knowledge of this particular memo
dated September 2, 1992?
[Exhibit 34 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.206
Mr. Huang. Congressman Mica, I do not.
Mr. Mica. You do not?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Mica. Now, another document here is exhibit 35, which
lists those who would be present on election night produced by
Melinda Yee, and it does list--that's exhibit 35. It does list,
I think, you on the second page and also the Riadys on the
second page. Were you aware of Melinda Yee's involvement in
preparing this list?
[Exhibit 35 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.209
Mr. Huang. I don't know she actually prepared the list or
not, but I was in Little Rock that night, the election night.
Mr. Mica. There is a--now you were involved in the DNC, and
we have had testimony in deposition that--that there was no
affiliation between APAC, this Asian Pacific Council, and the
DNC. Did you know if there was a relationship between the two?
Mr. Huang. At the time I did not know because I--the only
knowledge I knew is that Ms. Lum--Gene Lum was trying to
organize something and trying to drum up the vote, you know,
from the Asian community and set up organization like that, and
I did attend the kick-off function.
Mr. Mica. And did you or the Lippo Group provide funds to
this organization, and in what amount?
Mr. Huang. I probably did make contribution to that event,
maybe very small amount, either $1,500 or $2,000. That
including my wife, though.
Mr. Mica. Was any of that money reimbursed to you, or were
those personal funds?
Mr. Huang. I believe it did get reimbursed later on.
Mr. Mica. You were reimbursed for that.
Let me ask you, too, in closing, and my time is running
out, we have records and the committee has exhibits of showing
money from bank accounts during different periods. Some of
that, I guess, was wire-transferred or entered into the Lippo
accounts, and there was some cash that was brought into the
United States and some cash you received. Did you receive all
of your money through checks or through wire accounts, or did
you also receive cash?
Mr. Huang. In?
Mr. Mica. For reimbursement.
Mr. Huang. In some period of time in 1992, I did receive
some in cash.
Mr. Mica. In 19----
Mr. Huang. 1992.
Mr. Mica. Was that given--who gave you that cash?
Mr. Huang. The cash is the--I believe in final terms as
handed to me through other Lippo coworkers.
Mr. Mica. I am sorry?
Mr. Huang. Other Lippo coworker who was working closely
with Mr. Riady.
Mr. Mica. Did Mr. Riady give you any cash directly, or this
was from Mr. Riady through one of his employees or workers?
Mr. Huang. A few incidents. Some of the cases like that I
just explained to you, but some--one case he gave me the cash
or traveler's cash.
Mr. Mica. In what amount?
Mr. Huang. About $10,000 in aggregate.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. To briefly review, I am back to Webb Hubbell,
that you saw him at a reception, that you have got a call from
Doug Buford about raising--him needing help; you believed that
the phone call from Webb Hubbell to LippoBank were probably to
set up an appointment time. I have a couple of other questions.
Did Joe Giroir also contact you about helping or making you
aware of Webb Hubbell's situation?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't quite recall Joe Giroir was involved
in that, in that instance though.
Mr. Souder. So Doug Buford was your main contact?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. He was with Bruce Lindsey's former law firm?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. That--when did you first meet Webb Hubbell? Was
that reception the first time?
Mr. Huang. No. The first time I met Mr. Hubbell was in
Inauguration in 1993, Inauguration night or whatever.
Mr. Souder. You didn't know him when he was back in
Arkansas?
Mr. Huang. I knew of his name, but I don't believe I met
him before.
Mr. Souder. How would you have known of his name? Just for
the record, you did Asian bank things related to the Worthen
Bank out of Arkansas. He was with the Rose Law Firm at that
time. Did you know him in any way regarding Arkansas business?
Mr. Huang. No. My role was basically in Asia first time
when I know joined the Lippo Group in Hong Kong, but Lippo at
that time already took some major interest in Worthen Bank, and
I believe Mr. Hubbell was working for the Rose Law Firm, and
Rose Law Firm had some client--business client relationship
with either Worthen or Mr. Riady at that time.
Mr. Souder. So you at least knew his name, although you did
not know him?
Mr. Huang. No, that's correct.
Mr. Souder. And did you know him very well? Would you call
Mr. Hubbell a friend, or would you have called him a friend at
the time they first contacted you in regard to money?
Mr. Huang. Well, I considered him as a friend since he's a
friend of my--my employer, yes.
Mr. Souder. When did Mr.--now, you said that Mr. Riady, he
may have, when he was at Rose Law Firm, been working with Mr.
Riady way back in Arkansas. Do you know that for a fact?
Mr. Huang. I don't know for a fact because I do recall
there is conversation that Mr. Riady mentioned to me how he
knew Mr. Webb Hubbell.
Mr. Souder. Do you know what he would have done with Mr.
Riady at that time?
Mr. Huang. I didn't quite understand, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. In other words, what I am trying to establish
is the--did Mr. Riady consider Mr. Hubbell personally a friend?
Mr. Huang. That's correct. According to Mr. Riady to me,
mentioned to me about that.
Mr. Souder. Did he refer to him as a longtime friend, or do
you think this was more--in other words, you said you
considered Webb Hubbell a friend in kind of a second degree; he
was a friend of your friend. Did Mr. Riady--business
acquaintance, longtime friend. Or was this because--you made
the statements that you believed that he did this, and you felt
he should help with the funding, and you would help because of
friendship. What did friendship mean?
Mr. Huang. Because he's been knowing him for a long time.
Mr. Souder. And you also said that you had discussed with
Mr. Riady regarding Mr. Hubbell's pride. So the money was going
for friendship and not for a job, or in other words, the job
merely came because it was less embarrassing for Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. To the latter was the answer for that, sir.
Mr. Souder. You said earlier in response to a question that
you weren't sure, but you wondered whether the two phone calls
to Lippo Bank on May 19th may have been to set up an
appointment with Mr. Riady. Did Mr. Riady ask you to set up an
appointment for the June meeting?
Mr. Huang. Yes, he did.
Mr. Burton. So, to your knowledge, he hadn't set one up by
phone because you were the person who actually executed the
appointment?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. Could there have been another meeting that we
don't know about here between Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. Prior to June?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. No. Mr. Riady at that time, I believe, was
overseas, was not in the States.
Mr. Souder. Do you believe that Mr. Riady had any contacts
with Mr. Hubbell separate from any contacts through you?
Mr. Huang. That I would not know, but I don't believe so,
though.
Mr. Souder. Because generally you were considered the point
person in this?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Souder. When Mr. Riady came in in June, he brought
$32,000; $17,500 in traveler's checks, and, as I also recall
from your other Justice Department testimony, his expenses were
largely covered. So what did he do with the money he brought
over?
Mr. Huang. I would not know, I would not know because he
had a whole family coming over in the summer, generally also in
the wintertime for vacations. It is not unusual for him to
bring that kind of sums of money with them.
Mr. Souder. To your knowledge, none of that went to Mr.
Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't think so, no, no.
Mr. Souder. Could it have gone to Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. I don't think so.
Mr. Souder. Why don't you think so?
Mr. Huang. I believe that would be their personal spending
money. You know, there was arrangement for later on the
$100,000. That was a very good sum of money already.
Mr. Souder. Did you travel to Little Rock, AR, with Mr.
Riady in June?
Mr. Huang. I didn't quite recall, Mr. Souder, that there
was a trip to Little Rock in June, though.
Mr. Souder. What--originally Mr. Riady had appointments in
Washington for the 21st and 22nd. It was then changed, and he
was here longer, through the 21st and 25th, but he made a trip
into Little Rock, but you don't recall whether you were
involved with that. And could----
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, I really don't have any
recollection. He left town for Little Rock during that week,
though. I don't know.
Mr. Souder. Did you travel with Mr. Riady to Washington in
June 1994?
Mr. Huang. Yeah, yes.
Mr. Souder. You didn't go to Little Rock from Washington,
to your recollection?
Mr. Huang. I personally, from my recollection, did not
leave town.
Mr. Souder. I may try to followup with that tomorrow with
some more documentation.
Do you know why Mr. Riady would have changed from staying
the first 2 days to staying longer? Originally I think the
Presidential gala fundraiser was the 22nd, but then additional
meetings were set up. Is that why he lengthened his stay? Was
that a surprise?
Mr. Huang. I don't know if there's any reason why he
changed that. He did not mention to me he was originally
staying there for 2 weeks. He would be available for the whole
week there, that's my knowledge.
Mr. Souder. Did the Justice Department ask you anything
about telephone calls between you and Mr. Riady that week?
Mr. Huang. In June, the 20ths, in that week?
Mr. Souder. June 21 to 25 did the Justice Department ask
you about any telephone calls to Mr. Riady or visits to the
White House with Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. Yes. I was with him in Washington, DC. With Mr.
Riady, I mean.
Mr. Souder. I am going to ask more questions. What my
question is, did the Justice Department in their depositions,
because we don't see that, did they ask you about your visits
to the White House with Mr. Riady, I believe there were several
in the week of June 21 to 25, and the telephone calls made by
you or Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I believe so, yeah.
Mr. Souder. You believe the Justice Department asked you
those questions.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Ms. Norton, did you have any questions?
Ms. Norton. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, I want to go back to what you and the chairman
were talking about, and I know that it is going to, sadly,
consume a lot of my 5 minutes, but the great thing about this
hearing is I have got 3 more days to go back to the February
19th fundraiser.
I think where you got sideways with the chairman and what
does trouble some Members on this side of the aisle, and I know
you can clear it up, is that when I asked you before what you
have pleaded guilty to is this conspiracy to defraud the United
States of America based upon illegal campaign contributions.
And the way that a conduit scheme works, and I want to make
sure it is included in the record for people who are reading
this later or someone who is watching it on the Internet or C-
SPAN, so that they understand, if I take $20 and I give it to
Mr. Shays, and I say, give that $20 to Mr. Burton, the
contribution came from me. It didn't come from Mr. Shays. I
have used Mr. Shays as a strawman.
What makes it illegal? Well, there are a couple things that
make it illegal. But if I have already given Mr. Burton more
money than the law allows me to give, then that makes it
illegal because it is really my money. Or if I am a person that
can't contribute or participate in giving money, that can be
another example.
And that is the crime of which you stand accused and
convicted, is it not? You were donating money, others were
donating money, and then they were being paid back, so the
money wasn't really coming from you.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Because the Riadys were paying for it. That
is the crime to which you pled guilty, right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. When the chairman was talking to you
about the Vice President's fundraiser at the Buddhist temple,
the same scheme was going on. The nuns, whether you know about
it or not, the nuns who have taken a vow of poverty have
written checks for $5,000, but you know today that it was not
their money. They were straw people for other people that
wanted to make a donation to the Vice President or the
President's campaign. It's the same scheme, you grant me that,
do you not?
Mr. Huang. I read out of the newspaper. I do not know the
details for a fact, though, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Let's go to the fundraiser that we were
talking about, then, on February 19th, because we now know
today that at that fundraiser, through the help of Charlie
Trie, there were a number of illegal contributions made using
this same scheme. And in particular, I am talking about
contributions made by Davidson Wu, Ernie Green, Lei Chu, Keshi
Zhan, Manlin Foung, Joe Landon, Yue Chu, Ming Cheng, Charles
Chiang, Zhengwei Cheng, Daihatsu International, and Jack Ho.
As I understand it, you are testifying before this
committee that you did not know when you accepted the money for
this February 19th that they were illegal. But we now know
today because of the investigation, because of the testimony of
Charlie Trie, because of things that you know, because the DNC
has turned the money back, that the same thing was happening;
that is, that people were making donations to the campaign to
reelect the President, but it wasn't their money. It was money
that maybe it wasn't given to them up front, but somebody said
to them, if you write a check of $12,500 to the Committee to
Reelect President Clinton, I will give you the $12,500. It's
the same scheme for which you stand convicted from 1992 to
1994. Do you grant me that?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you see that's what makes us suspicious
over here? I don't know anybody that thinks that you're a bad
guy. I think that what you have done is not so good. But the
fact of the matter is you stand convicted of this setting up a
strawman between you and a campaign. The nuns who took the vow
of poverty are straw people between whoever really wants the
President to have the money and the President's campaign and
this list of people to a fundraiser that you were in charge of
on February 19, 1996, have done the same thing.
Now, it is--I mean, people say, well, what a coincidence. I
mean, you seem to be around all this same sort of scandal.
That's what makes it suspicious. I hope you understand, as we
ask you questions, that's what raises our curiosity. I hope you
understand that.
We were talking about this fundraiser, and now I probably
have about 30 seconds left, but did you at any time discuss
with Mr. Riady, James Riady, the event that you were putting
together on February 19, 1996, about their help?
Mr. Huang. I might have mentioned to him I did an event for
$1 million probably afterwards on some occasion I saw him or--I
saw him, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. But specifically requesting his help or
anyone from the Lippo Group to help with that event prior to
the event?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no. No.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. And what was your understanding, going
back to Charlie Trie, that he did for a living in 1996? Do you
know what he did for a living?
Mr. Huang. I think he was in the trading business, I think.
Mr. LaTourette. Right. And were you----
Mr. Huang. Excuse me, or some real estate investments. The
way I understood it, he might have made some money in the real
estate investments in Asia, some very good sum of money. I
might be wrong on that, though.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you have a chance to meet his Macao-
based partner, a fellow by the name of Ng Lap Seng?
Mr. Huang. During that fundraiser period of time, you know,
on February 19th, around that period of time, I did meet with
him.
Mr. LaTourette. And what did you understand that Mr. Ng's
business was? What business did you think that he was in?
Mr. Huang. He was in the real estate investment or also in
the trading business.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you ever have a conversation or
discussion with Mr. Ng as to whether or not he had a
relationship with the Communist Chinese Government?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not.
Mr. LaTourette. Did Mr. Ng ever indicate to you that he had
ever received money from the Chinese Government?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Before you went to work at the DNC, had you
ever had any direct fundraising--done any direct fundraising
work with Charlie Trie before you went to the DNC?
Mr. Huang. No, sir. As I reported to you earlier, I--the
first time I met with Charlie Trie was June or in the summer of
1994.
Mr. LaTourette. And when do you think that--again, the
planning for this February 19th event, when do you think your
best recollection was that you would have first discussed Mr.
Trie participating or helping you with this February 19, 1996,
fundraiser?
Mr. Huang. It must have been probably in January 1996.
Mr. LaTourette. And, in that vein, did you ask him to
contribute to the event?
Mr. Huang. No. I said I am doing something for the event,
it is for Asian community, and I would like him to help me.
Mr. LaTourette. And did that--did that in your mind mean
that he should write a check and contribute to it, or did it
mean that he should contribute to it and help you identify
other donors to contribute to the event as well?
Mr. Huang. I did not really discuss about it in detail. And
basically as long as he can raise the money or he can give the
money, it doesn't really make any difference to me at that
time.
Mr. LaTourette. But, again, the money, were you only
looking for $12,500 from him, or were you looking to him to
attract more money than that?
Mr. Huang. Basically through his connections, you know, and
he can raise more money for my event.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. That is what--so you saw him not only
as a person that could write a check but you were hoping he
could get other people to write checks as well.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, if it is soft money, the person can
write a check for $100,000 himself. It is also OK.
Mr. LaTourette. Right. And I am not trying to trick you
even though I say that. I am just asking, were you saying
``Charlie Trie, write me the biggest check you can write?'' Or
when you said will you help with the event, were you hoping
that he would not only make whatever, 12, 5, 100 whatever he
wanted to write, but that he would get others to write checks
to participate in the event? That's what I wanted to know. Did
you see him as one guy to give money no matter what the amount
was, or did you hope that he would be a guy to give money and
get other people to give money?
Mr. Huang. I did not really discuss one form or the other.
Basically, I felt he was a source of help to me. Whatever the
format it ends up is OK to me.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you, sir.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I'll defer to others.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, did you have questions now or do you
want to pass?
Henry, do you want to----
Mr. Waxman. I am entitled to 5 minutes, but I will defer it
now and let others ask questions.
Mr. Burton. We are getting to the point where we probably
want to end around 6 o'clock.
Mr. Waxman. I'm ready to end now.
Mr. Burton. Well, then, you don't have any more questions?
Mr. Waxman. We are coming back tomorrow.
Mr. Burton. You don't have any more questions tonight,
then?
Mr. Waxman. I'm not giving up my 5-minute round, but I
don't want to pursue it right now.
Mr. Burton. Instead of having 5 minutes, you can have 10
this time.
Mr. Waxman. That's going to take unanimous consent.
Mr. Burton. He's getting his extra 5 is what I'm saying.
Mr. LaTourette. This is the next round, is my
understanding. I am happy to participate in the next round as a
courtesy to the other Members that may want to wait until
later.
Did you, as you were talking to Charlie Trie about this
event on February 19, 1996, discuss or ever have a discussion
with him as to what the rules for--in other words, you
indicated to me in the other question that someone can give up
to $100,000 in soft money and it's OK. Did you ever have a
conversation with Charlie Trie as to what the rules were for
donating to an event such as yours?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I did not. The reason is, he was
quite established in front of the DNC. He wasn't the major
donor. I would assume he knew about the rules.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Likewise, I guess I would receive the
same answer if I asked you if you ever discussed the currency
transaction reporting requirements with the DNC. I assume you
did not do that either?
Mr. Huang. I did not do that either.
Mr. LaTourette. I want to talk to you next about a fellow
by the name of Antonio Pan. Are you acquainted of this person?
Mr. Huang. I knew of this person, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. And I would ask you when you first knew of
Antonio Pan and what you knew about his professional
background.
Mr. Huang. Antonio Pan used to work for Lippo Group. He had
a background in the trading business. He might have joined the
Lippo Group back in probably the beginning of the 1990's and
later on the--he was not working for me or directly related to
me. I mean, he was working with the projects in Asia is why he
was joining the group. Probably he had some responsibility
related to the real estate portion in China related to Lippo at
that time.
Mr. LaTourette. It's my understanding that at one time you
worked for a subsidiary of Lippo called T-A-T-I, TATI. Is that
the correct pronunciation?
Mr. Huang. That is involving the real estate development in
Fujian Province, far as I know.
Mr. LaTourette. So that is a real estate concern of the
Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. No, TATI was a specific project to develop a
whole bay area and industrial complex out of the--Mr. Riady's,
you know, hometown, original ancestor's town from China.
Mr. LaTourette. So, again, the answer to my question is
that this particular project, however, is located within the
People's Republic of China?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. And that is what Mr. Pan did at one
point in time is head it up?
Mr. Huang. As far as I know, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you aware at any time that Antonio Pan
then came to work for Charlie Trie?
Mr. Huang. Yes. For whatever reason, the project was
under--the whole project in China was under the reducing scale.
Maybe he was no longer working for the Lippo, and he left.
Mr. LaTourette. And do you have any understanding of what
he did for Mr. Trie, what work he did for him after he left and
went into Mr. Trie's employment?
Mr. Huang. The best I can recollect at this time is trying
to--organizing things for Mr. Trie.
Mr. LaTourette. Do what? I'm sorry.
Mr. Huang. Organizing things for Mr. Trie.
Mr. LaTourette. What sort of things?
Mr. Huang. You know, the detail parts. You know, Mr. Trie,
he basically--I don't know him very well. I have to speculate
he was not really organizing. He is a businessman, run around,
did not pay attention to the detail. He needed somebody to help
him on that. More like a personal assistant.
Mr. LaTourette. Like a right-hand man?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. I don't know if we can--I certainly don't
want to catch the staff by surprise--but I would like to refer
you to something known as 316. And exhibit 316 is a series of
$1,000 travelers checks from the Bank of Central Asia in
Jakarta.
Mr. Trie, to our knowledge, used 200 of these travelers
checks for a variety of purposes in 1996, including the
reimbursement of political contributions made by Manlin Foung,
Joseph Landon, and Jack Ho.
I think when I was talking to you in my last 5 minutes, I
was indicating that some of the people that Mr. Trie solicited
for the event that you were in charge of on February 19th were
determined to be illegal, and they have been determined to be
conduit contributions wherein they made the contribution, but
then somebody gave them the money to cover the cost.
Specifically, exhibit 316 represents $1,000 travelers
checks that were used by Mr. Trie to pay back these three
individuals for contributions that they made to the February
19th event that you were in charge of for the Democratic
National Committee. And I would ask you, prior to them, you are
now looking at them and we're looking at them on the screen,
are you familiar at all with these travelers checks?
[Exhibit 316 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.244
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you ever discuss the idea of travelers
checks with Charlie Trie relative to this event?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you ever discuss the travelers checks
with Antonio Pan?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you have any knowledge as to the source
of these particular travelers checks?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. So, specifically, you have no idea as to
whether or not Mr. Trie received these from the Lippo Group or
the Riady family?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you able to make out the signature on
the travelers check?
Mr. Huang. On exhibit 316?
Mr. LaTourette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huang. I don't know the signature appearing. There's a
last name called Ho, H-O.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. And during the time that you were
debriefed by the Justice Department, did they ever inquire or
ask you about these travelers checks and their connection with
the February 19, 1996, fundraiser?
Mr. Huang. No. No, sir. No.
Mr. LaTourette. At any time during your acquaintance with
Charlie Trie, did you ever discuss with him any travel that he
might have made to Jakarta?
Mr. Huang. He had some business contact in Jakarta.
Mr. LaTourette. And was that the subject of conversations
that you and he might have had?
Mr. Huang. Oh, he was talking about business contacts,
businessmen he knew in Indonesia.
Mr. LaTourette. Specifically, are you aware of any
relationship between the Trie family and the Riady family?
Mr. Huang. No. He had--to the best of my knowledge, he had
no relationship with the Riady family.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you. And I thank Mr. Burton. I
yield back my few seconds.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield to me for one
question?
Mr. LaTourette. Sure. I would be happy to.
Mr. Burton. You indicated that Antonio Pan worked for the
Riadys and that the Riadys--there was no connection between the
Riady family and Charlie Trie. So how did Antonio Pan come to
work for Charlie Trie if there was no connection? Who
introduced them to each other? I mean, how did Antonio Pan
start working for Charlie Trie if he didn't know him and if the
only connection Antonio Pan had with Charlie Trie would have
been through the Riadys?
Mr. Huang. The best I can know, Mr. Chairman, there was
another person who used to be Antonio Pan's boss, happens to be
a--I don't know if it's a real brother-in-law to Charlie Trie
or not. So that is how the connection between them to know each
other, I believe.
Mr. Burton. Well, that's quite a coincidence.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I'll pass.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, I want to be clear on how you define your terms
a bit just so I make sure that we are both talking the same way
here. And I want to clarify some points.
You pleaded guilty to conspiracy in terms of certain
fundraising activities, and basically you were the conduit for
other people's money, whether they gave it to you at first and
you paid it or whether you paid it and then they paid you.
Bottom line, that was a major part. And you were also aware of
other people who were doing that as well, and that was part of
the conspiracy. Others were being a conduit for funds; is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now, I'm not clear as to the amount in which
you pleaded guilty to. How much of this kind of activity--what
did it add up to in dollars?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Sorry about that, sir.
Mr. Shays. I'm not in a rush. We have time. I'd rather just
get an accurate answer.
Mr. Huang. During the--Congressman, sorry for the delay.
Mr. Shays. You don't need to apologize.
Mr. Huang. Right. During the plea agreement, let me explain
that the argument--the government argued for--the amount was
$150 some thousand. And in addition to that----
Mr. Shays. $150 or----
Mr. Huang. $150 some thousand, $156,000 to be exact. But in
addition to that, because of the nature of the conduit of the
money, it probably involved another $700,000 or $800,000 all
together.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now, let me explore the $700,000 to
$800,000. Is this money that you did that you did not have to
plead guilty to? In other words, you were the conduit for
$700,000 to $800,000 more, but it wasn't part of the specific
charge?
Mr. Huang. I need a little time on that.
Mr. Burton. Can I interrupt for just 1 second? We
understand that the lawyers' conversations with their client
may be going across the television airways so you should be--if
you want to keep it confidential between you and your client, I
am just telling you this because you have that privilege.
Mr. Shays. And I would also like to say I'm sure the
chairman will give me the time requisite. There is no problem
with you taking as much time as we need to answer these
questions. Because this is not just an hour's hearings. We have
time, and we want to be thoughtful.
Mr. Cobb. I just want the Congressman to understand there
is a couple of legal issues that make answering this difficult,
but I think we are almost there.
Mr. Cobb. Congressman Shays, if I might.
Mr. Burton. You have to forgive me, only your client can
respond. That is the rules of the committee. But if you want to
have him respond.
Mr. Cobb. He doesn't know the answer. That is why I was
trying to be helpful and explain the legal point.
Mr. Burton. What was the question, Mr. Shays?
Mr. Shays. The question is, Mr. Huang is acknowledging that
he has $150,000 that bears directly with conspiracy and
laundering the money. And I asked him is that the full extent
of it. And then I was hearing a number of $700,000 to $800,000,
and we need that defined. I don't know, if he can't, if Mr.
Huang can't define it, then I think we need the lawyer to, with
unanimous consent----
Mr. Burton. Is there a unanimous consent to allow the
counsel to----
Mr. Waxman. I have no objection.
Mr. Burton. OK. Go ahead.
Mr. Cobb. My only purpose is to be responsive, Congressman.
Under the law that governs what a prosecutor can do, a
prosecutor under these circumstances with a cooperating
witness, particularly one that has cooperated this extensively,
can only argue at sentencing for the amount that he could prove
independent of the cooperation. So the independent proof was
for $156,000. Mr. Huang advised him of another approximately
$800,000. I hope that clarifies this.
Mr. Shays. That clarifies it.
Would you define that other $700,000 to $800,000, what kind
of contributions they were, and were they the same type of
contributions?
Mr. Huang. Yes. During that period of time, involving all
the executives of the Lippo Group.
Mr. Shays. So the Lippo Group, various people contributed,
and we can assume that they were paid back, and that wasn't
actually their money; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is how I would answer the question,
although I did not directly go to verify whether you received
the money from somebody or not.
Mr. Shays. It was your sense, and that is why it is
responsive, it was your sense that that was in fact the case,
that this ultimately wasn't their money.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. So that is a sizable amount of money. And let me
ask you this before I--just learn a little more about that. Is
there any other money in addition to this--since you have
immunity--during any time from 1990 to the present that you
were a conduit for or knew others were conduits for, that you
had some involvement in?
Mr. Huang. I cannot quite recall at this particular moment,
sir. I don't think so.
Mr. Shays. Do I have a few more minutes?
Mr. Burton. Because of the legal counseling, if there is no
objection, we will let you have another minute.
Mr. Shays. You made it clear to me that--it is not clear to
me. But you said that when you were at the Commerce Department,
you had interactions with--you did not have interactions with
the Riadys; is that correct, you did not?
Mr. Huang. I should not say that, because sometimes they
visit towns, and as a friend, I just say hello.
Mr. Shays. So is it your testimony under oath that it was
purely and totally personal and it did not relate to any of
their business activities?
Mr. Huang. That is basically correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. But then you said, then you----
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry.
Mr. Shays. But then you said you had business dealings
with--business associates of the Riadys, partners of the
Riadys, is that correct, while you were at Commerce? You
mentioned--excuse me, while you were at the DNC. You didn't say
that, but let me ask you this: While you were at Commerce,
you--your only dealings--it is your testimony under oath your
only dealings with the Riadys was personal in nature and did
not involve any business activities. You did not try to help
them financially, you did not try to help them in their
business dealings while you worked at Commerce; is that your
testimony?
Mr. Huang. The only exception, Mr. Shays, was I introduced
Mr. Joe Gerard to my senior in the Commerce Department, David
Rothcopf, basically just introduced him, that's all, in the
early--probably around August 1994 when I just joined the
Commerce Department.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Burton. I will continue when my
time is returned. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I'll pass.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
put into the record--Mr. Waxman had referred to comments by
William Safire. I think it is only fair that the full article
be inserted into the record and also a Washington Post article
on the Hubbell meetings.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.253
Mr. Souder. I wanted to come back to my Hubbell questioning
again. A couple of things to clarify. My last question to you
was, did the Justice Department ask you about visits to the
White House by you and James Riady during the week of June 21st
to 25th? You and Mr. Riady, according to records, visited the
White House six times. And your answer to me was that the
Justice Department had asked you questions.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. What did you tell them about the visits? The
reason I ask you that is that the 302s that we have show no
questions from the Justice Department. It could be redacted
materials, and that is why I would like to know what they were
asking you about.
Mr. Huang. If I can recall correctly, the question was
relating to my--the activities when I was--we were in
Washington, DC, during that week. I might have it confused that
that was the independent counsel's office.
Mr. Souder. OK. So let me then ask the question a different
way. In any of those six visits to the White House that week,
in response to a question from Mr. Waxman, you said Mr. Riady
had a multiplicity of interests. Did he talk about any of those
multiplicity of interests in any of those visits to the White
House when you were present?
Mr. Huang. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. Souder. So you went to the White House six times,
mainly for social and pictures and so on; or were there any
policy discussions?
Mr. Huang. Sorry for the delay, Mr. Souder. The activities
over the years are not always five to six times to see the
President. Also there was some activity meeting with some of
the acquaintances, you know, the other people. Some of the
meetings, I did not even attend myself.
Mr. Souder. OK. I'll have further questions about that
probably into tomorrow morning. The problem with this is we are
having to do deposition-type things. Many of these questions
may not yield much information because we didn't get any pre-
screening, so I am doing the best I can to get to some points,
but I have some followups with that.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, before you followup with that, I can
tell you there is one event he did meet with the President,
which is on the radio address on Saturday I believe on that
week.
Mr. Souder. And in the--I'm going to followup. I want to
come back to June, to early June. I mentioned about you going
to Little Rock around--with Mr. Riady earlier than that. If we
could put this--we have redacted the numbers and so on. But
your American Express, I believe it is, or it is a credit card,
I don't know what it is, shows that you rented a car and were
in Little Rock the 19th through the 21st. But you don't
remember anything about that visit being in Little Rock? It
does not show----
Mr. Cobb. Is there an exhibit number?
Mr. Souder. No, this was not an exhibit. What happened, I
had a question that asked about you being in Little Rock. Then
I asked staff, why would you have thought he was in Little
Rock? And so they said, well, from the expense records--which
was not an exhibit. I was just trying to establish whether you
remember being in Little Rock that time.
Mr. Cobb. We can't see it from the monitors.
Mr. Burton. Can we make a copy and give it to Mr. Huang?
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.254
Mr. Huang. Can you give me a time, and maybe I can try to
help out.
Mr. Souder. The car rental shows 19th through the 21st. And
Mr. Riady is coming--you head back to Washington the same time
Mr. Riady does. That also shows plane tickets from Mr. Riady
coming in from New Orleans. And since you and he arrived at the
same time in Washington, the question is, since you got a
rental car, were you together in that period?
Mr. Huang. No. He came from different direction. I don't
think he was in Little Rock. This expense report--no, this
American Express charges is my name. Definitely I was in Little
Rock. But I didn't believe Mr. Riady was in Little Rock at that
time.
Mr. Souder. When you were in Little Rock at that time? Did
you do anything at that point with Webb Hubbell's funds?
Mr. Huang. I don't remember exactly what I do, but I do
remember I did not meet with Mr. Webb Hubbell. In Little Rock
I'm talking about.
Mr. Souder. And you don't recall being with Mr. Riady until
you got to Washington?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Souder. OK. In the period in Washington, in exhibit 97,
if exhibit 97 could go up on the screen, it says that John
Huang called at 9:10, wants to arrange a meeting with you
tomorrow with Mark Middleton. Why did you call him for a
meeting?
[Exhibit 97 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.255
Mr. Huang. Oh, Mark Middleton was an acquaintance of myself
and also with Mr. Riady. His age group is closer to ours and
also his position is a little junior, so we normally work with
him. We go to see him also first.
Mr. Burton. See him about what, just do a social call? Or I
mean, presumably Mr. Riady wants to come in and wants to talk
about business, too. I mean was it about Webb Hubbell, was it
about other interests of Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. No, for Mr. Riady's discussion, I do not know. I
do remember there was a luncheon in the White House that Mr.
Riady had with Mark Middleton which I did not have privilege to
attend. I was sitting in the reception room waiting for them.
Mr. Souder. Do you know where you were when you called Mark
Middleton that day?
Mr. Huang. I would assume it was probably in the hotel, in
Hay Adams probably.
Mr. Souder. The reason I wonder is, your rental car is in
Little Rock that day you called Mark Middleton. And the reason,
when you try to put this together--and what is confusing, and
we don't know and that is why I'm asking you the questions--but
it appears you're in Little Rock, you call for a meeting with
Mark Middleton, you are not with Mr. Riady, so you must be
doing some sort of scheduling for Mr. Riady. And the logical
question is, since you're in Little Rock, does this have
anything to do with Mr. Hubbell? Because you just had a meeting
with Mr. Hubbell. You are trying to set up meetings with Mr.
Hubbell. It is a time you are talking to Mr. Riady about the
money with Mr. Hubbell. So we are trying to establish here what
points of contact were made. And could this have been partly as
part of the effort to find out what Mr. Hubbell needs?
Mr. Huang. That--to answer that question, it is not. At
this moment, I could not really trace my memory what I was
doing in Little Rock during that period of time. I was trying
to arrange the various schedule for Mr. Riady when he comes to
town during that week. Maybe one of the meetings was for Mr.
Riady to meet with Mark Middleton and along with the others.
Mr. Souder. What other reason would you have to be in
Little Rock at that time?
Mr. Huang. I cannot.
Mr. Souder. Did you go to Little Rock very often?
Mr. Huang. Occasionally, I do. I do.
Mr. Souder. Did you have business interests there?
Mr. Huang. I did not personally have any business interests
over there.
Mr. Souder. Relatives?
Mr. Huang. No, no.
Mr. Souder. I mean, not to say anything negative about
Little Rock, but it is not a place that you probably went to
vacation.
Mr. Huang. It was not a vacation.
Mr. Souder. Arkansas is, but not Little Rock. It seems like
an odd place and odd time to suddenly pop in there in between
the meetings. Mr. Riady is in Washington the 13th, he's in
Washington the 21st. You don't have business interests, you
don't have relatives, and all of a sudden you're going into
Little Rock.
Mr. Huang. You know, I have to speculate. I don't know at
this moment. Whether I was seeing Doug Buford or whoever, Joe
Giroir at that time, I don't know.
Mr. Souder. Of course if it was Doug Buford, he had called
you about that money. I know you're speculating. If you can
think about that a little bit tonight.
Mr. Huang. Sure. Let me spend some efforts in doing that,
sir, please.
Mr. Souder. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. We're about to wrap up because I said we would
be out of here at 6 o'clock. Mr. Waxman has passed on his
round, and so I will be the last questioner and then we will
start off tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. We will try to do it
as sharply as possible.
Let me ask just a few questions here, Mr. Huang.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 25, if you can look at that real
quickly, it is a memo of October 20, 1993, from Mary Leslie to
Mark Middleton, and it is regarding early California business
support for President Clinton. And the memo says, ``Lippo gave
one of the most significant single contributions throughout the
campaign.''
Do you know what Ms. Leslie was talking about?
[Exhibit 25 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.258
Mr. Huang. I'm still trying to find exhibit 25, sir.
Mr. Burton. It's exhibit No. 25. It's at the very end of
the tabbed section.
She says Lippo gave one of the most significant
contributions throughout the campaign. Do you know what she's
talking about? She wrote that memo to Mark Middleton.
Mr. Huang. I don't exactly know what she's talking about. I
can think because--chairman, you referred me to check with the
previous exhibits, there is a list of the Lippo executives
making all the contributions during 1992, that period of time.
Maybe they are talking about that.
Mr. Burton. What I am trying to find out is was Ms. Leslie
or Mark Middleton aware that this money was being laundered
through conduits?
Mr. Huang. They did not know.
Mr. Burton. They did not know.
Mr. Huang. They did not know.
Mr. Burton. You're absolutely certain about that?
Mr. Huang. I'm absolutely certain.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask you about your situation. What was
your salary at the LippoBank?
Mr. Huang. It was about--during that period of time, on the
average, probably around 120. That is without bonus.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit No. 4 is a journal entry for Hip Hing
Holdings for June 1994. Are these checks to you, which are
around $2,200 twice a month, was that your salary checks from
the LippoBank?
[Exhibit 4 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.259
Mr. Huang. Yes. At that point, with Hip Hing Holdings, that
was my net, after-tax salary at that time. That gross is around
$75,000. As I also reported, I also received a separate income
around $2,500 a month separately. That went into my Hong Kong,
Chinese bank accounts.
Mr. Burton. What was your bonus for 1992 from Lippo? Do you
recall?
Mr. Huang. The reporting on taxes, I think it was $100,000
at that time.
Mr. Burton. You received a $100,000 bonus.
Mr. Huang. That is including that, you know, reimbursement
for covering the campaign contributions.
Mr. Burton. So they did give you reimbursement for the
campaign contributions?
Mr. Huang. Within that $100,000.
Mr. Burton. So that was the money that you and your wife
gave to the DNC and the DSCC?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Now what was your bonus for 1993, and did that
include also money like that?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. OK. Well, then we don't need to have the exact
amount.
Exhibit No. 5 is a June 27, 1994, letter to Roy Tirtadji,
Managing Director of Lippo Group, to John Huang. Does this
accurately state the amount of your severance package from
Lippo?
[Exhibit 5 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.260
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 6 is a Hip Hing Holdings check to you
for $284,798 on July 15th. Is this the severance check you
received from Lippo in July 1994?
[Exhibit 6 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.261
Mr. Huang. That is the net amount after the exhibit 5, the
figure you were talking about, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. So you had both of those?
Mr. Huang. Not both, just one.
Mr. Burton. Just the one. OK.
Mr. Huang. Because this is net after taxes.
Mr. Burton. OK. Exhibit No. 7 is a September 1994 ledger
entry from Hip Hing Holdings. What does that amount listed
``tie bonus to gross'' represent?
[Exhibit 7 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.263
Mr. Huang. I have no idea on that.
Mr. Burton. Well, this prior balance of $230,000, does that
represent part of the money that you received from Lippo for
reimbursement for contributions, that $230,000? It says prior
balance of $230,000.
Mr. Huang. Are you talking about----
Mr. Burton. Is that a prior balance in his account?
Mr. Huang. Oh, you are talking about the following page
right now.
Mr. Burton. Yes. It says, prior balance $230,000. Is that a
balance that is left in your account there?
Mr. Huang. That is not my account, though. That is a Hip
Hing account, right? Am I correct? From the list here, it is a
Hip Hing Holdings account?
Mr. Burton. Do you know what the $230,000 was?
Mr. Huang. It could be related to the bonus for the prior
year, sir.
Mr. Burton. I see. OK. And the $673,125, what does that
represent?
Mr. Huang. I don't know about that, sir.
Mr. Burton. Did your severance package cover all political
contributions by you and your wife for 1994?
Mr. Huang. It did. It did.
Mr. Burton. Do all departing employees at Lippo receive a
severance package?
Mr. Huang. I would not know what the other people's
arrangements----
Mr. Burton. You don't have any idea.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. How much did it cost a year to maintain your
two homes in California?
Mr. Huang. Quite a lot.
Mr. Burton. I know. I understand that. But do you have any
idea how much? I'll tell you what. Let's just stop right there,
and we'll start tomorrow morning and talk about your income and
that sort of thing.
With that, gentlemen I appreciate your tolerance, and I
appreciate your staying awake so long, and we will see you
tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock a.m.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth-Hage
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.264
Mr. Burton. The committee stands in recess.
Mr. Huang. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Shays, Souder, LaTourette,
Waxman, and Norton.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C.
Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy counsel and
parliamentarian; Mark Corallo, director of communications;
Kristi Remington, senior counsel; James J. Schumann and Scott
Billingsley, counsels, Kimberly A. Reed, investigative counsel;
Renee Becker, deputy press secretary; Robert Briggs, assistant
clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Michael Canty and Toni
Lightle, staff assistants; Nicole Petrosino, legislative aide;
Leneal Scott, computer systems manager; Lisa Smith Arafune,
chief clerk; Maria Tamburri, assistant to the chief counsel;
Corinne Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil Schiliro,
minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel;
Kenneth Ballen, minority chief investigative counsel; David
Sadkin and Paul Weinberger, minority counsels; Ellen Rayner,
minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant; and
Andrew Su, minority research assistant.
Also present: Ty Cobb and Jack Keeney, counsel to Mr.
Huang.
Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Government Reform will come to order.
Mr. Huang, I want to welcome you back, and your counsel. I
want to remind you that you are still under oath and we will
resume questioning of Mr. Huang in 5-minute rounds by members
of the committee.
Let me start off by saying that we originally planned to
start out this morning by questioning a witness from the
Justice Department. The reason was that they had not complied
with our subpoena. Yesterday, they complied with our subpoena,
so I excused the witness. However, I would like to tell you
what we discovered from the Justice Department, and the reason
why they didn't want to agree to our subpoena. It is very
troubling, and I want to take time to talk about it.
We asked the Justice Department to provide us with copies
of the FBI's interview summaries. Over the years, they
routinely have given them to congressional committees. We asked
for John Huang's summaries. They gave them to us. We asked for
Charlie Trie's summaries. They gave them to us. They sent us
the Johnny Chung summaries and we didn't even ask for those.
Then we asked them to send us the interview summaries of
the President and the Vice President. The Justice Department
was required to produce them under our subpoena. That is when
the trouble started. We were met with excuse after excuse,
delay after delay.
Suddenly, they came up with a new policy. They weren't
going to give FBI interview summaries, the 302s, to Congress
anymore. They said we would have to come to the Department and
read them, but we couldn't have copies.
So I sent my staff over to read the interviews. It became
very clear why they didn't want us to have those 302s. They
interviewed the President twice, once in 1997 and once in 1998,
and I hope you will understand this, this is very important.
They never asked the President one single question about
John Huang.
They never asked the President a single question about
James Riady.
They never asked the President one single question about
Charlie Trie.
How can that be? What kind of an investigation is this?
There aren't many people in this town who have been tougher
critics of Janet Reno than I have, but I am even stunned by
this.
It doesn't stop there. They interviewed Vice President Gore
three times.
They didn't ask him a single question about the Hsi Lai
Temple fundraiser.
They didn't ask him a single question about John Huang or
Maria Hsia.
What is going on here? How could they not ask the President
and the Vice President about John Huang or James Riady? Did
they forget? Did they think it wasn't important? Did someone
tell them not to?
I am so disillusioned, I don't have the words to describe
my feelings. We asked the Attorney General time and time again
to appoint an independent counsel, but she said, ``No. I am the
Attorney General; you can trust me. I will conduct a thorough
and vigorous investigation.''
I am going to read you what the Attorney General said when
she testified before our committee in 1997, ``In this
particular campaign finance investigation, as in all others
entrusted to the Department of Justice, we are going to follow
every lead wherever it goes.''
Well, it is pretty obvious that she has not done that. We
have seen the evidence over and over. Documents were being
destroyed at Charlie Trie's house. The FBI was watching his
house. They asked for a search warrant. They couldn't get a
search warrant because Janet Reno said they did not have enough
probable cause.
Liu Chao-Ying of China Aerospace wired Johnny Chung
$300,000. The Justice Department never even bothered to check
her bank records.
Johnny Chung was being harassed and threatened. The FBI
even put him in protective custody while he was testifying.
They had it all on tape by the man who was doing the
threatening and he was never even indicted.
Charles Intriago was caught red-handed making illegal
contributions to the DNC. The case was gift-wrapped for them,
and the Justice Department let the statute of limitations
expire.
It is pretty obvious to me that she is blocking for her
boss, the President. We have said that over and over.
I have written a letter to the Attorney General. I have
asked her to explain why this happened. And I have said in the
letter that if she does not give us a satisfactory answer, we
will subpoena her and have her answer the questions before the
American people in this committee room.
I have written a letter to the Attorney General, as I have
said, and I ask unanimous consent to include my letter in the
record at the conclusion of my remarks.
I also intend to ask unanimous consent to release copies of
all the President's FBI 302s and the Vice President's 302s. The
FBI has told us that personal information has been redacted,
has been crossed out. I think the American people deserve to
see firsthand how this investigation is being conducted, and
how the Attorney General is being so partisan.
This is a travesty. I don't know how the American people
can have any confidence in their government when they find
these facts out, when important people like the President and
Vice President are given a free ride when the Justice
Department questions them. They don't even ask questions about
very important figures connected to the President. It only
reinforces my determination that this committee--this
committee, be as thorough as possible.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton and the
information referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.274
Mr. Burton. With that, Mr. Waxman, do you want to take your
5 minutes?
Mr. Waxman. Yesterday I pointed out how this committee has
settled into a very familiar pattern: Very strong accusations
are made and then when the facts come in that don't corroborate
those accusations, rather than acknowledge the situation, the
chairman has come back consistently with more inflammatory
remarks describing how people are not giving him what he wants.
I assume my time is not up, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday, we spent the whole day with Mr. Huang. Nothing
came out of that testimony to, in any way, come close to
substantiate the inflammatory charges that have been made by
Chairman Burton and other Republican leaders over the past
year. So what we are seeing is that phase one, phase two, phase
three, phase four scenario that I described yesterday being
played out. If you don't have the facts to back up your
accusations, you quickly move on to another inflammatory
accusation and hope that people won't pay attention to the fact
that what you said earlier doesn't hold up.
The other point I would make is the chairman's challenging
the integrity of the FBI. These were interviews conducted by
FBI agents, and it is a huge leap to attack Janet Reno, the
Attorney General, for interviews by the FBI.
So I don't know what else to say about the whole matter
except that it is clear that again the chairman is frustrated
by not finding information that he would like to have, not
finding the smoking gun he believes should be there to
substantiate all of the accusations that he has already made
that haven't held up in light of facts that have come out over
these last 3 years, and particularly yesterday, with a very
long day of grilling Mr. Huang, who was supposed to be the
crucial witness that would show how there was a conspiracy to
bring in contributions from China to influence the Presidential
elections in exchange for selling out the national security of
this Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time. Let's go on to the
questions of Mr. Huang.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Let me say that I am going to ask unanimous
consent that the 302s, which I believe will speak for
themselves, be put in the record and released; and we do not
have a quorum here, so unless the gentleman is prepared to
object to the release of these 302s, I will ask unanimous
consent.
Mr. Waxman. Reserving the right to object, I am not going
to object to anything going into the record, except I asked
yesterday that the 302s about Congressman Solomon be given to
this committee, and I will only agree to your unanimous consent
if we expand it to put his 302 statements in the record as
well.
Mr. Burton. I think I said yesterday I have no problem with
that, No. 1. And No. 2, Charlie Trie, you also asked that
Charlie Trie's information be put in the record; and I said
once the FBI has gone through the redaction process, which I
think they are entitled to, we have no problem with that.
So with that, I will agree----
Mr. Waxman. To be clear then, the unanimous consent is to
put into the record all of the 302s, including Congressman
Solomon's 302s, Mr. Trie's, and the other 302s relating to Mr.
Huang.
Mr. Burton. With the proviso that the FBI has the right to
redact.
Mr. Waxman. And furthermore, reserving the right to object,
has the FBI made redactions in these 302s so that we are we are
not in any way----
Mr. Burton. Any reference to any personal issues regarding
the President have been redacted by the FBI, right.
Mr. Waxman. So these 302s have redactions that the FBI has
put into place?
Mr. Burton. Other than Charlie Trie. Charlie Trie's have
not been redacted, but they are going to be.
Mr. Waxman. In other words, you will put them in the record
after the redactions; is that correct?
Mr. Burton. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, the 302s will be put into
the record and released.
Mr. Shays.
[Note.--The information referred to is printed at the end
of the hearing.]
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, before my time, if we could just
clarify the process. My understanding is that we have a round
of 5 minutes. I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Members be given 10 minutes rather than 5, and I would make
that request.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, I think since we have so few
Members here, that might be easier.
Mr. Waxman. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I don't have extensive questioning because I
have asked Mr. Huang most of what I thought was pertinent to
the investigation yesterday, but the rules do provide 5-minute
rounds, and I think we ought to stick with the rules and not
change the rules.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. If the gentleman from Connecticut is in the
middle of some line of questioning at the end of 5 minutes, I
wouldn't have an objection at that point, but I don't want to
concede that on the Republican side, each Member gets 10
minutes and then on the Democratic side, where I am all alone
at this point, we only get--we have to wait 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
minutes before we get a chance to correct the record.
So the rules provide for 5-minute rounds, and I am going to
stay with that, but I will be liberal in giving people
additional time when appropriate.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
My understanding is as well, Mr. Chairman, that we will
have a set of rounds and if someone passes and they don't take
their time during that round, we start the next round. They
can't accumulate passes.
Mr. Burton. Yes. The 5 minutes is not a cumulative thing.
If you don't use your 5 minutes during that round, then you
have 5 minutes in the next round.
What I would suggest to the Members, since we are going to
have a limited number here, if one Member wants to yield to
another, we will try to give you 10 minutes if it is necessary
for you to have a continuation and a constancy in your
questions.
Mr. Shays. I am prepared to yield to other Members under
that basis.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Good morning.
Mr. Huang. Good morning, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Huang, it is nice to have you here.
Mr. Huang. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Shays. I do want to say to start with that both your
attorney and you need to be careful when you are talking with
each other. I want to say from the outset that I don't mind
waiting, since I know that we have unlimited rounds, so you
shouldn't feel rushed, that we want the accurate questions;
since your attorney really isn't welcome to speak, we want to
make sure that you clearly understand the terms we are using,
so you should never be hesitant to ask him questions.
I also would suggest that you literally turn the mic away
from you because it is a very sensitive mic that picks up
conversations and we don't want to pick up those conversations.
Mr. Huang. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Huang, I had asked you yesterday--and I am just going
to summarize, even if I use my 5 minutes now for the summary;
and I want to just verify, and then during the course of the
day I won't have to keep coming back to it--but you started
working for the Lippo Bank entities from 1985 until July 1994,
and your answer was yes to that?
Mr. Huang. Lippo Group, though. Group entities, yes.
Mr. Shays. OK. And that from July 1994 to December 1995,
you worked at the Commerce Department? And we will get into
what you did at the Commerce Department today.
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. And that from December 1995 to October and
November 1996, you worked at the DNC and your responsibilities
primarily, almost solely, were to raise money; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. It is my understanding that you pleaded guilty
to conspiracy to defraud. You acknowledge raising approximately
$150,000 illegally. You were the conduit for contributions; you
were aware of other people making contributions that wasn't
really their money; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. While you acknowledged $150,000 of illegal
activity, you also made the Justice Department aware that
potentially another $800,000 of laundered money was contributed
to whom and from whom?
Mr. Huang. It is actually to Democratic party of various
candidates, Senatorial candidates or congressional candidates,
I believe.
Mr. Shays. So some went to the DNC, some might have gone to
State parties, some might have gone to candidates, a variety of
candidates primarily on the Democratic side of the aisle, or
exclusively?
Mr. Huang. Primarily on the Democratic side, yes.
Mr. Shays. Now, those illegal activities took place in
1992, as well as 1993 and 1994; or were they limited just to
1992?
Mr. Huang. 1992, 1993, and 1994.
Mr. Shays. OK. And they stopped in 1994?
Mr. Huang. Stopped in 1994, I believe.
Mr. Shays. They ended in 1994, all of those illegal
activities that you made reference to, to the Justice
Department, that you were aware of?
Mr. Huang. Excuse me 1 second.
Mr. Shays. Sure. Turn the mic away, please.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I am sorry for the interruption.
Mr. Shays. Please, no apologies during the course this
time.
Mr. Huang. OK.
There is one more case I am aware of in 1995, but I have no
knowledge, it did not really verify, it could be on that basis.
Mr. Shays. And how much did the 1995 case, how much money
are we talking about in 1995?
Mr. Huang. Probably $12,000.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now, it is my understanding that--I would
like to just have you----
Mr. Huang. But, however, all the illegal, so-called illegal
activity was basically stopped in 1994.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Now, the $800,000 that you make reference to, was that
money that ultimately, it is your understanding, the Riadys
covered? In other words, it was their employees and they
basically covered this money? They were the contributors,
ultimately? It was their money?
Mr. Huang. Yes, through Lippo, Lippo entities.
Mr. Shays. Through their Lippo entities, and their entities
being ultimately employees who worked for the Lippo entities?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Shays. Does that also include the money from business
partners of Mr. Riady, the father, James's father, Hashim Ning?
Does it include the money that he contributed, or is that in
addition?
Mr. Huang. No, that is not included. I don't know, any
knowledge--I don't have any knowledge on their part, sir.
Mr. Shays. You haven't even read anything? You have no
knowledge, or you have some knowledge?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't have knowledge to say where the
money was coming into that, Hashim Ning on that.
Mr. Shays. So you had no involvement with Hashim Ning and
any contributions he might have made in the late 1980's, 1990,
or any of the 1990's?
Mr. Huang. I have no knowledge of that, sir.
Mr. Shays. In addition to the $150,000 and the $800,000,
there were also sums of money that you raised while you were at
the DNC--my time has expired.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, it would be my time, but I will
pass at this point.
Mr. Shays. Could I clarify, neither of you used your
opening 5 minutes?
Mr. Burton. We both used our opening 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. So I just appreciate the magnanimous effort, but
you really have no time this round to yield to me.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Connecticut be given an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman for doing that.
I would like you to start to explain to me how you raised
money for the DNC; and if you were raising money for the RNC, I
would be asking you the same questions.
How much money did you raise for the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I really don't have an exact figure.
Approximately--anywhere from $3 million to $5 million, I think.
Mr. Shays. $3 million to $5 million?
Mr. Huang. When I was there.
Mr. Shays. That is a pretty broad range. I would think
intuitively that if you were raising this money, you would know
every penny, because frankly, it is to your credit. If you
raise money, if you thought you raised it legally, it is to
your credit.
Mr. Huang. The reason I have the broad range is, I try to
include all the Asian communities, whoever gave money. I lump
it all together, may or may not be through my efforts.
Mr. Shays. I want to know what you raised through your
efforts.
Mr. Huang. Anywhere between $2.5 to $3 million, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. So we have basically a sense that you raised
$3.4 million that we know of, and our sense is that $1.6--that
you raised 424 contributions, and that 88 were basically
returned, for a total of $1,623,350,000.
Now, that money was returned for a variety of reasons, but
the bottom line was, the judgment was, if it was accepted, it
would have been illegal and, therefore, it needed to be
returned.
I need to know how you raised your money.
Mr. Huang. Essentially I raise money through the contact of
the people I know or somebody would refer me, some people might
be of interest in making contributions through the network and
through the contacts which I--all the friends I made over the
period of time, in New York, in San Francisco or Los Angeles,
primarily.
Mr. Shays. And when you raised money, you understood there
were certain legal requirements. What are the legal
requirements that you understood to be true?
Mr. Huang. The No. 1 is the party has to have at least
permanent resident status or green card holder, American
citizens. That is for individual contributions.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Huang. Now, in the event it is beyond that amount,
beyond the hard money basis, then the money can come from a
corporation and become soft money; and an individual can also
give unlimited amount of money which can be categorized as soft
money, sir.
Mr. Shays. So if it is hard money, there are certain limits
to what they can contribute, correct?
Mr. Shays. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. And soft money, there is no limit?
Mr. Huang. There is no limit, yes.
Mr. Shays. Do you need to know other things? What?
You need to know their occupation, correct?
Mr. Huang. The record sheets, you had to fill out the
party's name and address, phone number--phone number, the
contact numbers.
Mr. Shays. Who they are employed by?
Mr. Huang. We have that information, yes.
Mr. Shays. That is required, isn't it?
Mr. Huang. I am not sure. I strictly, you know, adhere to
that rules.
Mr. Shays. Well, I want to know if you knew it.
Mr. Huang. I am not sure I did that, sir.
Mr. Shays. I don't want to split hairs here, and I am not
trying to trick you.
Mr. Huang. I know you are not, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Don't assume that during the course of the day I
won't, but I am not trying to now. I just want to know what you
knew you were supposed to do, and it seems to be a fairly
simple question.
You were employed by the DNC. They are not going to be
stupid enough not to tell you what the rules are, so you were
told the rules. You were a fundraiser. You need to know the
rules. That is kind of basic.
I want you to explain to me what the rules are.
Mr. Huang. I just went through, very practical matters. If
it is individual contribution, I did not really figure out what
the employment is. I did not even ask for it.
Mr. Shays. The fact that you didn't do it doesn't make it
right. It also doesn't mean that you didn't know you shouldn't
have done it. The fact that you didn't do it isn't the worst
crime in the world, but you were supposed to do it. And you
knew that; isn't that correct?
Mr. Huang. I am supposed to figure out as much information
as possible about an individual.
Mr. Shays. The bottom line is, it is required information,
isn't it? I mean--and you knew that? You knew--I am not going
to let off this point until I get a definitive answer.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Shays. It is true that you knew that this information
is required in order to be legal; isn't that true?
Mr. Huang. That's true.
Mr. Shays. And so we want to know if they are a U.S.
citizen. We want to know if they are not a U.S. citizen, if
they have a green card, that they have the right to work here,
because if they are not here legally, if they are here
illegally or they are overseas, they don't have a right to
contribute. And it is not an ethnic thing, and it is not a
discrimination thing, it is the law. You have to be a U.S.
citizen.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, this is not the understanding I have
even at this point. The only understanding I have is a person
can work overseas, but has a green card status, has American
citizen status, the person can still make contributions.
Mr. Shays. Right. If they have U.S. status, if they have a
green card; but if they don't, if they don't have working
status in the United States, they can't contribute, if they are
not a U.S. citizen.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. I would like to clarify one thing, if the
gentleman would yield to me.
Mr. Shays. Happy to yield.
Mr. Burton. If they have a green card, but they are living
overseas, even if they have a green card, I believe the statute
is very clear that they can't make contributions. They can only
make contributions if they have a green card if they are
working and residing in the United States.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
So you need to be a citizen, you need to have a green card,
you need to be in the United States.
My time has elapsed. It is Mr. Souder's time.
Mr. Souder. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Souder proceeds, just
a housekeeping matter that I want to raise with you.
Yesterday you agreed to request from the Justice Department
the 302s regarding Mr. Solomon's testimony. This morning we had
a unanimous consent agreement that that would be in the record.
I understand from the Justice Department that they say that
your staff hasn't made the request. I wonder if we could just
get that request made. I think they are here right now. You can
make an oral request.
Mr. Burton. As you speak, it has been done.
Mr. Waxman. OK. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. I yield my 5 minutes to Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. So you have to be a U.S. citizen, you have to
have a green card, you have to be living in the United States
if you don't, and----
Mr. Huang. Excuse me. I think the last sentence might not
be correct, versus to my understanding.
Mr. Shays. OK. We will leave that as your understanding.
The contributions are limited. In other words, they can't
give over a certain amount. Why don't you describe to me some
of the limits that people have when they contribute?
Mr. Huang. For the Federal campaign for the candidate
itself, for a Senatorial campaign, individually, there is a
$1,000 limit for the general elections and--the primary, and
also another $1,000 for the general. So that would be it.
Mr. Shays. OK. How about for the DNC?
Mr. Huang. If it is for a party, the hard money, the
Federal limit is $20,000. And in the aggregate for the total
amount, total contribution to all the candidates, all the
committees for the hard money is $25,000, if I believe--I
believe that is correct, that is it.
Mr. Shays. You also need to know the mailing address of the
individual, you need to know their occupation, you need to know
who they are employed by. The reason we want to know who they
are employed by is that we want to be able at the end to be
able to say that I received so much from the insurance industry
or so much from another organization. It is information that we
deem should be in the public domain, and that is what we
require. If you don't have that information, then you have
gotten this money and not followed the law. And I would concur
that there are obviously different degrees of not following--
not getting an employer, sometimes that happens and all of us
go back and find out who the employer is; but ultimately if you
don't have all of this required information, you have to send
it back.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, the way I understood is that to the
best of my efforts, I should get those information, all right?
And then whatever the forms was required, I filled out, I just
pass along. And basically, that was it, you know.
Mr. Shays. But we get to the challenge. I mean, Mr. Waxman
made a point that is so valid. I mean there are going to be
some times that people contribute to your campaign and they
didn't do it legally and they are ultimately held liable. But
it reflects on our campaigns. I don't think there is a Member
who has run for public office that hasn't had a contribution
that we find embarrassing or that, in fact, may not have been
done properly; and when that is found out boy, you just do your
best to get it taken care of.
But in your case, we are not talking about, you know, an
occasional mistake. We are talking about $3.4 million that we
know you raised and $1.6 million of it had to actually be
returned.
I want you to explain to me why some of that money was
returned.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, I am quite handicapped in a detailed
list of the returning stuff. I did read occasionally from the
papers the amount of total you referred to was returned versus
the amount of money I raised.
Now, based on that, I can give you the best of my account
on these things.
Mr. Shays. Give me the best of your account.
Mr. Huang. OK. The two individual checks over $12,500.
Mr. Shays. Each?
Mr. Huang. $12,000 each, yes, which I raised in a Hay Adams
event that Mr. LaTourette was mentioning yesterday about that
event. I was told at the beginning when I received the check,
the party had been approved for the green card. In other words,
the party had green card status. But later on I found out that
it was just being approved with a number, but actually did not
receive the physical green cards. So subsequently I find out, I
return the checks. I was involved in that one.
The second one was involving Choeng Am, which is a Korean
entity. I was involved in that. That was involving about
$250,000.
Mr. Shays. How much was that?
Mr. Huang. $250,000 for the checks.
Mr. Shays. OK. My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Connecticut be given 5 additional minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Huang. Could I complete the answer, please?
Mr. Shays. Sure.
Mr. Huang. The reason I was involved in the Chong Ann case
later on in September 1996, I virtually answer the question
whether the company had the revenue in the United States and
the answer was not. To the contrary. From the time when I
receive check was the understanding I had.
The third one would be involving a Mr. Gandhi's check.
Mr. Shays. And how much was that for?
Mr. Huang. That was $325,000. Now, that was not my
solicitation on that in the first place. I don't know whether
that was in that category you are talking about, the $1.6
million, or not.
Mr. Shays. OK. We will check that out. And that was illegal
because? Why was that illegal?
Mr. Huang. The way I understood is that--again, this
knowledge is coming from a newspaper account, it is not coming
from the original knowledge that I have, because at the time my
information that it was his one money, Mr. Gandhi's own money.
Mr. Shays. Now explain to me if it was his own money versus
the company's money, why would that make a difference?
Mr. Huang. No, no. That was an individual check.
Mr. Shays. You mean it was a hard money contribution?
Mr. Huang. No. You see, an individual can give both hard
money contribution and also soft money contribution, if the
amount was going over----
Mr. Shays. Let me just say something. I am not a fan of
newspaper reports in a hearing like this, but what I am
interested in is to try to understand why you think something
may be illegal or not. That interests me. So I need to
understand why you think that may have been illegal.
Mr. Huang. The understanding when I receive the check that
was his money, but later on, the information evolved from the
news account that the DNC determined through their
investigation the money he contributed was not really his
money. That is why it was returned.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Huang. Now, the fourth one.
Mr. Shays. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huang. The fourth one probably was related to
Wiriadinata's money, which is around $400 some thousand.
Mr. Shays. Riady's money?
Mr. Huang. No, no. Wiriadinata. It is a long name.
Mr. Shays. How much are we talking about?
Mr. Huang. That is probably $450,000, I believe, all
together.
Mr. Shays. And why was that returned?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't find any reason that it was returned.
The only way I can think of--the decision was not made by me.
Mr. Shays. OK. But it was money raised by you?
Mr. Huang. It was raised by me, yes.
Mr. Shays. And it was your understanding that this was
their personal money?
Mr. Huang. I have no reason to doubt that, sir.
Mr. Shays. They had the resources?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. This is a male?
Mr. Huang. No, husband and wife. In aggregate, $450,000.
Mr. Shays. You had every reason to believe they had the
resources?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. They were U.S. citizens and so on; they met all
the requirements.
Mr. Huang. No. The Wiriadinatas were permanent residents.
Mr. Shays. OK. Permanent residents.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Now, the fifth one probably is related to the Miss
Kanchanalak, Pauline Kanchanalak. That was involving a few
hundred thousand dollars. I don't know whether it is in this
category or not.
Mr. Shays. And why do you think that was returned?
Mr. Huang. Again, that was through the news account that I
learned about this matter. I still at this moment do not know
in real, real detail why the money was returned.
Mr. Shays. This was money you raised, though?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. The only amount you say you didn't raise was the
amount of $325,000?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Who raised that?
Mr. Huang. I believe through Mr. Charlie Trie.
Mr. Shays. But Charlie Trie gave it to you?
Mr. Huang. I was handling the main fundraisers.
Mr. Shays. Let's be clear. Charlie Trie didn't work for
DNC. Correct?
Mr. Huang. No, no.
Mr. Shays. You did.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. So you raised it for the DNC. Correct? I mean,
it was given to you.
Why don't you talk to your counsel.
Mr. Huang. No. I was responsible for the DNC, but the
solicitor was Charlie Trie. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Shays. Yes, but you are told that when the money is
raised and it is given to you, you then assume a
responsibility. Clearly, the DNC would have made that clear to
you. Your employer would have made that clear to you. Correct?
You are not going to take the position that any time someone
else gave you money from someone else, this isn't your money.
Are you going to take that position, or are you going to take
accountable----
Mr. Huang. I am taking accountable. I am trying to explain
to you the source.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough. Bottom line, it was your money
raised by Charlie Trie?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Fine. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Huang. We were talking about this February 19th fundraiser, and
if we can go back to that and sort of keep our eyes on that
ball for just 5 minutes, I guess.
We were talking yesterday about the head table and I think
that I asked you how the head table got to be the head table,
who got to sit with the President of the United States at that
particular function and from my review of things last night--I
didn't get a homework assignment from Mr. Shays like you did
and Mr. Waxman did, but I did some reading anyway, and it looks
like there were tables of 12. Does that sound about right to
you?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Let me just run through who I think was at
that head table, and you can tell me whether I am right or not.
Nina Wang, Ted Sioeng, Kwai Fai Li, Pauline Kanchanalak,
Richard Park, Sant Chatwal, Kazuhiro Nakagawa, Tju Jin Tan,
Andrew Cherng, Ng Lap Seng, and Charlie Trie, and the President
of the United States. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Huang. It sounds right, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Now, I think you told me that the way
nobody was required to pay more than $12,500, but you had a
hand in and selected who got to sit with the President of the
United States; it was a place of honor at this particular
fundraiser and it was based upon what their prominence, or how
much they had contributed in the past, or how much you thought
they could contribute to the President's events?
Mr. Huang. And also the ethnicity of the person.
Mr. LaTourette. Am I not--am I correct in saying that of
those 11 names, because the 12th seat I guess was sort of
reserved for the President himself, of those 11 names, 5 of
them could never contribute to the President's campaign because
they were noncitizens?
Mr. Huang. They were the guests of the other country
leaders publicly on that.
Mr. LaTourette. But am I right about that, that Nina Wang,
Ted Sioeng, Kwai Fai Li, Pauline Kanchanalak, and Ng Lap Seng
are all noncitizens and they are all seated at the President of
the United States's table and they can't make a contribution?
Mr. Huang. I will argue with some of them.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Tell me. I don't want incorrect
information.
Mr. Huang. Pauline's situation, to my total surprise, later
on I find out she was not, and because she has been with this
political fundraising matter for a long, long time, I was
really surprised that she was not.
Mr. LaTourette. As a matter of fact, at the time I believe
that Pauline Kanchanalak was a managing trustee of the
Democratic National Committee, was she not?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. That is probably how you knew her. She is a
Thai citizen, a citizen of Thailand, and she is not a citizen,
permanent resident, or green card holder at this time, of the
United States of America; is that right?
Mr. Huang. Unfortunately, that is what I later on find out.
Mr. LaTourette. So at the head table at this event on
February 19th, out of 11 guests, 5 of them are not even
eligible to make legal contributions to the campaign of the DNC
or the President of the United States. I am right about that.
Right?
Mr. Huang. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Then let's go back then to that
fundraiser if I can, and I want to sort of pick up where I left
off yesterday. We were talking about Charlie Trie, Antonio Pan
and others. Did Charlie Trie request that certain people be
permitted to sit at that head table?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. And who did he ask to sit at the table?
Mr. Huang. I think Mr. Ng.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Ng?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Who was his business partner from Macao in
the trading business who we were talking about.
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Did he make a request that any of the other
four noncitizens that I just mentioned sit at the head table?
Mr. Huang. The other four partners not related to him at
that time.
Mr. LaTourette. Now, Mr. Trie at that fundraiser, he also
made a contribution of $12,500, did he not?
Mr. Huang. I believe so, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. And that contribution has subsequently been
termed to be not appropriate, illegal, and returned by the
Democratic National Committee; is that right?
Mr. Huang. Later I learned that, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. If we could have exhibit No. 317, his
contribution was on a check from Daihatsu International, which
is the business that he shares with Mr. Ng, is that right?
[Exhibit 317 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.275
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. And that check didn't come to, even though
we are talking about a fundraiser that is on February 19, 1996,
that check is dated February 29, 1996. Is that not right?
Mr. Huang. Yes, on the check, it is.
Mr. LaTourette. And do you know why? Is this money that he
gave to you after the event?
Mr. Huang. It is not unusual for people to give me money
later, as long as they have already established as ongoing
persons.
Mr. LaTourette. But do you have any specific recollection
as to how this check came into your possession and then on to
the DNC? Was this check given to you?
Mr. Huang. I believe it came to me, but I don't remember
the exact time when I receive, from the check date, probably
around that time, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Did Mr. Trie give you any indication when
he gave you that check as to the origin of the funds used, or
that backed up this check?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. LaTourette. You know today, do you not that those funds
came from Mr. Ng who was a noncitizen and hence unable to
contribute to a campaign in this country.
Mr. Huang. Still I don't know.
Mr. LaTourette. You don't know that.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. LaTourette. Did Mr. Trie request that he be seated at
the head table himself, aside from the question that Mr. Ng be
seated at the head table?
Mr. Huang. To me, Mr. Trie should have been, but Mr. Trie
will make that room to Mr. Ng, he request it.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you have any idea as to how many guests
Mr. Trie invited or brought to the event on February 19th?
Mr. Huang. I have to give you a roughly number, maybe
around between 15 to 20 or something like that.
Mr. LaTourette. And all of them paying $12,500?
Mr. Huang. May or may not. Might or might not, I am sorry.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, his time is about to expire and I
want to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given 5
additional minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate very much your courtesy, Mr.
Waxman.
I want to go through some of Mr. Trie's guests with you now
and I really appreciate Mr. Waxman's courtesy because it let's
me have a little continuity in talking about that subject,
because you get questions from all over and then come back to
me on this February 19th business.
I want to show you some photographs that now are exhibits,
the first one is exhibit No. 318 and it is a photograph request
of an individual with the President of the United States and a
gentleman by the name of Peter Chen. Do you know Mr. Chen?
[Exhibit 318 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.411
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do.
Mr. LaTourette. Can you describe for the committee what the
relationship is, if any, between Charlie Trie and Peter Chen?
Mr. Huang. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I reported to you yesterday,
Mr. Chairman, I have some so-called brother-in-law situation
with Mr. Trie. This is the person.
Mr. LaTourette. Does Mr. Chen----
Mr. Huang. I cannot verify that though. I am sorry.
Mr. LaTourette. Does Mr. Chen to your knowledge or has Mr.
Chen worked for the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. He did.
Mr. LaTourette. And do you know when?
Mr. Huang. Starting from--my best recollection, probably
early 1980's.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chen, to my information, owns a company
called the Sun Union Group. Do you know that to be true? Do you
know that?
Mr. Huang. I vaguely remember there is some company like
that, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Are there any ties between Sun Union and
the Lippo Group to your knowledge?
Mr. Huang. I don't know about that.
Mr. LaTourette. And what contact, if any, are you aware of
between Mr. Chen and the Riady family, aside from----
Mr. Huang. He was employed by Lippo Group before.
Mr. LaTourette. Any connection other than being an employee
of the Lippo Group that you are aware of?
Mr. Huang. I was aware of later on he left the Lippo Group
but remained to be a partner of--with the Riady family,
especially Mochtar Riady particularly.
Mr. LaTourette. Next I want to show you exhibit No. 319,
which is another photograph, and this depicts to my
understanding another one of Mr. Trie's guests, a fellow by the
name of Santoso Gunara. Are you familiar with this individual?
Mr. Huang. I am not familiar with this individual.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Another one of Mr. Trie's guests at the
event was Dr. Tju Jin Tan, excuse me, which is exhibit No. 320.
Are you familiar with Dr. Tan?
[Exhibit 320 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.277
Mr. Huang. I am not.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Dr. Tan, according to the records that
we have reviewed from the February 19th fundraising event, did
not contribute to the event. Are you aware as to how he came to
be in attendance?
Mr. Huang. He is a guest of Mr. Trie. Whatever money Mr.
Trie raised, he can designate a guest he would like to invite.
Mr. LaTourette. Dr. Tan, I think as I went through the list
with you before at the head table, Dr. Tan was seated at the
head table at that event. Can you tell me, since you were in
charge of arranging who was at the head table how it is that
Mr.--Dr. Tan became at the head table with the President of the
United States?
Mr. Huang. If he was, probably on the recommendation by Mr.
Trie.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Many of Charlie Trie's guests, and we
went over this list yesterday, like Peter Chen, William Peh,
Santosa Gunara did not pay to attend. In other words, if you
match up who was there, they were there, but there is no check
from them.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Conversely, many people who gave to the
event, Manlin Foung, Joseph Landon, Zie Pan Huang and others
did not attend, but contributed. Now, that is not unusual.
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. I think in the fundraising business as
Members, politicians, we are always happy when people send in
the checks but don't show because we don't have to pay for the
hor d'oeurves, they are not going to eat them at the event. But
did you ever become concerned, based on this reserves scenario,
that you had people at your fundraising event that you were in
charge of in attendance that weren't contributing and were
invited guests, and then you had a large list of people that
paid but didn't show up?
Did you ever become concerned and, again, concerned because
you are an individual who is knowledgeable about what a conduit
contribution is. You know from the activities to which you pled
guilty in 1992, 1993 and the other times that one, it is
illegal to give money that is not your money; it is illegal for
a noncitizen to contribute.
Did you ever become concerned that Mr. Trie's guests--that
Mr. Trie was using conduit contributions to pay for the
attendance of all of these nonpaying guests at the fundraiser
on the 19th? And just while you are thinking about that, if we
could put up exhibit No. 323, which is a chart of the nonpaying
guests and nonattending contributors, just to refresh your
memory.
[Exhibit 323 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.278
Mr. Huang. Congressman LaTourette, I have been interviewed
by so many people over periods of times and each time I gain
certain knowledge about certain things. The best I can think of
right now, at the time I was concentrating on raising money.
You know, the guests were being invited by people, and then I
thought it was general practice people doing that. I did not
really pay attention to that.
Mr. LaTourette. I remember in your opening statement you
said that you were dedicated to the Democratic National
Committee and you took that job seriously, and I know you did.
You were very successful.
But my specific question--and I guess you are saying no,
but I would like you to say no if that is your answer that you
were not concerned in 1996 that Charlie Trie was using the same
sort of scheme that you used in 1992 and 1993, that is, conduit
contributions to get to the Democratic National Committee. Are
you telling me you were not concerned about that?
Mr. Huang. In that time the things did not come to my mind,
yes, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. When I come back during the next round,
I want to talk to you about specific guests of Mr. Trie's,
people that gave $12,500 to that event, but whose annual
salaries were $20,000 and we will just go through some of
those. Because I think again as I was talking to you yesterday,
it begins to stretch credulity that a clerk who works at the
clerk of the court's office in Maryland making $25,000 a year
can give $12,500 to the Democratic National Committee of their
own money and for you to be familiar with the idea of conduit
contributions as a vice-chair of the Democratic National
Committee, to not have red flags going off or sky rockets or
whatever the alarm bells would need to be, is unusual to me,
and I hope we can talk about it and explain it.
Again, Mr. Waxman, I thank you for your courtesy.
Mr. Waxman. Well, if the gentleman would permit, you are in
the middle of asking questions and I certainly would have no
objection if you want to continue and have another 5-minute
round.
Mr. LaTourette. If my colleagues on this side don't----
Mr. Waxman. I will ask unanimous consent, and if they
object, they can object; but I will ask unanimous consent that
you be given 5 additional minutes to pursue questions.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Waxman. Would you yield to me just to ask a question at
this point?
What I am trying to understand, Mr. Huang, is that there
was a dinner; people were sitting at the President's table who
did not give money. The money was given by Mr. Trie as far as
you were concerned.
Mr. Huang. Or raised by Mr. Trie.
Mr. Waxman. Or raised by Mr. Trie. Is there any way you
would have known that those people that were sitting there--you
didn't care whether they gave the money or not; you knew that
the money was paid for by their attendance.
Mr. Huang. That is correct. The guest list of Mr. Trie's,
yes.
Mr. Waxman. And would you be suspicious that there was a
conduit contribution because they were sitting there?
Mr. Huang. Not at the time, no.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. I think that the
only observation I would make is that is pretty bad luck, if
you have a head table of 11 and half of them are illegal
individuals in terms of giving contributions to the President's
campaign, that is 500----
Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield? They didn't give
contributions to the President's campaign. They were not legal
residents or citizens, but no one has claimed they gave a
contribution to the President of the United States. Someone
else gave a contribution who presumably was legally able to
give a contribution and invited these people to be, in effect,
at his table, but his table turned out to be with the President
of the United States.
Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate that point, and I think we
will find out that Pauline Kanchanalak, in fact, made
substantial contributions through this period of time to the
DNC and the course of money from Mr. Ng Lap Seng that Charlie
Trie actually wrote on February 29th was Mr. Seng's money. But
I appreciate your remarks.
Mr. Waxman. You may very well be right, but the question is
whether Mr. Huang should have been alert to that at that time.
Mr. LaTourette. Right. OK.
I appreciate the distinction. I want to talk about two
individuals who were at the event, guests of Mr. Trie, and I
think demonstrate that even if you were not aware as a vice
chair of the Democratic National Committee in 1996 that conduit
contributions were taking place at the fundraiser that you
organized on February 19th, that in fact the pattern does I
think really, if it's circumstantial it's probably the best
circumstantial evidence I could think of that it was going on.
And I want to talk to you about a woman by the name of Lei Chu.
Do you know a woman by the name of Lei Chu?
Mr. Huang. I do not know her.
Mr. LaTourette. As we reviewed the records from your
fundraiser on the 19th, Lei Chu made a $12,500 contribution the
day after the event. Also, bank records indicated she deposited
a check for $12,500 into a new account. The check was written
the day after the event to the DNC, was written on a starter
check. On the tracking form that was submitted, Charlie Trie is
listed as the solicitor and you are listed as the DNC contact.
Now, again, does it concern you that an individual who is
contributing $12,500 is doing so on a starter check? Does that
raise any red flags or concerns to you as a fundraiser for a
major political party?
Mr. Huang. It did not. Did not.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Did you have the occasion to speak with
Lei Chu either at this event, or she also attended the
breakfast with Vice President Gore the next morning--did you
talk to her at all, have any recollection of talking to her?
Mr. Huang. I don't have any recollection of talking to her,
no.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Did you ever have a conversation with
Charlie Trie that would--wherein he indicated that he had
provided Lei Chu with the funds necessary to make the $12,500
contribution?
Mr. Huang. I did not either.
Mr. LaTourette. Next, another individual who attended,
Keshi Zhan, also was an attendant and a contributor of $12,500,
dated February 19, 1996. It lists you as the contact and no
solicitor is mentioned on the reporting form. Do you know Keshi
Zhan?
Mr. Huang. I met with her before, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. And would you have met with her about the
time of this particular fundraiser?
Mr. Huang. No. Around that period of time, because she was
also working for Mr. Charlie Trie.
Mr. LaTourette. And did you have any idea what it was that
she did employment-wise at that time?
Mr. Huang. She had a job in some way in Virginia, but I did
not ask the detail as to what she was doing.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Well, in fact, Ms. Zhan had a job as a
clerk for the Arlington County in Virginia and it paid her less
than $25,000 a year. Again, it's a fundraiser for the
Democratic National Committee. Would it surprise you, unless
she had a trust fund or came from a very wealthy family,
wouldn't it--I guess would that fact pattern surprise you, that
someone making less than $25,000 writes a check for $12,500 to
a major--unless she really loves the Democrats and is willing
to give half of the money that she would make in a year to her
cause, but don't you find that to be unusual?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
There are some--a lot of people appear don't have any money,
but they have a lot of savings in my community. So I did not
really ask this question.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, we know today what you may not have
known in 1996, and that is on the same day that she contributed
$12,500 to your fundraiser, she wrote a check to herself from
Charlie Trie's bank account reimbursing herself for the
contribution. Now, have you been told that today? Do you know
that to be so today?
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry I was disturbed right here.
Mr. LaTourette. That's OK.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I did not know that. If that was
the case, that was wrong to do that.
Mr. LaTourette. I know it's wrong. I'm asking you if--you
say you didn't know it in February 1996 and have you been told
that since? I mean, am I telling you that for the first time?
Mr. Huang. Oh, I read it from the news account to indicate
that, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. And two others, Manlin Foung and Joseph
Landon also wrote checks at that event for $12,500. And I would
ask you--we were talking about Antonio Pan yesterday--are you
aware that shortly after their contributions, Antonio Pan sent
Foung and Landon cashier checks totaling $25,000 to reimburse
them? Do you know that?
Mr. Huang. I did not know that at that time, no.
Mr. LaTourette. The fact of the matter is all those facts
which I believe to be true, and I understand you say you didn't
know them in 1996, that's exactly the way that you used to
raise money illegally in 1992 and 1993. You see the problem,
right?
Mr. Huang. Excuse me.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. To the extent of the conduit money, that's
correct. But the process was not exactly the same on that, as
you know very well, on that. You know what I'm trying to say.
Mr. LaTourette. I do know what you're trying to say. I'll
come back and we'll talk some more later. I thank everybody for
their courtesy.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my
time to Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I thank the gentleman from California. I
appreciate that. Good to see you again, Mr. Huang. We're going
to----
Mr. Huang. Morning.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. Now go back to some of the Mr.
Hubbell discussions that we had yesterday. And I wanted to
first review--yesterday I asked you about a Little Rock visit
and where you had a car, and you couldn't at that time
recollect why you were in Little Rock. You said that you didn't
have business interests there, personal or family, and probably
weren't vacationing.
I wondered if overnight, I know it's a number of years ago,
whether you had a chance to review.
Mr. Huang. I still cannot recall I went to Little Rock. I
might have. All right. From this American Express charge
records there are two car registrations.
Mr. Souder. I notice that, too.
Mr. Huang. The few possibilities there, since I cannot
really recall for sure, the family was there, the--James Riady,
the whole family including the children and, I believe, the
maid.
Mr. Souder. Now, wait. Yesterday we talked about airline
flight records showing that Mr. Riady was in New Orleans, and
you didn't think that he was in Little Rock.
Mr. Huang. It was not a case of in New Orleans, sir.
Mr. Souder. The flight ticket on the bottom.
Mr. Huang. The flight ticket on the date on the charges on
June 25th. So I believe--after they finish all the Washington
event, they went to Orlando and New Orleans. This is probably
visiting Little Rock was prior to the visit of Washington, DC.
Mr. Souder. So let me see if I've got this straight.
Because yesterday I had asked you whether you were with Mr.
Riady in Little Rock and you couldn't recall being in Little
Rock, but your car registration showed that, but you didn't
think Mr. Riady was. Now, today Mr. Riady and his family, and/
or his family, you believe were in Little Rock and they could
have used your credit card; is that what you're saying?
Mr. Huang. The credit card made--I may have made a
reservation and reserved the car for them. Now, if I were in
Little Rock, I--one of the car I was using--there are two cars.
One of the better cars was using for the family, the other one
was used by me.
Mr. Souder. So one car could have been used by you, you
say.
Mr. Huang. Yeah.
Mr. Souder. And one by the Riadys.
Mr. Huang. By the Riadys. There's a better one, a larger
charge bill of $223.65, that represent a longer period of time
and also a better selection of a car that the other one was----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. That was basically I used my credit card to make
a reservation or travel arrangement for the family.
Mr. Souder. So as I understand what you're saying, the
better car was for Mr. Riady and his family most likely.
Mr. Huang. I'm speculating on that.
Mr. Souder. But it is your credit card.
Mr. Huang. That was my credit card, yes.
Mr. Souder. And there was a second car and you're
speculating that you were in the second car.
Mr. Huang. If I----
Mr. Souder. If you were there.
Mr. Huang. If I was there. Because----
Mr. Souder. Did you go to Little Rock often?
Mr. Huang. In that year I visited Little Rock every now and
then, but it's not very often. Few times, I think, in the 1993,
1994.
Mr. Souder. I mean, a few times is two.
Mr. Huang. Oh, it's more than two, sir.
Mr. Souder. More than two.
Mr. Huang. Yeah. About three to five times, yes.
Mr. Souder. And I mean, did you travel lots of other
places, too, in your job?
Mr. Huang. Yes, some places; yes, I do.
Mr. Souder. Let me--here's why I keep asking you this
question because I have a series of questions to follow. This
is a very critical time period and something that's been very
much examined around the United States. Because yesterday--and
you correct me if I'm misstating this, but I think what we
established that what you said was that you met Mr. Hubbell at
a reception in the spring. You didn't have the precise date.
We----
Mr. Huang. No, did I say the Inauguration of 1993?
Mr. Souder. In 1993 you met him at the----
Mr. Huang. That was the first I met him.
Mr. Souder. First you met him.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. But you saw him at a reception in the spring of
1994.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. And he gave you a card.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. And then on May 19th, which may or may not have
been approximately the time of the reception, but he called--
what we know from the records is he called Lippo Bank twice.
Yesterday you speculated that those two phone calls may have
been about an appointment.
Mr. Huang. No, the appointment----
Mr. Souder. Of Mr. Riady.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. And then on June 11th, Mr. Riady comes to
Washington.
Mr. Huang. June.
Mr. Souder. 11th--he comes to Washington. That's when I
asked you about the travelers checks. He brought $32,000
including $17,500 travelers--when he came to the United States,
excuse me, he came to the United States on June 11th.
Mr. Huang. I'm not sure to Washington, though.
Mr. Souder. I take that back. He came to the United States
on June 11th. That in the--so he came to--he came to the United
States on June 11th. Then you also said during that time period
you talked to Mr. Riady about the support, the help for a
friend. So we're in this period of time between where Mr.
Hubbell has called the Lippo Bank, you received a card. You
also said yesterday that you talked to Doug Buford, who was
with Bruce Lindsey's law firm, former law firm, and he talked
to you about the need for money for Mr. Hubbell. That's where
you first learned about the money. So we have you getting a
card from Mr. Hubbell, you talking to Mr. Buford.
Mr. Cobb. The Buford conversation was first.
Mr. Souder. The Buford conversation was first. You heard
about----
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, let me ask unanimous consent, I
notice that Mr. Shays had 15 minutes, Mr. LaTourette had 15
minutes, and Mr. Souder yielded 5 minutes of his time to Mr.
Shays. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Souder be given 10
additional minutes so he will also have 15 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Ose. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from
California. This is my yield to him.
Mr. Souder. California is a great State.
So you first got a call from Doug Buford, then you got a
card from Webb Hubbell. Then Mr. Hubbell called to Lippo Bank.
But as I understood you to say that while you thought it might
have been an appointment, the appointment was going to be set
up through you because, generally speaking, Mr. Riady didn't
meet with Mr. Hubbell except through you, to your knowledge.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. Then you talked with Mr. Riady about the money.
And all this was occurring in this period of time somewhere
between May 19th where we have the documented phone calls and
the--and where the money actually went, which was June 24th. In
that period of time it appears, at least from the credit cards,
that you were in Little Rock with the Riadys. At least there's
two cars rented in Little Rock.
Mr. Huang. As I----
Mr. Souder. In your name.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, it is not--it was my duty to make
travel arrangements, very frequently travel arrangements for
Mr. Riady or Mr. Riady and his family. It's been the practice
for me, anyway, as reflected by this American Express charge
card slips on that. And as I indicated to you, I do not recall
at that time I was in Little Rock by my own in this political
occasion.
Mr. Souder. I just--I have to say that even though it's a
number of years ago, because of the nature of this controversy
and the type of issues that we're dealing with, I find it
extraordinary that you can't remember whether you were in
Little Rock. It is so much a part of what we're doing here,
because you need to understand the gravity of this, that you
also said yesterday, as I understood this, that Mr. Riady knew
Mr. Hubbell back way before they went to Washington because--is
that because Mr. Hubbell did work for the Riadys?
Mr. Huang. Either Riady or Worthen at that time. Mr. Riady
had--Lippo had an interest in the Worthen Bank during the mid-
eighties.
Mr. Souder. And that in itself is a sordid tale that most
people will not understand we don't have a chance to get into
with the Worthen Bank, and it leads us into Stevens and a
number of other things. But you see what a tangled web we weave
here. Because one of the difficulties--and there are many, many
millions of Americans who believe that silence was purchased--
and that when you see the tangled web of relationships and the
types of discussions here, it's disconcerting. But let me move
on. Because if you don't remember, I'm not going to, by
repeating the question, continue to find that.
So now what we do, I think, agree that by the time we get
to the 21st, they're both in Washington.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. Now, on June 23rd,--on June--I asked you about
the phone log call on June 20th exhibit 97 yesterday to Mark
Middleton, and the meeting was set up and we didn't establish
where you were because you thought maybe the Hay-Adams, but you
could have been in Little Rock.
Now on June 21st, the call schedule for Bruce Lindsey
refers to, if you can look at exhibit 98 if we could put that
up, it refers to a call schedule for Bruce Lindsey. Did you and
Mr. Riady meet with Mr. Mark Middleton on June 21st?
[Exhibit 98 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.279
Mr. Huang. I don't know exactly time. We did meet in that
week with Mr. Middleton, yeah.
Mr. Souder. Do you know who was at that meeting?
Mr. Huang. Do I----
Mr. Souder. Do you know who was at the meeting with Mr.
Middleton besides you and Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I do know one occasion just myself and Mr. Riady
and Mr. Middleton alone.
Mr. Souder. And what would the purpose of that meeting have
been?
Mr. Huang. Because we are all acquaintances, you know, just
friendly chat, because Mr. Riady has not seen Mr. Middleton for
awhile. Just to more a courtesy basis.
Mr. Souder. Did--what might you have chatted about? I mean,
the weather or----
Mr. Huang. I really don't have any recollection of exactly
account, Congressman.
Mr. Souder. But since Mr. Riady has just been asked to give
a substantial contribution to Mr. Hubbell by another longtime
Arkansas person, and Mark Middleton is a longtime political
director of this administration also from Arkansas, you don't
think it would have come up in the discussion with Hubbell?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. The chronological thing is, Mr. Souder, as you
know very well, that Mr. Buford was the first one. That was
quite an early time on that basis. And the visit with
Middleton, I have no knowledge of what was--I cannot remember
what was talked about. But I do remember it was not--he and I
never talk with Mr. Hubbell about it.
Mr. Souder. So your testimony was that, to your knowledge,
Mr. Middleton didn't know Webb Hubbell needed help, to your
knowledge.
Mr. Huang. To my knowledge, who?
Mr. Souder. You have not discussed with Mr. Middleton that
Webb Hubbell needed help.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. And that--who suggested that Bruce Lindsey be
called that shows up in that document that you wanted to meet
with Bruce Lindsey?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I really don't know. I really don't know at this
point.
Mr. Souder. What's troubling about this is that in that
memo or the White House notation, they'd--you'd like to see--
you're going to see Middleton, that you would like to see
Lindsey. Doug Buford, you've testified, is the person who
notified you that they needed help. Yesterday you said that
that help was basically not really a job, it was more out of
friendship and the need that Mr. Hubbell had; that, and that
Doug Buford is a senior partner in Bruce Lindsey's former law
firm, which is named Lindsey. Do you think that Bruce Lindsey
was aware that Mr. Riady was going to give this $100,000 check
to Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. Souder. So, to your knowledge, you never talked with
Bruce Lindsey about whether or not Mr. Riady was going to aid
Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. I did not, sir; no.
Mr. Souder. Did Mr. Riady ever say to you whether he had
talked to Bruce Lindsey or to Mark Middleton about Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. No, he did not.
Mr. Souder. Would it seem logical to you that Mr. Riady
might have wanted to check out with some of the people he had
worked with in Arkansas about whether to give the money to Mr.
Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. The conversation never occurred on that in the
line you are suggesting, sir. No.
Mr. Souder. Exhibit 99 as well as exhibit 100 shows a
series of meetings that I will ask you about, where you and Mr.
Riady visited different people from the administration. Did you
return to the White House on June 21st to attend a Business
Leadership Forum, to your recollection?
[Exhibits 99 and 100 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.280
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.281
Mr. Huang. I believe there was--there was functions in the
White House during that period of time. I believe we left and
we went back to the function in the evening.
Mr. Souder. Because if--as you can see from this exhibit,
there were a series of meetings that I want to ask you about;
and in fact, three--looks like three with Mr. Middleton. And
your testimony is that in none of those meetings you talked
about Webb Hubbell.
Mr. Huang. Not with me, no.
Mr. Souder. Did you discuss any of these meetings with--I'm
going to--my time is about to run out. I will not startup on
another round. I just find it very difficult because what we're
going to see at the end of this is that Mr. Riady writes a
check for $100,000. You've had basically six visits to the
White House in a period of 4 days when this is a pending
matter. And it's just hard to believe there was not a
discussion about the Hubbell matter.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. You know, the matters during the week, we did
meet with Mr. Hubbell himself, at least on two occasions we met
with him. And also some of the visit went in, I believe I took
the Riadys to--wife and also children to visit to tour the
White House. Maybe the name who clear us in is Middleton, but
actually it was probably Middleton was not involved. It could
be someone else who cleared us in. So we did visit White House
quite a few times, but my best recollection was I've never been
aware of there's any issues related to Hubbell that I was
involved. Because we had a meeting with Mr. Hubbell personally
already; one was in the hotel, one was in his office at that
time.
Mr. Souder. OK. My followup questions are going to relate
to the meeting with Alexis Herman, the meeting with Webb
Hubbell, as well as some others. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I think it's my time now. But do you have
something you want to ask?
Mr. Waxman. I thought Mr. Ose was going to go. Are you
going to take your time now?
Mr. Burton. I think Mr. Ose yielded.
I would like to go over the chronology real quickly and
followup on what Mr. Souder was talking about.
May 19th, Hubbell calls John Huang at Lippo Bank, 1994.
That's at 12:25. He called again a minute later at the Lippo
Bank.
May 23rd, Huang calls Doug Buford, Buford asks Huang to
contribute to the Hubbell children's education trust fund. That
was at 7:03 a.m.
June 7, 1994, 4:17 p.m., Hubbell calls John Huang at the
Lippo Bank.
June 19th through--and Tuesday June 20th, John Huang and
James Riady are in Little Rock. Monday, June 20th, John Huang
calls Mark Middleton. He wants to arrange a meeting with
Middleton for June 21st at 3 p.m. That's the time that's
written in.
Tuesday, June 21st, 3:17 p.m., Huang and Riady call Bruce
Lindsey at the White House and tell him they're meeting with
Mark Middleton at 4:30 p.m., and ask if they could see him for
a minute either today or sometime this week. Lindsey claims he
did not meet with Huang or Riady, but nevertheless that meeting
was set up for 4:30 that day. 4:45 that day, Tuesday June 21st,
Huang and Riady enter the White House for a meeting with Mark
Middleton. 6:51, Huang, Riady and his wife Aileen enter the
White House for a Business Leadership Forum. That was later on.
Evidently he went back that day.
June 22nd, 12 noon, John Huang's expense sheet shows a
lunch at the Mayflower for $61.69. 2:37 p.m., John Huang enters
the White House for a meeting with Mark Middleton. 2:57, James
Riady enters the White House for a meeting with Mark Middleton.
6.30 p.m., the Presidential Gala took place, and of course many
of the people were there to visit with President Clinton.
Thursday, June 23rd, Hubbell has James Riady on his
schedule. That's 2 days later or the next day. 10.10 a.m., Mark
Grobmyer enters the White House to see Alexis Herman. Huang and
Riady enter the White House at 10:26 to meet Alexis Herman.
10:32, Huang exits the White House. Unknown when Riady left.
11:05, call to the White House chief of staff's office from
James Riady's room at the Hay-Adams. 11:10, call to the
Democrat Leadership Council from James Riady's room at the Hay-
Adams. Noon, Hubbell has James Riady, H. Adams, 12, on his
schedule. 2 p.m., call to an unknown White House number from
James Riady's room at the Hay-Adams.
Friday, June 24th, Middleton schedule reads lunch with
James Riady, Aileen Riady, and children. 12:05, John Huang
enters the White House to see Middleton. This is on the 24th.
John and Carolyn Riady, James' children enter the White House
to see Middleton. James Riady enters the White House to see
Middleton. Call to Debbie Shoen at 2:11 at the OEOB from James
Riady's room at the Hay-Adams. 2:16, call to unknown White
House number from James Riady's room at the Hay-Adams. 5,
Hubbell schedule says meet with James Riady. 8:04, call to the
residence of the Indonesian ambassador to the United States
from James Riady's room at the Hay-Adams. 9:50, call to unknown
White House number from James Riady's room at the Hay-Adams.
10:10, call to the residence of the Indonesian ambassador to
the United States from James Riady's room at the Hay-Adams.
Saturday, June 5th, John Huang, James and Aileen Riady with
the four children go to the White House for the President's
radio address. At 3:45 they check out on June 26th at 3:45 p.m.
That's on Sunday.
The next day, the next day $99,985, $100,000 minus the $15
transfer fee from the Hong Kong Bank, was sent to Webb Hubbell.
June 30th, Hubbell calls the Lippo Bank in Los Angeles,
Huang was in China. 3:17, he calls, same day. Huang was in
China.
July 5th, Huang enters the United States.
July 8th, Huang--or Hubbell calls Lippo Bank in Los
Angeles; 2:20 Hubbell calls Lippo Bank in Los Angeles.
July 12th, Hubbell calls Lippo Bank in Los Angeles.
July 13th, Hubbell calls the Lippo Bank, and at 2:23 he
calls the Lippo Bank.
When were you appointed to the Department of Commerce,
after that?
To refresh your memory I think it was July 18th.
Mr. Huang. Oh, I'm sorry, yes.
Mr. Burton. So you were appointed by the President to the
Commerce Department on July 18th?
Mr. Huang. Monday, right.
Mr. Burton. I presume you're going to answer this question
in the negative, but I would like to ask you for the record,
all of this took place between you and the Riadys and all these
meetings at the White House with Middleton; and I don't know if
you met with the President, but you were in the White House
many, many times with the Riadys.
Does any of that and the $100,000 contribution that Webb
Hubbell got from the Riadys have anything to do with you going
over to the Commerce Department being appointed by the
President?
Mr. Huang. No. I was appointed already. I had knowledge
way--you know, at least a month or two ahead of time. That has
nothing to do with this money thing with Mr. Hubbell.
Mr. Burton. So the $100,000 that was given by the Riadys
just because they liked Mr. Hubbell had nothing to do with all
these meetings at the White House and your appointment to the
Commerce?
Mr. Huang. It's nothing to do with my appointment, no.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that you be given an additional 10 minutes so you can
have as much time as each of the Republican Members have had.
Mr. Burton. I appreciate that Mr. Waxman, but I will take a
different line of questioning at a subsequent time so I will go
ahead and yield.
Mr. Waxman. Maybe we could inquire--maybe Mr. Huang wants a
short break.
Mr. Burton. Yes. Mr. Huang, would you like a short break
right now, and if so, would you like to have included in that a
time to get a sandwich for lunch since it's almost noon?
Mr. Huang. Better ask my counsel. I normally don't take
lunch, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Well, I'll let you ask your counsel if you guys
would like to take 30 minutes or 40 minutes we can do that.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the
counsel? It's just so--I would certainly prefer that we just
move on and let's get this questioning so that we can hopefully
finish it at some reasonable point. But there's no guarantee
that if we continue without lunch that we will finish the
questioning.
Mr. Cobb. If we could have a 10-minute break.
Mr. Burton. Ten minutes would be fine. Is that OK with
everybody? If your stomach starts growling, holler and we
will----
Mr. Burton. Did you have a comment before we break Mr.
Huang?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, he just rattled a list of the
chronology of events.
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Huang. I just want to make sure that May 23, that event
related to Mr. Buford's call, which is not related to what Mr.
Souder is referring, that there is no relations on that.
Mr. Burton. On the May 23rd call that Huang called--you
called Doug Buford.
Mr. Huang. I don't recall. But I know for sure this thing
says it's not related to what Mr. Souder was talking about.
Mr. Burton. It says here that Buford asked Huang to
contribute to the Hubbell's children's education fund at 7:03
that morning; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall on that.
Mr. Souder. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. Burton. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. Souder. My understanding from the questioning is, while
our notes have suggested it was May 23rd, he suggested that
date was earlier before the reception that he had heard from
Mr. Buford.
Mr. Burton. We'll double-check our records on that. We'll
stand in recess for 10, 15 minutes. Then we'll be right back.
Let's make it 15, 15 minutes. We'll be back at 5 till 11.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. In order to expedite things, Mr. Huang, we'll
go ahead and get started with Mr. Souder.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I'm here. I want to
yield my time to Mr. Souder.
Mr. Burton. We'll recognize you, Mr. Shays, and you yield
to Mr. Souder then.
Mr. Souder. I thank you.
Mr. Huang, I wanted to ask you about the meeting with Mr.
Hubbell and Mr. Riady. The records seem to show it was at 7
a.m., on June 23rd. Do you recall that meeting? That's exhibit
101.
[Exhibit 101 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.282
Mr. Huang. My recollection was not really--let me see the
exhibits. Personally, I do not have a recollection if there was
a morning meeting, but I do remember the afternoon meeting.
Mr. Souder. I think in the 302s that you told the Justice
Department that Mr. Riady met Mr. Hubbell at a breakfast
meeting at Mr. Hubbell's temporary office.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, as I reported earlier, there were
two meetings between Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell. And to a
certain degree I was also present. Not all the time. The one
was related to a luncheon, and I did not join the luncheon
meeting until, at the tail end, I joined in. I thought the
meeting was over between them. I just barged into that room.
The luncheon meeting was at Hay-Adams in Mr. Riady's room. The
other one would be in Mr. Hubbell's office, or temporary
office, or wherever Mr. Miller--in Mr. Miller's firm.
Mr. Souder. So you don't recall whether the June 23rd
meeting on Mr. Hubbell's schedule here, exhibit 101, is in fact
the breakfast meeting?
Mr. Huang. My recollection was that the lunch meeting was
the first in the afternoon.
Mr. Souder. OK. So let's go to the lunch meeting. Is--let
me--I've--I've got these questions in a different order. When
we changed the date, it confused me a little bit.
At what point--let me ask this question. At what point did
Mr. Riady--was it after the lunch meeting he asked you to check
on the bank account information for Mr. Hubbell? Did he ask you
after a meeting with Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I believe it was all after the whole thing is
over.
Mr. Souder. After, so this like June 25th?
Mr. Huang. The week it's over, yes.
Mr. Souder. So he didn't walk out of any meeting and ask
you about that, that was a separate conversation at the end of
the week?
Mr. Huang. That's a separate conversation, right.
Mr. Souder. So in--what the record shows is that on June
23rd there was a meeting with Mr. Hubbell and Mr. Riady in Mr.
Hubbell's log, then--but you don't--you believe the luncheon
meeting was first. Do you know who was at the breakfast
meeting?
Mr. Huang. My recollection, there wasn't a breakfast
meeting.
Mr. Souder. Let me move to, also on June 23rd on exhibits
99 and 100, which we showed earlier, there was a meeting there
with Mr. Riady and you with Alexis Herman, the Labor Secretary.
Who was at that meeting?
Mr. Huang. I cannot really recall on that incidence.
However, the records indicate there was a meeting with Ms.
Herman, probably just as a courtesy visit to Ms. Herman, very
simple like that.
Mr. Souder. Was this Mark Grobmyer was also shown as being
at that meeting. Was this the only meeting with Mark Grobmyer
that week.
Mr. Huang. At that period of time, yes.
Mr. Souder. For the record could you explain who--Mr.
Grobmyer is--did he do work for Lippo?
Mr. Huang. He was, he was--at least he was hired as a
consultant for Lippo. Probably by that time he was no longer--
I'm talking about that time around June 1994--was no longer the
consultant any further.
Mr. Souder. He's another attorney from Little Rock?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. Sometimes you wonder if there are any attorneys
left in Little Rock. But that's another--they seem to mostly be
here.
Why would he have been at the meeting?
Mr. Huang. Maybe he was trying to introduce, you know--he
might have known Alexis Herman better than Mr. Riady did at
that time.
By the way, Congressman Souder, the records indicate the
meeting was very, very short though. It was just a few minutes
that we were seeing Mrs. Herman.
Mr. Souder. What would be the point of seeing the Labor
Secretary?
Mr. Huang. She was not Labor Secretary then.
Mr. Souder. What was she doing at that point?
Mr. Huang. I believe she was Director of Public Liaison at
that time for the White House, during that period of time, Mr.
Souder.
Mr. Souder. Exhibit 102 shows a telephone call, a receipt
to the White House chief of staff office at 11:05, also on June
23rd.
[Exhibit 102 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.283
Mr. Huang. The item No. 32 you are talking about sir?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Burton. We'll now yield to Mr. Souder for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Souder. Item No. 32 is the White House call. Yeah, it's
the 11:05 call.
Yes, so the item No. 32, do you know why you would have
called the White House chief of staff office that morning?
Mr. Huang. I wouldn't know. I would not know. Definitely
there were some calls being made from Mr. Riady's room to the
White House, and I do not know.
Mr. Souder. So you don't know whether it was--it was to Mr.
Middleton, who was assistant chief of staff?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. Souder. Exhibit 103 shows that at 11:10, which would be
the item 35, there's a telephone call to the Democratic
Leadership Council. Do you know who made that call or for what
purpose?
[Exhibit 103 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.284
Mr. Huang. I don't know what--I cannot recall on that. But
if anybody would call, it would be--I had a relationship with
the DLC, Democratic Leadership Council, with Mr. Al From. I
believe he was executive director for the DLC and more or less
it's just a courtesy visit to visit Al From. That's about all,
if that was the situation like that.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?
Mr. Souder asked why a call from Mr. Riady's room would go
to the chief of staff's office and you said you didn't know.
And then just now there was a call to the Democratic Leadership
Council from James Riady's room, and you said that you probably
would have made that call; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. No. The only thing is, Mr. Riady did not have
any connections with the DLC.
Mr. Burton. So there was a call to the Democratic
Leadership Council's office. Would that have been your call?
Mr. Huang. The only way--that would be me, yes, maybe me.
Mr. Burton. So you were in the room at the same time that
he called the chief of staff's office because that was only 5
minutes before.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Burton. Let me just finish.
If you were in the room 5 minutes before you called the
Democratic Leadership Council for some reason, why wouldn't you
have known why he was calling the chief of staff at the White
House?
Mr. Huang. That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman. I was
really trying to say I did not really remember what was the
content about why he called. I did also some support, and there
were quite a lot of calls being made between Mr. Riady's hotel
room and the White House, sir.
Mr. Burton. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Souder. Then at 12 I think the records show in exhibit
101 that you had a meeting with a Mr. Hubbell at the Hay-Adams.
That was the lunch you were referring to earlier at 12 on
exhibit 101?
Mr. Huang. That is luncheon I was referring to that I
recalled to, right.
Mr. Souder. So--and what was the purpose of this meeting?
Mr. Huang. Basically that Mr. Riady wanted to chat with Mr.
Hubbell, and I was not, you know, involving in the luncheon,
until the tail end I came back from outside.
Mr. Souder. Yesterday you told me that to your knowledge
that whenever there were meetings between Mr. Riady and Mr.
Hubbell that you set them up. Had they met a number of times
before? Had you set up other meetings?
Mr. Huang. Prior to this?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. I didn't believe so, sir.
Mr. Souder. So to your knowledge this, at least in this
time period, was the only meeting between----
Mr. Huang. I believe that was the first meeting, Mr.
Souder.
Mr. Souder. And you don't know what they chatted about?
Mr. Huang. I don't know the detail.
Mr. Souder. What would be some nondetail, kind of general
feeling?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, let me offer this way to you. Mr.
Riady did previously have conversation with me, and I did
convey the information to him previously about people would
like to, you know, suggest or help Mr. Hubbell. And I remember
I mentioned to you yesterday about the set-up-a-trust-fund
situation, the limit was the $15,000 limit. That was over the
phone. He did not really give me any response about that. All
right?
And later on he came over here he asked me the opinion, I
said if you really want to help a person, you want to help
people you need. That's all I offered on that basis. And I was
sort of left everything for him.
Now, if you want me to say what was involved in meeting, I
believe that was related to, you know, anything related to
this.
Mr. Souder. So did Mr. Riady tell you after he came out any
comment that Mr. Hubbell might have made or any impressions?
Did you talk about the meeting with him?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not even ask about that.
Mr. Souder. The exhibit 104 shows that then at 2 another
phone call over to the White House. Do you know what the
purpose of that phone call would have been? It was the officer
for the number of White House personnel that's 456-7510 in the
log there.
[Exhibit 104 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.285
Mr. Huang. I cannot recall specifically.
Mr. Souder. Right after the lunch was completed.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, did you mention that was related to
the White House personnel?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Souder. Do you know why you would have called White
House personnel during that time?
Mr. Huang. Maybe during the slack time and want to go over
the visit with some of the friends.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent Mr.
Souder be given an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Souder. Then the next day, exhibit 105, shows that
there was a lunch at the White House mess with Mr. Riady, his
family and Mark Middleton. Do you recall that?
[Exhibit 105 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.286
Mr. Huang. I remember there was a luncheon involved, but I
was not attending.
Mr. Souder. So you did not attend this lunch?
Mr. Huang. Right. But I was there though. I was outside
waiting in the reception room, as I reported to you yesterday.
Mr. Souder. Was there anyone there besides--it says on the
schedule Mr. and Mrs. Riady and their children, and it's on
Mark Middleton's schedule; was anyone else at the luncheon that
you know of or might have stopped by?
Mr. Huang. Let me retract a little bit. There might be two
luncheons involved. One luncheon was involving just Mrs. Riady
and the children and myself in the White House mess. There was
a separate luncheon, which I did not attend--I was waiting
outside in the reception room--that involved Mr. Riady and Mr.
Middleton, that in terms of who went to that luncheon I do not
know for sure on that.
Mr. Souder. Do you have any idea of what the purpose of
this luncheon was at 12 on June 24th?
Mr. Huang. Now, if this is the day referring to with the
families, the children, just an experiencing thing for Mrs.
Aileen Riady and the children to be having the opportunity of
dining in the mess.
Mr. Souder. Just as a casual observer, we're having a lot
of experiential time with Mr. Middleton's schedule here. I
think there are three different appointments. There's a lunch.
Presumably he has something--the reason it's hard not to
believe there wasn't any substantive discussion is that it
isn't as though they didn't already see him a couple of times
earlier and seeing him more, and it's hard to believe there
weren't any substantive discussions because there's only so
much socializing you do. It's not like they were real buddy-
buddy here.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, I can offer this way because he was
the only person that would know better to get us in. So we
always call on the same person to get--let him clear us in on
that basis.
Mr. Souder. So you don't think he stayed at the lunch?
Mr. Huang. Are you talking about staying--in my luncheon, I
didn't believe, with the children.
Mr. Souder. And Mr. Middleton.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Middleton. In my luncheon, he did not.
Mr. Souder. He just----
Mr. Huang. He just book us in, I didn't believe he was at a
luncheon with us.
But he had a luncheon with Riady on the other luncheon I
was talking about.
Mr. Souder. And do you know what was discussed at that
luncheon?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't know.
Mr. Souder. And Mr. Riady didn't discuss anything with you
about that?
Mr. Huang. He did not.
Mr. Souder. So, in effect, what you were saying is there
were a lot of social calls, but there was one very substantive
luncheon most likely because it was done without you or the
children present.
Mr. Huang. I don't know whether it was substantive or not,
yeah.
Mr. Souder. They had already done their social calls. I
mean, in effect, you testified you have had multiple social
calls with him, he did a social call to get you into the
luncheon. So the social call part is kind of done; then they
have another luncheon.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I really don't know about that, yeah.
Mr. Souder. And I know you weren't present. On exhibit 106,
there's a receipt, another phone call over to Debbi Shon at the
Executive Office Building--Shon, is it Shon?
[Exhibit 106 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.287
Mr. Huang. Shon.
Mr. Souder. Do you know what that purpose would have been?
Mr. Huang. Just a courtesy. Shon is coming from our
community. She's a Korean American, and we knew her before.
Mr. Souder. So it was a courtesy call?
Mr. Huang. It's basically make a round, yeah.
Mr. Souder. Do you know who called 456-7510 at 2:16, which
is in exhibit 106 as well?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, you have to help me. What is 7510's
department? Is it personnel?
Mr. Souder. Personnel.
Mr. Huang. Probably that's--I do remember we met with Maria
Haley, I believe she was also at that time working in the
Personnel Department as also old friends from Arkansas time.
You know, just went over to say hello.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Souder. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Burton. Did you discuss with her your future position
at the Department of Commerce when you were in there?
Mr. Huang. I might have. My position was determined I
believe.
Mr. Burton. I know you said that. But we're looking at the
sequence of events here that led up to Webb Hubbell getting
$100,000 from the Riadys and then a short time later you were
appointed to an important position at the Department of
Commerce. On this list, it shows that you met with a lot of
people and then you met with the personnel director there at
the White House. Did you discuss with her your position at the
Department of Commerce that was coming up, or the possibility
you would be getting that job?
Mr. Huang. I have already got offered it. At that time I
mentioned to her that I would be coming to Commerce Department.
Mr. Burton. So you did talk to her about the job at the
Commerce Department?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. In exhibit 107, if we could go to 107, once
again where--I think this is Mr. Hubbell's schedule again. It
shows June 24th at 5 that Mr. Riady met with Mr. Hubbell. Do
you remember that meeting?
[Exhibit 107 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.288
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do.
Mr. Souder. And who was at that meeting?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady and I went over there. Mr. Riady and
Mr. Hubbell went into the room to discuss. I was sitting
outside in a small conference room.
Mr. Souder. Where did it take place, did you say?
Mr. Huang. I think it's Mr. Miller's office on 19th or 20th
and M Street in that corner.
Mr. Souder. Who is he?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Miller I believe used to be the Treasury
Secretary. I think he was officially in a previous rank in the
administration.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield to me for a quick
question?
You mentioned $100,000 that Mr. Riady gave to Webb Hubbell,
you said because of friendship. But was he expecting some work
in exchange for that or was he simply giving a gift?
Mr. Huang. I do know some basically trying to answer and do
certain thing, but I don't know the specific things at that
time. You know, hire him as a consultant type of things.
Mr. Waxman. But he was planning to hire him to do something
in exchange for the $100,000, you don't know whether the work
was done; but did you know he was being hired or just given a
gift?
Mr. Huang. No, in other words, we'll hire him to do
whatever the work he can to help the Lippo situation. More
specifically, I did not know at that time.
Mr. Waxman. There was $100,000 to hire him?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Waxman, I'm not very clear what I knew at
that time, that the $100,000 was mentioned or not. Normally
that would be an amount of money in practice that Mr. Riady
would do. For instance, on Mark Grobmyer situation was start at
like $100,000. So you could get another consultant probably be
logical amount. I would have to venture to guess on that.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to
yield to Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I think it's important to point out for the
record that yesterday, under oath, when I asked you the
question, was this predominantly a job or was this
predominantly out of friendship, you said that it was
predominantly out of friendship. And when you raised it to Mr.
Riady you raised that we should help him out of friendship.
So to the degree it was a job, there might have been tasks
given, but you do not recall the specifics of the tasks. In
fact, you stated again today earlier that you felt that this
was predominantly to help out a friend who is in need, not a
job.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to followup. You do not recall the
breakfast meeting, but Mr. Hubbell had a breakfast meeting. We
have discussed the earlier luncheon meeting, and then there was
another meeting at 5 with Mr. Hubbell. Why do you believe there
were at least two and possibly three meetings needed?
Mr. Huang. The reason I remember those two is because I was
there.
Mr. Souder. Yes. But why do you think they needed so much
time together? Because it is clearly beyond courtesy. It is
clearly now beyond the point of even saying, hey, I am in real
trouble. I need the money. These are pretty lengthy time
periods now, all in 1 day.
Mr. Huang. That was different dates.
Mr. Souder. The breakfast was on the 23rd, but you did not
recall that. You are right. Two were on the 23rd and one was on
the 24th.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, I really deep down in my heart did
not think this was a breakfast meeting.
Mr. Souder. Let's say there were two meetings. Why would
two meal meetings be needed here?
Mr. Huang. As I also mentioned to you, the logical thing is
they had not seen each other for a while and really sit down to
chat. The first one was basis of warming up and chatting. The
following meeting was talking about more detail in his office.
Mr. Souder. At what point did Mr. Riady ask you to check
into his bank account?
Mr. Huang. After those two meetings. Apparently the meeting
was over. Mr. Riady thought there was one item missing maybe
out of his bank account. So I don't now exactly the date I
believe I called Mr. Hubbell to find out what his bank account
was, you know, to have the accounts being wired. So I passed
the number back to either Lippo or back to Mr. Riady; I don't
remember exactly whom I did.
Mr. Souder. Could you precisely explain to me what ``in his
bank account means?'' You said you called Mr. Hubbell. Did you
ask him what his assets were, his current cash-flow?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no. To do that I knew probably the decision
was already being made to offer help to him. The money has to
be coming in----
Mr. Souder. So you just wanted a number where to send the
money?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, to facilitate the wire for
sending the money.
Mr. Souder. In the 302 from the Justice Department, on page
42, the recollection--and it is DOJ H000065--it says, according
to FBI's recounting of your conversation, ``During the last
week of June 1994, Hubbell and J. Riady had a breakfast meeting
in Hubbell's temporary office at 19th and M in Washington, DC.
Huang was outside the door during the meeting pursuant to
Riady's.''
Now, you are saying that was actually a lunch?
Mr. Huang. I think I was referring there was a meeting in
Mr. Miller's office, I was waiting outside the room.
Mr. Souder. But according to this deposition, it starts out
by saying that you recall a breakfast meeting, then you also
recall that they had a lunch meeting. And the breakfast
meeting, by the way, is on Mr. Hubbell's schedule. And then in
the evening, they had another meeting. And I am confused as to
why the FBI is reporting that you said, in effect, three and
the records show three and what the discrepancy is.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, No. 1, that was not really a FBI
deposition at the time. All right? And I never review about
302. I want to testify to you on that. I assume FBI might
probably be confused by Mr. Hubbell's diary for that. I always
asserted that it was two meetings, for sure that in my mind.
Mr. Souder. I mean, is it possible there was a meeting you
were not aware of that shows up in Mr. Hubbell's diary?
Mr. Huang. Everything is possible, though. You know, it is
very unlikely at that period of time it is just something I was
not aware of.
Mr. Souder. If I could ask for 5 additional minutes, I
think I could finish up with my Hubbell questioning. Is that
acceptable?
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Souder. It also shows that on the evening of June 24th
there was a call made to the Indonesian ambassador at 8:04.
That's on exhibit 108.
[Exhibit 108 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.289
Mr. Huang. I can generally talk about that. Whenever Mr.
Riady is in town, he tries to make a round to pay a courtesy
visit to various people and, you know, renew the friendship. He
and the Indonesian ambassador were friends back in Indonesia.
Mr. Souder. And then at 9:50 there was a call once again
over to White House personnel.
Mr. Huang. In the evening?
Mr. Souder. Yes. That also shows up in exhibit 108.
Presumably that was not a courtesy call. It is the same number
as earlier we determined was 456-7510 was White House
personnel. There was a call to that same number on June 23rd
and there was a call in the afternoon on June 24th and then
another call in the night of June 24th to the same number.
Mr. Huang. I could not explain to you on that, no.
Mr. Souder. Then after that call----
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real briefly? We will
get you some more time.
Were you in the Riadys' room when he made that call at 9:50
that night?
Mr. Huang. I cannot recall, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hubbell. You said when you had gone to the White House
personnel office earlier that you had discussed your potential
job over at the Department of Commerce. Now we have a call just
a day or so before Mr. Hubbell gets the $100,000 at 9:50 at
night, again to the personnel office. This obviously was not a
courtesy call. So was Mr. Riady talking to them about your job
to make sure you were getting that job at the Department of
Commerce or was this just another courtesy call?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I really don't know about that. As
I stated to you before, my appointment has nothing to do with
Mr. Hubbell's--the money to Mr. Hubbell.
Mr. Burton. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Souder. There was another call, by the way, to the
Indonesian ambassador that night at 10:10. But was that
another--you don't know any particular business?
Mr. Huang. I don't. I don't.
Mr. Souder. Now I'd like to talk a little bit about on June
25th, did you and Mr. Riady and his family attend the
President's radio address?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. The White House records do not show an entry
time. Do you know how you got into the White House that day? It
is possible you drove into the White House complex? But, if so,
it would have had to have been specially arranged.
Mr. Huang. No. I think we went in as routine, went through
security, if I remember correctly, just like everyone else was
going in.
Mr. Souder. Well, that usually would be logged.
Mr. Huang. It's very strange. I didn't recall there was any
special arrangement for us to be in there for the radio
address, sir.
Mr. Souder. I would like to show the videotape on the radio
address. If we could show that at this point.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Souder. My question is going to be when the camera goes
off, were you and the Riadys the only ones left with the
President?
Mr. Huang. That is correct. Mr. Souder, we were probably
the last. If it is not the last one, it will be the next to the
last ones.
Mr. Souder. Was it arranged beforehand that that would be
the case?
Mr. Huang. No. We just purposely stayed late to be the
last.
Mr. Souder. How long did you stay?
Mr. Huang. Not very long. But the reason for that is that
the family with the kids were there, they were trying to get a
family photo with the President.
Mr. Souder. So there were not any substantive discussions.
You were just posing for photos?
Mr. Huang. I didn't spot anything on that, sir.
Mr. Souder. And to your knowledge, there was--you say there
might have been one other person left?
Mr. Huang. I don't know. But we were very nearly the last,
almost the last, yeah.
Mr. Souder. And it is your testimony that this was not any
special arrangement for private time or anything regarding
that?
Mr. Huang. No, sir. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. Were there any other kids there? I mean,
wouldn't other people want to hang around, too?
Mr. Huang. I didn't recall.
Mr. Souder. Because usually nobody clears out of the room
until there is a forced clearing out of the room. I hate to
admit this, but I was at a radio address. It was not a radio
address here in Washington, but it was at the Summit of the
Americas. There was a large group like that. Nobody really
wants to leave. I mean, I might have but that was beside the
point. But most people wanted to stay. Then they clear them
out.
I was not the only Member of Congress present. For example,
now-Speaker Hastert was there, as well. Then there was time
before he had the next appointment with which to have a
substantive discussion. That is fairly standard that everybody
leaves at the same time. Or I assume that is what generally
happens at events.
But your testimony is that there was no private discussion
to your knowledge; there was no prearranged time after the
radio address, that after the camera went off, everybody else
cleared out except maybe one but you and the family?
Mr. Huang. No. No. Actually I was taking a photo, as well.
No special arrangement. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. OK. I may have some closing comments, but I
thank you for your patience and your willingness to try to
address these questions.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman want to finish up? If he
wants more time, I would certainly be willing to agree to it.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman is recognized for 5 more minutes
then.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. My concern is that what we have seen
is that, in a period of the 21st to the 25th, that you and Mr.
Riady went to the White House six times, saw the President
three times, you called the White House four times, that we are
debating whether there was a meeting with Mr. Riady and Mr.
Hubbell two or three times; and after all this happened in 1
week, which is a lot of courtesy calls and in fact repeated
courtesy calls, Mr. Riady gave Mr. Hubbell $100,000 not for a
particular job, although there might have been some work with
it, but to help a friend. And your testimony here at this
hearing yesterday and today is that, in all those meetings,
other than directly with Mr. Riady and Mr. Hubbell, there was
no discussions about support for Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. I wasn't aware of, no.
Mr. Souder. You are aware of none. Your testimony is not
that there were none, but that you are aware of none; is that
precise?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. But your testimony is that it is possible that
Mr. Riady in a number of these meetings could have been talking
about the need to support Mr. Hubbell, but he would not have
necessarily told you?
Mr. Huang. I could not speculate on that, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Souder. In fact, you did speculate earlier because you
said you--you didn't speculate. You said you didn't even ask
any questions.
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Souder. So the fact is that there could have been
discussions and you wouldn't have known because you did not ask
any questions.
Even though you were the point person who was asking Mr.
Riady to give the money to Mr. Hubbell and you were the person
who was setting up these meetings and making a lot of these
phone calls and setting up the radio address, you did not even
ask Mr. Riady whether or not he talked with anybody about it?
Mr. Huang. Whatever you suggest, Mr. Congressman, it was
possible. But, in my mind, it was not likely. The reason is,
the $100,000 was really not as large amount of money, you know,
so I never really, you know, think that will be, you know, any
special thing he would have to do.
Mr. Souder. Well, let me ask you a question about that. I
mean, to me $100,000 is a lot of money and I think to most
people. But it certainly was a lot of money to Mr. Hubbell.
Right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. And that it was certainly important to Mr.
Hubbell's friends because they had the law partner, former law
partner of Bruce Lindsey call you and say, look, our friend is
in trouble. He needs some help. His kids need it. It was
important to people who were associated with the White House
that there was support.
It is just hard to imagine that there would not have been
people saying, hey, we really hope you will help our friend, he
is really in trouble, that no discussions occurred in all these
phone conversations, all these meetings, all these meetings of
Mark Middleton. I mean, these people are friends from Little
Rock.
What we have heard is we ran into a whole series of
attorneys from Little Rock, friends of Webb Hubbell, Webb
Hubbell is in trouble. This is a man who comes into town, has a
series of meetings, and at the end gives him $100,000 to help
him. It is just hard to imagine there were not discussions, I
mean the average person watching this. You may not know. You
did not ask any questions about it. But I think that the
evidence kind of suggests that we do not know the extent of the
discussions, whether they were casual or in depth.
But it certainly, without people willing to come forth who
were in the meetings and talk to us, a lot of Americans are
looking at this and saying, boy, this sure looks like hush
money. And your testimony today did not really do anything to
prove that, but it did not do anything to really disprove it
either. In fact, I think it would be a legitimate question to
ask those people.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Souder, you know, I am trying to be helpful
as much as I can, but I'm limited to the fact I can only
testify what I know, what I really know about that.
Mr. Souder. And I absolutely agree with that. And you
should not, while I might ask you your opinion, that is still
different than a fact and nobody is convicted until there is a
fact. But part of our problem here is a lot of people will not
talk to us. And I realize you are at one level and some people
have implied that you are at a higher level than you probably
are because in fact if you don't know the answers to some of
these questions you cannot be at the center of a conspiracy, if
there is a conspiracy, which has not been proven. But if there
is one, you are clearly at a level that is moving up here. But
you can see, I would hope, at least why we are asking the
questions. Because to the average observer looking at this,
this was a very questionable active week.
I appreciate that you have tried to answer the questions,
and I thank you for your patience.
Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Souder. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. Waxman. Just so I understand where things are. You knew
that people wanted to help Webb Hubbell and that you even said
to Mr. Riady, Mr. Hubbell is in trouble. So Mr. Riady gave
Hubbell $100,000.
Is there anything that you know of that would indicate that
it was given as hush money to keep Mr. Hubbell from not saying
something? Or just that they wanted to help him out when he was
down?
Mr. Huang. The term of ``hush'' never came to my mind at
that time and at a later date. I always felt it was a
friendship, you know, to help a friend.
Mr. Waxman. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Souder. Of course that is partly what hush money is. In
other words, friends usually do not go and turn in other
friends and they support one another in a network. And while it
might not be the case in this case, it could be. And our
dilemma in a lot of these kind of things is that it could be or
could not. Our job is to continue to try to prove that. But we
moved along and laid out a series of events that I think most
Americans would have serious doubts about.
Mr. Waxman. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not
know why you see your job as trying to prove that. It seems to
me our job is trying to find out what the facts are. And some
people speculate and maybe would like to think there was hush
money involved and maybe would like you to prove there was hush
money involved, but all we can do is find the evidence that we
have before us. And the witness, who had some knowledge of
things that were going on, can tell us what he knew. And to
this point there is no evidence of any hush money.
Mr. Souder. Reclaiming my time, it is clear that Webb
Hubbell has not talked. It is clear that we have 120-some
witnesses who have either taken the fifth or fled the country
to this committee. I believe that that is what has been proven
is that there is obstruction of justice. We do not know what
justice has been obstructed, whether it was secrets of the
United States, whether it was political compromises, whether it
was multiplicity of interests of Mr. Riady. There is lots of
possibilities. But the goal here was not to prove that this was
hush money.
What we know is that he has been hushed. What we do not
know whether there was any payoffs that did that, whether it
was choice because he is a friend of the President. We do not
know what he is hushed about. But we know they are not talking.
Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield? We know that Mr.
Hubbell testified before the grand jury; he cooperated with the
independent counsel, not to the independent counsel's
satisfaction, obviously. And maybe the problem is he is not
saying, not because of hush money, but he is just not saying
what people want him to say because that is not what he
believes.
Maybe people want Webb Hubbell to say what they want him to
say. But he has testified over and over again, and he has not
said what they want him to say. Now that could be for whatever
reason, but it could be also because it is the truth.
Mr. Souder. And this will be hopefully the final comment
with this extended red light is that, while I agree that that
is possible, I do not think it is probable because there have
been so many--I don't remember what we discussed at that
meeting, I can't quite recall, that it stretches plausibility
to believe it has been completely open. But I agree that that
is a possibility and that, in this country, you are innocent
until proven guilty. Any suggestion that I have had that it has
been proven I try to say over and over, it has not been proven.
But that is why many of us think it is there even if it has not
been proven and nobody is guilty until it is proven.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. I would like
to take some time now.
Mr. Huang, you went into the White House to the personnel
office a short time before Mr. Hubbell got the $100,000. You
said that you talked to the personnel people in passing about
you were going to be working over at the Department of Commerce
and you said that that was already a done deal before any of
this happened. But then that night there was another call to
the personnel director at 9:50, I believe it was, and you do
not know what that call was about. It was from Riady's room at
the Hay-Adams Hotel, and you do not remember whether or not you
were present.
Do you have any idea why Mr. Riady would be calling the
personnel office at the White House just before the $100,000
was given to Mr. Hubbell?
Mr. Huang. I have no idea. I don't have any clue.
Mr. Burton. You do not know that he was trying to help
anybody get a job or anything?
Mr. Huang. It would be really unlikely, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. So you would have no idea why he would call the
personnel office?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Burton. Now, you went to the Commerce Department and
you started working there. During the time that you were at the
Commerce Department, from your home, from your office, and
across the street at the Stephens Co., you made or received 232
contacts from the Lippo Group in Indonesia and here in the
United States and in Hong Kong.
Why did you make calls from the Stephens office across the
street, and why did you send faxes from the Stephens office
across the street to the Lippo Group? Why didn't you do that
either from your home or from the Commerce Department? Why did
you feel it was necessary to go to an outside office to do
that?
Mr. Huang. Excuse me 1 second.
Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few questions there. I am
trying to answer portion by portion.
Mr. Burton. Let's narrow it down to one.
Why did you go across the street to the Stephens office to
contact the Lippo Group with faxes and phone calls when you had
a phone in your office?
Mr. Huang. I'm not even sure those faxes were sent to Lippo
by me through the Stephens office across the street. I did use
the Stephens financial office. Sometimes I made some personal
calls which I did not feel it was proper to use the office
phone.
Mr. Burton. Did you call the Lippo Group or send any faxes
from the Stephens office?
Mr. Huang. I certainly do not recall. But I do Stephens
finance--Stephens office did send some fax to the Lippo Group.
That's their only business, though.
Mr. Burton. You did not send any faxes from Stephens office
to the Lippo Group. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Huang. I do not recall.
Mr. Burton. You do not recall.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. You do not remember going across the street to
that office?
Mr. Huang. I believe I did not.
Mr. Burton. Did you make any phone calls from across the
street to the Lippo Group from the Stephens office?
Mr. Huang. You confine Lippo Group is----
Mr. Burton. Any calls. To Indonesia, to the offices here in
the United States, to Hong Kong.
Mr. Huang. I really don't remember I called overseas to
Lippo.
Mr. Burton. So you do not remember?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. Why would you go over there and call the
Lippo Group in the United States?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe I used the Stephens finance
primarily for----
Mr. Burton. I want you to think hard about this because you
have your counsel there. You are under oath and we're going to
check this out very thoroughly.
Do you recall or did you make any phone calls to the Lippo
Group here in the United States or overseas that you recall?
Did you send any faxes from the Stephens office to any Lippo
entity while you were at the Department of Commerce?
Mr. Huang. I did not recall, sir.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall?
Mr. Huang. I do not recall.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall going over to their office?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Burton. What did you do when you went to their office.
Mr. Huang. There are some personal things. For instance, I
can raise the example to you. I was still the member of the
Committee of 100. I used the office sometimes, and I asked them
to send faxes over there.
Mr. Burton. Well, let's pursue that. Do you remember the
Committee 100? Committee 100 was a financial-raising
organization, wasn't it? Did they raise money?
Mr. Huang. No. No. I didn't think so.
Mr. Burton. What was the purpose of that organization?
Mr. Huang. It is organization to just basically promote the
mutual understanding, you know, between the Chinese people and
also the American people. That's one of them as far as I know.
Mr. Burton. Before you went to the Department of Commerce,
did you ever work with any of them to raise money?
Mr. Huang. Now, in terms of raising money for the
organization or raising money for other?
Mr. Burton. For campaigns. Did you ever work with any of
these people in those organizations to raise money?
Mr. Huang. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.
Mr. Burton. None of those people were contributors to the
DNC?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't know for fact. But not for me
definitely true.
Mr. Burton. When you went to the DNC, did any of those
people contribute? I mean, pretty large contributions?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I take it back. Excuse me. I have
to tell the truth. The one member--that was before I became a
member of the Committee of 100 one member, Dr. Ky, did make
contribution in August 1992 event.
Mr. Burton. Well, while you were at the Department of
Commerce and you went over to the Stephens office, did you ever
ask anybody for money in phone calls from the Stephens office?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. You're sure?
Mr. Huang. I'm sure.
Mr. Burton. OK. So you never made any calls that you
recall. You don't recall calling the Lippo Group from the
Stephens office, and you don't recall calling the Lippo Group
or sending them faxes from the Stephens office?
Mr. Huang. I do not recall.
Mr. Burton. So if we find that there were phone calls--what
is this here? Can we put this up on the board. Can I ask for 5
additional minutes? Without objection, so ordered. We do not
have this to put it up on the board.
We have here from July 19, 1994, through January 30, 1995,
there must be 30 or 40 faxes going to the Lippo in Hong Kong,
director of the Lippo Bank, Lippo Hong Kong, Lippo Pacific,
director of the Lippo Bank, Lippo Asia, Ltd., Lippo Pacific.
You don't recall having any involvement with any of these?
Mr. Huang. I do not recall. Let me stress that Stephens
group has some business. They used to be a partner between
Lippo and Stephens. They might have some business to do.
Mr. Burton. The man in charge was a man named Vernon
Weaver?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. I intend to bring Mr. Weaver before the
committee and put him under oath. Now, Mr. Weaver was there
when you were there, was he not?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. If I ask him if all of these faxes and phone
calls were from him to the Lippo Group, do you think he is
going to say that they were from him or somebody on his staff?
Mr. Huang. I believe he would tell the truth, yeah.
Mr. Burton. OK. Well, we'll find out. We will get in touch
with him. I would like to make a copy of this and have it put
on the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.410
Mr. Burton. Now let me ask you a couple of other questions.
You met a number of times with people from the People's
Republic of China, the Communist Chinese Government, while you
were at the Department of Commerce, did you not? Did you have
lunch with them or dinner with any of them?
Mr. Huang. I have lunch with some of the Embassy personnel,
yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you remember how many times?
Mr. Huang. I can't recall. Probably it was not too many,
no.
Mr. Burton. Did you go to the Chinese Embassy?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Burton. How many times?
Mr. Huang. Not too many. Probably on invitation basis for
whatever event they had.
Mr. Burton. Was it one time, five times?
Mr. Huang. It is definitely more than one time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Do you remember what you talked about?
Mr. Huang. No. It was a big gathering. Probably just saying
hello, that's all. Meeting with various people. A lot of people
were there. It was big function.
Mr. Burton. And you were at the Department of Commerce at
the time?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. On January 19, 1995, your calendar reflects
that you met with the PRC Ambassador, Li Zhaoxing, for dinner.
Do you recall that?
Mr. Huang. Can I read that, please?
Mr. Burton. Yes, sure. Do we have that in his book? Where
is that? 167.
Mr. Cobb. Mr. Chairman, is that exhibit 167?
[Exhibit 167 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.290
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 167, page 17.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated list on my
calendar, the secretary kept my calendars. There was a dinner
over there.
Mr. Burton. Do you know what you talked about on January
19, 1995, with the PRC Ambassador, Li Zhaoxing?
Mr. Huang. If I remember correctly, there was an invitation
working through another Chinese-American community member, who
invited some of the Chinese American government officials to
have a dinner with Mr. Ambassador Li.
Mr. Burton. Did you go?
Mr. Huang. I did not go.
Mr. Burton. You did not go?
Mr. Huang. I did not go.
Mr. Burton. On February 14, 1995, did you have a reception
with the People's Republic of China Minister Counselor named
Ming? Did you go to that?
Mr. Huang. This is on exhibit----
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 168. It is February the 15th.
[Exhibit 168 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.291
Mr. Huang. I believe down below it says Wisconsin Avenue
maybe is the address?
Mr. Burton. It says reception with the PRC Minister
Counselor Ming. Where was that located?
Mr. Huang. Counselor Ming just opened up a separate office.
It was opening invitation to have a lot of people going over
there.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall what you talked about or
anything, or was it just a social event?
Mr. Huang. It was a social event.
Mr. Burton. On April 5th at 10 a.m., your calendar reflects
Ms. Zhu Yang, PRC Deputy Director for UI. I believe that is Far
East relation.
Did you go to that?
Mr. Huang. I did not go to that. They came to me.
Mr. Burton. What did you talk about?
Mr. Huang. No, that was arranged, Mr. Chairman, by, I
think, AID. Some of the people from China, there was touring
the United States, that meeting was arranged by AID to come to
visit me. It was not my initiative, sir.
Mr. Burton. Well, I see my time has expired. I will come
back to this later.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I want you to have the continuity
if you want to continue on. But if you wouldn't mind, would you
yield to me just for a second or two to make some points for
the record?
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Waxman. I don't want to take my 5 minutes, which I'll
do later.
But the question of this Committee of 100, what is this
group again, Mr. Huang?
Mr. Huang. It is Committee of 100. The basis is leading
distinguished Chinese-Americans who form the groups after the
Tiananmen Square event in 1989, I think.
Mr. Waxman. The chairman said that this group is under some
suspicion. But I do want to point out in the Congressional
Record of March 22, 1994, Senator McCain said, and I am quoting
from Senator McCain's record statement, ``I have long admired
the work of the Committee of 100 and the very distinguished
members that represent it. The members of the Committee
represent Chinese-Americans from all over the Nation and across
a wide range of political opinions and professions. To give my
colleagues an idea of the caliber of people making up the
organization, I commend to them the biographies of three
members who recently visited my office, one of whom, Ms. Ming
Shin Chu, is an Arizona resident. The biographies are somewhat
dated but I think they illustrate well the competence of the
Committee of 100 delegation.''
The second point I want to make is that the chairman said
that he was going to bring Mr. Weaver in to question whether
you had made those calls or not. As I recall, we deposed Mr.
Weaver in the last Congress, and I think we have asked those
questions. So we are checking to see whether we already know
whether Mr. Weaver has testified so we do not have to bring him
in if he has already testified on this subject. We will find
out soon what he had to say, and we will put that in the
record. And, without objection, may I ask we put his testimony
in the record on those points if you think it is appropriate.
Mr. Burton. We may bring Mr. Weaver. In fact, I plan to
bring Mr. Weaver in again because, according to my staff, the
information that we have now we did not have at that time and
those questions were not presented to him, especially on these
lists of phone calls and list of faxes that were sent. So we
may have to talk to him again. But I have no objection to
putting it in the record.
Mr. Waxman. Let's just withhold it and see what comes up
within the transcript.
Mr. Burton. That will be fine.
Mr. Waxman. Let me ask unanimous consent that the chairman
be given 10 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Let me just say that, the Committee of 100, I do not want
it to appear as though we have cast aspersions on that
organization. What I was asking was whether or not any of those
people, while you were at the Department of Commerce were
solicited and gave money to the DNC or when you were at the
DNC. And I believe your answer was there was one individual but
you did not solicit any of them. Is that correct?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I believe what I was saying is
back in 1992 there was one individual, maybe even more than one
individual, at that time I was not even a Committee of 100
member then, made a contribution to the candidate Clinton
campaign at that time.
Mr. Burton. While you were at the Department of Commerce?
Mr. Huang. While I was in Commerce, no. And while I was in
DNC, the answer is yes.
Mr. Burton. You did?
Mr. Huang. In DNC the answer is yes, probably about in one
event, maybe around few checks.
Mr. Burton. Do you have any idea who those people were, how
many there were?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I can give you at least at this time what I
remember.
Mr. Burton. What I would like to do is for the record if
you could give us the names and the amounts if you could
recollect those for us.
Mr. Huang. Right now I can off my head give you one right
now. The lady Chen did give some money. The amount I don't
remember. That was September 1996 event in L.A.
Mr. Burton. And you were with the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I was with the DNC at that time.
Mr. Burton. In any event, if you could give us those from
the 100 group.
I want to followup and ask a question about that.
Mr. Huang. Sure.
Mr. Burton. Did you have any responsibility for China
issues when you were at Commerce? I mean, did you have any
responsibility or were you charged with the responsibility of
dealing with China on commerce issues, issues of that type?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Why not?
Mr. Huang. Basically the territory was taken away and was
under the umbrella of Mr. Rothkopf, who was the deputy
undersecretary.
Mr. Burton. So they did not want you to be involved in
commerce issues with China at that time?
That was not your responsibility, right?
Mr. Huang. That was not my responsibility, that's correct.
Mr. Burton. So you had a number of meetings, and I will go
through these meetings again chronologically, but you had a
number of meetings with people from the Chinese Embassy, with
people coming in and out from China. You had those meetings at
the Department of Commerce, at the Chinese Embassy and other
places. Why were you meeting with those people?
Mr. Huang. It was by invitation. Whenever there is a
function or event, I was invited to go, like other officials
also receiving invitation as well. I just went.
Mr. Burton. Well, let's go through these because some of
these I do not think they were widely attended events. Some of
these were just lunch or dinner with one or two people. Let's
go through these.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Burton. You reflected a meeting with Ambassador
designate to China, Jim Sasser. Do you remember what that
meeting was about?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. What was that about?
Mr. Huang. The meeting--at that time it was a designate
Ambassador, it was not confirmed.
Mr. Burton. That's right.
Mr. Huang. I had a few of the Committee of 100 members to
visit his temporary office at that time.
Mr. Burton. So you took them over there?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not. I came with the other members of
the Committee of 100 to go to see Mr. Sasser.
Mr. Burton. OK. On May 10, 1995, at 7 p.m., your calendar
reflects you will had a meeting with Ambassador Li, China
meeting. Do you recall what that one was about?
Mr. Huang. That is the same name, Ambassador Li, as the
then-Ambassador Li for the United States from People's Republic
of China. That is a different Ambassador Li.
Mr. Burton. OK. But do you know what that meeting was
about?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I was advised by Committee of 100,
Ambassador Li used to be the Ambassador for China to Nepal but
temporary at that time was visiting the United States and
various countries. Since he was coming over to Washington they
asked me whether I could just extend the courtesy to meet with
him and have dinner with him.
Mr. Burton. On September 21st, at 9:30 a.m., your calendar
reflects Chinese delegation, Chinese State Planning Commission.
What was that meeting?
Chinese delegation, Chinese State Planning Commission.
Mr. Huang. I could not explain for sure right now. I did
meet with some of the Chinese delegations. People made
arrangement to come over to see me, I offered to meet with
them.
Mr. Burton. I know. But the point is you had no
responsibilities to deal with the Chinese Government or the
Chinese people and here you have an official delegation coming
over and you met with them and you do not recall what it was
about?
Mr. Huang. It was not really an official delegation
probably at that time. Oh, say that again. I'm sorry. Sorry,
one more time. Excuse me, I remember now. I'm sorry.
Apparently there was a delegation visit Commerce
Department. They would like to know how the Commerce
Department's organization is. I was not the only one being
asked to meet with them. I believe there was a deputy
undersecretary for the economic and statistics also was there
trying to introduce the organization of the Commerce
Department. And it was done in the Commerce large conference
hall and I was there.
Mr. Burton. On October 12th you took a taxicab to the
residence of the Chinese Ambassador. Do you know what you went
over there for?
Mr. Huang. I was invited by a friend of mine who is the
head of the United States institute--not United States
institute--Asian Institute to go over there and see what he was
doing and he was inviting a lot of American businessmen to go
there to the Ambassador, that Ambassador was actually the
deputy of the mission, was not really the chief at that time,
and just had a breakfast there.
Mr. Burton. Do you know what you talked about?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do.
Mr. Burton. What did you talk about?
Mr. Huang. I did not really say very much. I was asked
questions at that time. Apparently the Ex-Im Bank at that
particular moment disapproved the loan, the financing of the
Three Gorge project in China and I was asked, you know, whether
I have any opinion on that.
Mr. Burton. And what did you say?
Mr. Huang. They said off record basis, Mr. Huang, can you
express your thoughts on that.
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh. But you had nothing to do with that
issue at the Commerce Department?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not.
Mr. Burton. But they were asking your opinion nevertheless?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. While you were at Commerce, you met with Tin
Ming Wang, minister of counselor commercial affairs. Wang
stated that he had known the PRC Minister Wang since 1972.
``Wang sought out Huang for personal advice, he says. He was
retiring and wanted to know if Huang could give him a job in
the private sector.''
Do you recall that meeting?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do.
Mr. Burton. What was that about?
Mr. Huang. Basically, he was facing retirement age and he
asked me since I came from the private sector and also I know
some of the groups in Asia whether I have any idea for him to
continue his, you know, career. It's a personal basis.
Mr. Burton. At any of these receptions or dinners or
anything did you discuss anything of an official nature at all?
Mr. Huang. No, except I was, you know, it's not on official
capacity, not a government business.
Mr. Burton. I am not asking that. Did you discuss anything
of an official nature at all?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Were you ever told specifically that you were
to be walled off from any China issues at the Department of
Commerce?
Mr. Huang. I did not know. I learned later on. I found out
from news account.
Mr. Burton. Well, Undersecretary Garten stated, ``Well,
generally I didn't want Huang working on anything regarding
China, and since China was such a high priority there was no
chance that with my knowledge he would have gotten close to
it.''
So they expected you to stay away from the Chinese issues
at the Department of Commerce, and yet you met on a regular
basis or frequently with people from the Chinese Government and
the Chinese Embassy. Why was that?
Mr. Huang. No, I visit the Chinese Embassy based on by
invitation. OK? The reason I did not have the territory is Mr.
Garten came into the Department of Commerce much earlier and
already took all those functions from Mr. Chuck Meissner, who
was my assistant secretary for my unit.
Mr. Burton. You went to the International Trade
Administration. Did you notify anyone at ITA that you would be
attending this event? Let's see which event we are talking
about.
Did you notify anybody at the ITA that you were going do
any of these events?
Mr. Huang. You're talking about all the events you were
talking about?
Mr. Burton. Any of those events, the International Trade
Administration. Did you tell them that you were going to these
events over at the Chinese Embassy and meeting with these
people?
Mr. Huang. I didn't believe so.
Mr. Burton. Weren't you supposed to do that? Weren't you
required to do that?
Mr. Huang. I thought many of them was a social invitation.
Every now and then when we would receive those invitation we
were going.
Mr. Burton. Were you authorized in any way to discuss any
commerce policies relating to China?
Mr. Huang. I did not discuss any policy with China.
Mr. Burton. Well, we have a whole list of meetings here
with Ambassador Li and a whole host of people. I have pages and
pages and pages of them. And it appears as though they were not
all social events, some of them were lunches or dinners with
individuals. And these were all social?
Mr. Huang. Principally those are, what you pointed out to
me just now.
Mr. Burton. You had an interview with the task force you
described in May 1995, breakfast with Zhou Wen Jong. Mr. Zhou
was an official at the Chinese Embassy; isn't that right?
Mr. Huang. Yes. That's the one you were referring on the
taxi fare?
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh.
Mr. Huang. I believe that was related to that.
Mr. Burton. Did you talk about anything officially at that?
Mr. Huang. No, except I just reported to you, you know,
asked my comment.
Mr. Burton. About that project in China?
Mr. Huang. Yeah, Three Gorge project.
Mr. Burton. How was that project funded?
Mr. Huang. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. Did the Department of Commerce have anything to
do with that project?
Mr. Huang. I don't think so.
Mr. Burton. Did Lippo Group companies or partners have any
interest in the Three Gorge project?
Mr. Huang. No, sir. Not that I know of, sir. I don't
believe so, either.
Mr. Burton. Did you have any other meetings that you have
not reported with Chinese officials other than what we have
gone into here?
Mr. Huang. Sorry, I don't recall. If I recall any, I'll
definitely report to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I would like to have a list of those if we can
get those.
Mr. Huang. If I remember.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. I yield my time to Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much.
Mr. Huang, there was a movie a couple years ago called
``Groundhog's Day'' and there was an actor Bill Murray and I
think Andie McDowell and they kept coming back to this day in
February and revisiting it. And I apologize to you, but we're
just going to finish this business on February 19, 1996, if I
can.
I was interested, just as an aside, about what a small
world it is. I had a chance to be in China a few years ago with
the Transportation Committee in a visit to the Three Gorges
project because it is an amazing thing not only in what it is
going to represent for hydroelectricity for China, but I was
also fascinated with the fact that a government could forcibly
move a million people from one place to another. But the former
Speaker of the House had just been over in that part of the
world and he had made some remarks that were interpreted to be
supportive of Taiwan, and so the Chinese Government canceled
our plane from Beijing to Xian, where I understand we would
have seen the project. But I'm sure that it is coming along
nicely and the people have been relocated and it is going to be
a really nice dam some day.
Going back to February 19th, I have two more contributions
I want to talk to you about and then I want to sort of wrap up
what happened on the 19th.
There was a $12,500 contribution by an individual by the
name of Charles Chiang again. If we could put up exhibit 337,
maybe if you could refer to that and if we can put it on the
screen. I would ask you first of all are you acquainted with an
individual by the name of Charles Chiang?
[Exhibit 337 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.292
Mr. Huang. May I take a look at it?
Mr. LaTourette. Sure.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, if this is the same Charlie Chiang
I know, then I know him. I'm going to say the Charlie Chiang of
the Chinese restaurant owner?
Mr. LaTourette. I believe he is associated with Mr. Trie is
the best connection. Do you know of Charles Chiang that is
connected with Mr. Trie?
Mr. Huang. The only Charles Chiang there is quite a few
Chinese restaurant called Charlie Chiang's restaurant.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, in this particular instance, this
$12,500 check that was given for the event of February 19th,
Mr. Chiang has indicated to us that he received $6,500 directly
back in a check from Mr. Trie and then $6,000 in those
travelers checks that I showed you the other day.
Were you aware of that before I just said that?
Mr. Huang. I was not aware of that, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Likewise, the next exhibit, it would be the
page after, No. 338, is a $25,000 contribution from an
individual by the name of Jack Ho. Were you acquainted with Mr.
Ho before this event?
[Exhibit 338 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.293
Mr. Huang. I was not.
Mr. LaTourette. And the contribution actually is from a
business called J&M International. Did you know anything about
that business, J&M International, before that day?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. We have--again the information is that
$25,000 contribution was returned to Mr. Ho in these travelers
checks that came from Jakarta. Were you aware of that at any
time before I just said it?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. To wrap up, then, I haven't been keeping a
running total, but I think that we have talked about the fact
that included in the money, did you raise $1 million on
February 19th?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. LaTourette. How much did you raise, do you remember?
Mr. Huang. My recollection is probably $800 and some
thousand at that time.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Of the $800 some thousand, I think that
you and I have gone through over the last couple of days close
to $200,000 of money that is interesting, to say the least, and
interesting in its connection to Mr. Charlie Trie. We talked
about the fact that a woman who makes $25,000 gave $12,500; we
have talked about a woman who wrote a check on a starter check.
We have talked about a couple of checks that were drawn on
foreign businesses to the tune of $12,500 in one case and
$25,000 in another case.
And I guess at the end of it we know today in the list of
names that I went over with you earlier in the hearing, we know
today that a number of illegal contributions were received for
the benefit of the Democratic National Committee as a result of
that February 19, 1996, fundraiser, do we not? Not that you
knew that they were illegal when you accepted them. But I think
it's safe to say, and we can quibble about whether it is
$190,000 or $200,000, but close to $200,000 of that money, at
least, from just what we have been talking about, were illegal
contributions, right?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Now I'm curious as to what sort of
debriefing, then, takes place after one of these events you did
in 1996. And I want to ask you if you had a meeting after the
event with a fellow by the name of Joe Sandler?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Who, for the record, is Joe Sandler?
Mr. Huang. He was general counsel for DNC.
Mr. LaTourette. What was the purpose of the meeting?
Mr. Huang. As you indicated, that was my first fundraising
event and I was told by then the financial director Mr.
Sullivan, Richard Sullivan, to go over and see Mr. Joe Sandler
and Mr. Sandler actually wanted me to bring all the checks I
collected and let him review it.
Mr. LaTourette. And did you do that?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. LaTourette. At that meeting did Mr. Sandler ask any
questions about the checks?
Mr. Huang. He asked me about individual checks, whether you
know about these people, if he has any questions. For instance,
the question in general, is he a U.S. citizen that you know of?
He has a permanent residency? If it is a corporate check, he
says, is it a U.S. company, has U.S. revenue? Things like that.
In many some instances I did not know and I go back to find
out.
Mr. LaTourette. How many checks roughly would you say you
collected for this event?
Mr. Huang. I don't know the exact numbers right now.
Mr. LaTourette. It would be less than 1,000, wouldn't it?
Mr. Huang. Definitely less than 1,000.
Mr. LaTourette. And he went through, as I understand what
you just said, he would go through this pile of checks and if
he had a question he would ask you a question or if you had
something to say you would say something about it?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. And the question was focused on whether or
not the contributor was a U.S. citizen or a legal resident?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. And also if it was a corporate contributor
that had an address outside of the United States, whether or
not this business had sufficient U.S. profits to cover the cost
of the donation? Those would be typical of the questions that
were asked?
Mr. Huang. I don't specifically recall that he asked the
company has a foreign address on the check.
Mr. LaTourette. I never knew the word ``vetting'' until I
came to Washington, DC, but I think we call that vetting
checks. During this vetting process that you had with Mr.
Sandler, were any of the illegal contributions close to
$200,000 in contributions, illegally obtained or given at that
event, were any of those identified during this meeting with
you and Mr. Sandler?
Mr. Huang. No, sir, not in that event.
Mr. LaTourette. In response to his questions that he would
ask you, for instance, is this person a U.S. citizen, and you
did not know the answer, what process or steps did you go
through to get the information to get back to him?
Mr. Huang. If there was a question being asked, if I know
for sure about the contributor, then I would answer directly.
If not, I would find out who actually is the solicitor and I
would go to ask them.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, I see that my yielding time
has expired.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Mr. Souder, you have the floor.
Mr. Souder. I yield my time to Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
I just want to finish this line of questioning, because I
have heard you say over the last couple of days that you didn't
know that certain contributions were illegal. I think when Mr.
Waxman was saying what is suspected and what is proven, what is
proven today is that a number of these contributions at this
event were illegal. They were given by people that weren't
qualified to make contributions to political parties in this
country for a variety of reasons.
So that, I think, is proven, and if anybody disagrees with
me, they can take it up with us a little bit later.
But this process, there are two ways that you can approach
that. I mean, you can say, I didn't know, which you have said.
You can also say, nobody ever did anything to try and find out,
sort of the political contributing equivalent of don't ask,
don't tell. I mean, I have a check; yep, it looks like a
starter check; yep, I know it came from a woman who only makes
$25,000, but if I only ask the questions as to whether or not
this person is a U.S. citizen or a corporation or a person that
has sufficient U.S. property, then I guess we will never know
whether or not contributions are obtained illegally.
Earlier, when somebody was asking you about, you have to
fill out on some of these FEC forms where a person works, and
if you can't find it out, for instance, you put--``best
efforts'' is I think what your lawyer told you, we put best
efforts in that instance.
Can you describe to the committee what the best efforts
were by you? And you were what, a vice chair of the finance
department of the Democratic National Committee? What best
efforts did you put forth in vetting these checks from the
February 19, 1996, fundraiser as to whether or not these were
contributions that could be legally obtained by a major
political party in this country?
Mr. Huang. I recall that in the event I don't have any
address, I try to find out the address, because most of these
people were individual. That was the information I try to
complete, as much as I could, on a check-tracking form.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. But aside from the address--where these
people lived isn't the problem; the problem with these
contributions is that they were conduit contributions, they
were made by people that couldn't make them lawfully. They were
made with money that came from foreign countries in violation
of our laws.
What best efforts did you use to determine--today we know
that one-quarter of the money that you raised at least, and
maybe I don't quite have the stuff down, but just from the
questions you and I have talked about over the last 2 days, 25
percent of the money that you raised at this event was illegal,
couldn't have been given. I am interested to know what you did,
as a high-ranking official in the Democratic National
Committee, to vet these checks, to determine whether or not
what we know today you could have decided back in 1996 and
given the money back.
Just so you don't think I am picking on the Democratic
National Committee, I think this is an important thing because
there needs to be, as Mr. Shays and Mr. Waxman and the rest of
the Congress looks at our campaign finance laws, obviously we
have to punish and prosecute people, as you have been punished
and prosecuted for violating the laws we have today. But I
can't believe that we can just have a system in this country
where you say, well, we are going to rake in a bunch of cash at
a fundraiser, and if we don't ask the right questions, then
come catch us to figure out if they were legal contributions or
illegal contributions.
So what responsibility did you take and did this Joe
Sandler take to determine as to one out of every four checks
you got was bad. What did you do about it? What did you try to
do about it to find out if people could give money?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, as I reported to you, I did later
on spot two of the checks, as I reported to you, which I find
out was not proper; and I also vetted those checks with the
general counsel, Joe Sandler, you know, whatever the checks I
had at the time and given to me. And I filled out a check-
tracking form to the best I can. I could--afterwards, whatever
process I did not know, I did not really do personally, you
know, on that.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, one of the checks we talked about
that came from the partnership that Mr. Trie was involved in
with Mr. Ng came in on the 29th, 10 days after the event.
Mr. Huang. You are talking about the Daihatsu----
Mr. LaTourette. I am. Was that particular check, was that
given to you before or after your meeting with Mr. Sandler?
Mr. Huang. I believe that was after.
Mr. LaTourette. There is an example of--I mean, today we
know that Charlie Trie got that money from Mr. Ng. That, again,
is one of those proven things, it is not one of those out there
in the air. It could be; we know that based upon the bank
records. We know that that is an illegal contribution.
I am interested to know, since that came after the vetting
meeting that you had with the general counsel of the Democratic
National Committee, what did you do, as a vice chair of the
DNC, to check that check out? What did you do?
Mr. Huang. I did not check out. The Daihatsu was Mr.
Charlie Trie's business and Mr. Charlie Trie is very
established that DNC was fundraiser before. I did not really do
any further checking on that.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
yielding of time.
Mr. Shays. The gentleman has his own time now, if he would
like to use it.
Mr. LaTourette. I would be happy to claim my own time and
yield it to my good friend, Mr. Ose.
Mr. Ose. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Huang, I am particularly interested in the events
surrounding two particular fundraisers, the first being on
November 2, 1995 and the second being--pardon me while I turn
my page here--the events surrounding a fundraiser for
Congressman Jackson.
The questions I have deal--I just want to run through a
couple of questions I have.
Do you recall the event of November 2, 1995? It is an Asian
Pacific American event at the Mayflower Hotel with Vice
President Gore?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do, sir.
Mr. Ose. Who was the first person to tell you about that
event?
Mr. Huang. I believe was director of the DNC for Asian
Pacific American Affairs of DNC, I think it is Mona Pasquil.
Mr. Ose. And when did that--do you recall when that
conversation took place--with you and Ms. Pasquil?
Mr. Huang. It could be over the phone and also--we also had
a meeting and also had lunch together later on.
Mr. Ose. Generally, would that have been in September 1995?
Mr. Huang. I would tend to think probably even early
September or could be late September. Most likely it would be
early October, I think.
Mr. Ose. The Asian Pacific American event, what was the
format or the context of that event?
Mr. Huang. Essentially trying to form, if I could best
understand it, is the Asian American community would like--
under the DNC would formalize such a council, so hopefully we
can begin working on Asian Pacific American issues and raising
money through the Asian American community.
Mr. Ose. Was this a lunch and a dinner, or just a lunch or
just a dinner?
Mr. Huang. I believe that event, Congressman, was a dinner.
Mr. Ose. And the solicitation that was made for attending
the dinner was X number of dollars, or what?
Mr. Huang. My best recollection was $10,000 a head. At
least a target on that basis, sir.
Mr. Ose. So that the approach was that if you wanted to
join the Asian Pacific Council and attend this dinner, you had
to write a check for $10,000?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, basically.
Mr. Ose. And the beneficiary of the $10,000 contribution
was?
Mr. Huang. I believe was the DNC.
Mr. Ose. OK. And you told me that--well, you suggested and
I want to make sure I understood, who was organizing the event
for the DNC? Was that Mona Pasquil?
Mr. Huang. She was at least one of them. There were some
other people as well in helping out.
Mr. Ose. Do you recall who they were?
Mr. Huang. It could be Sam Newman was another one. I think
Mr. Mercer also was helping out.
Mr. Ose. Now, you are familiar with the event. Did you help
Ms. Pasquil at the event in terms of setting it up?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no, not in terms of setting up. She and I
had lunch and tried to give my opinion how she might be able to
work on that.
Mr. Ose. And what kind of questions was she asking?
Mr. Huang. She had--that was her first position in doing
this. This was going to be the first event for Asian Pacific
Americans at that time, and I did not want personally--as a
member of the Asian American community, I did not want to see
that thing fail and look very bad; and politically I did not
want to see our congressional leader, which is Mr. Matsui, look
bad either on that part.
Mr. Ose. What kind of suggestions did you make? I mean, I
can understand the advice that she was seeking from you. I
mean, that is perfectly logical. What type of help did she ask
you for?
Mr. Huang. First, most specifically refer some names to
her, you know, she might be able to contact.
Mr. Ose. Identifying people that she could contact to
either attend and/or contribute money to the cause?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Ose. OK. Was anyone else at the lunch?
Mr. Huang. No. That was still Mr.----
Mr. Ose. Excuse me. That was lunch or dinner?
Mr. Huang. Sam Newman was there too.
Mr. Ose. Sam Newman was there. And is Mr. Newman a
fundraiser for the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I believe he was at that time, yes.
Mr. Ose. OK. And this is late September or early October
1995?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. OK. Did you have a private conversation with Ms.
Pasquil at that luncheon where you asked Mr. Newman to excuse
himself?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Ose. Why was that?
Mr. Huang. Ms. Pasquil apparently had some difficulty in
working around the Asian Pacific American communities, so that
is why I encourage her, more or less, giving her some general
advice in working with the community.
Mr. Ose. For what purpose was Mr. Newman asked to leave
that particular portion of the conversation?
Mr. Huang. That was basically very personal matter. That
was also the first--I believe it was the first time that Ms.
Pasquil was able to--was working at the DNC for this political
event--political role, rather.
Mr. Ose. After Mr. Newman left, what did you and she
discuss?
Mr. Huang. I don't know specifically, but basically trying
to encourage her, you know, to work around--it is very hard to
work around our community. You know, you lump Asian Pacific
American community as one. Actually, there are Japanese;
Korean; Chinese, even among Chinese there are different groups,
Indo-Chinese; and Indians--all of these things, getting very
complicated.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I see that the time that Mr.
LaTourette yielded----
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman be given 5 additional minutes. I
don't want him to be interrupted in the middle of his
questioning.
Mr. Ose. That would be Mr. LaTourette getting the
additional 5 minutes? I haven't yet claimed my own time. Are we
on my time right now?
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Do you need 5 more minutes right
now?
Mr. Waxman. Whoever's time it is, I am asking that you be
given an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. Ose. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.
Waxman.
After Mr. Newman left, you talked with Ms. Pasquil about a
number of things. Did you talk about fundraising specifically?
Mr. Huang. No. I don't recall specifically, except I
mentioned to you, you know, along the line I refer some names.
But essentially, Ms. Pasquil was encountering some difficulty
in doing the job and she was at the point of tears. Most of the
time I offer some encouragement, you know, to her.
Mr. Ose. Were you in--I am a little bit curious about this.
Did you kind of play a mentor role there with Ms. Pasquil?
Mr. Huang. I would never take that role, sir. I am
unworthy. I would not claim to be a mentor for anybody. I am
learning things every day, sir.
Mr. Ose. Did David Mercer ask you to help out for this
event on November 2nd?
Mr. Huang. Not at that particular time.
Are you talking about that meeting?
Mr. Ose. Yes.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. He was not at the lunch with Ms. Pasquil or Mr.
Newman?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Ose. OK. But at that time he had not asked you to help
with the event scheduled for November 2nd?
Mr. Huang. No. At that period of time, no.
Mr. Ose. You suggest that he subsequently did contact you
about it?
Mr. Huang. When the event is getting very close, the number
did not come with the expectation. I did receive a call from
Mr. Mercer. He said, John, you've got to come out and help a
little bit, meaning help out giving some more names or
something, give more encouragement to some of the people I
know.
Mr. Ose. OK. So Mercer calls you and says, we need your
particular expertise here within the Asian Pacific community,
further than what we have to date; and part of that role was to
identify other individuals, for instance, who might be able to
attend the dinner and contribute the money. Is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is basically correct. However, the names
already being known to the DNC, is already there. It is just
the responses did not come. The positive responses did not come
yet.
Mr. Ose. That really leaves--I mean, I found that if you
have the right person asking the right question at the right
time, you get a different answer than having the wrong person
asking the right question at the right time.
And what I am curious about is, from a comparative sense,
relative to Ms. Pasquil asking individuals to contribute, was
she the wrong person asking the right question at the right
time compared with you asking the same question of the right
person at the right time, or were you closing these deals, so
to speak?
Mr. Huang. No. That was not the situation, to close deals.
She had made some success already. You know, just need more
numbers.
Mr. Ose. And you were brought in to help increase the
numbers?
Mr. Huang. Well, increase the encouragement to more people
to fill up.
Mr. Ose. If I understand correctly, Mr. Mercer--Mr. Newman
concluded separately that Ms. Pasquil's efforts, however
noteworthy, were just not sufficient for this particular event,
and then they approached you for additional assistance?
Mr. Huang. Yes. I was getting call from him, yes, for this.
Mr. Ose. Did anyone else from the DNC contact you about
this event?
Mr. Huang. I could not recall right now, Congressman,
except to say Newman, you know, the person I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Ose. Who was at the lunch with Ms. Pasquil?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Ose. Did you contact anyone about this event?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Ose. And who might that have been?
Mr. Huang. The one I can remember more clearly was the lady
called Chong Lo. I believe she was in San Francisco at that
time.
Mr. Ose. She is an American citizen?
Mr. Huang. I believe she was, yes, sir.
Mr. Ose. I mean if she was, I hope she still is, so----
Mr. Huang. Yes, she is.
Mr. Ose. Did you talk to Charlie Trie about this?
Mr. Huang. I did, also.
Mr. Ose. And what did you ask Charlie Trie, if anything, to
do regarding this November 2nd----
Mr. Huang. This is the first one and, hopefully, everybody
can help out, you know.
Mr. Ose. Did you ask Mr. Trie to contact some others
regarding this event? Specific people?
Mr. Huang. Not specific. Probably--if there were any
specific people I mentioned about, probably would be Charlie
Chiang, you know, the man that was mentioned, the restaurateur,
whom I happened to know him because Charlie also graduate from
the same high school as I am, but he was much closer to Charlie
Trie. You know, they have refer to bring some people like
Charlie, some other people to come in.
Mr. Ose. Did you speak with, or did you contact Pauline
Kanchanalak?
Mr. Huang. I did also.
Mr. Ose. Regarding this event?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Congressman, let me clarify certain things. The event they
want did not really come out with a lot of numbers, but
somehow, around the oval table in the rooms, I recommend to
invite some of the people who already made contribution to DNC
in the past to join for the dinner. And Pauline Kanchanalak was
one of them. I believe Charlie was also one of them.
Mr. Ose. And Mr. Trie did attend the dinner?
Mr. Huang. I believe he did, yes.
Mr. Ose. OK. Going back to Chong Lo, what did you ask her
to do for the event?
Mr. Huang. I asked her to support. She was already known as
a good fundraising among Democratic circle in the past.
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
Mr. Waxman. I ask unanimous consent if the gentleman wishes
additional time to pursue his inquiry that he get another 5
minutes.
Mr. Ose. I again thank my good friend from California.
What did you ask Pauline Kanchanalak to do? Just to attend
the dinner?
Mr. Huang. Just asked her to attend, yes.
Mr. Ose. Did she attend the dinner?
Mr. Huang. She did.
Mr. Ose. Did she do anything else besides? Did she sell
tickets? Did she identify additional people?
Mr. Huang. No. For that particular event, she did not. I
don't know that she did. I don't think so, no.
Mr. Ose. All right.
Do you know Ramesh Kapur?
Mr. Huang. I know the person is from the Indian community.
Mr. Ose. Regarding this November 2nd event, did you contact
him regarding the event?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe so, no, sir.
Mr. Ose. How about George Chiang?
Mr. Huang. George Chiang is--the one from the Taiwanese
community in Virginia is the one we are talking about, sir? If
that same one, I did not. He has been--if I can recollect, he
had been active in the circle also.
Mr. Ose. How about George Chaudry?
Mr. Huang. George----
Mr. Ose. Dr. and Mrs. George Chaudry, I should say. Were
they part of the people that you talked with about this event?
Mr. Huang. Someone from New York from the Indian community
as well?
Mr. Ose. It is clearly Indian, yes.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. How about Paresh Shah?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. Asha Putli?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. Teddy Chan, was she on her list?
Mr. Huang. Is last name C-H-A-N?
Mr. Ose. Yes.
Mr. Huang. No. Not from me, no.
Mr. Ose. Maeley Tom?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Ose. Ashok Bhatt?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. David Kim?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. Sant Chatwal.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Ose. Kaz Nakagawa?
Mr. Huang. I don't think so, no. No.
Mr. Ose. How about Howard Hom?
Mr. Huang. Not from me, although I know Howard, yes.
Mr. Ose. How about Gelli Borromeo?
Mr. Huang. I know her, but not from me, no.
Mr. Ose. Sharon Singh?
Mr. Huang. Not from me, no.
Mr. Ose. OK. I want to--I would like to go in a little bit
of a different direction. You were at this point--you were in
the Department of Commerce for--when did you--I know someone
asked you this question earlier.
You actually started your employment at the Department of
Commerce when?
Mr. Huang. July 18, 1994.
Mr. Ose. When I came to Congress, I had a number of
briefings about what I could or couldn't do as a Member of
Congress. Does the Department of Commerce offer that to their
employees relative to either the Hatch Act, political behavior,
or ethics?
Mr. Huang. There were some memo coming to me for that, yes.
Mr. Ose. So you did receive some advisement from the
Department of Commerce as to what you could or couldn't do?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. Now, I notice that you had a meeting with Harold
Ickes regarding the November 2nd event, is that correct, or am
I remembering incorrectly?
Mr. Huang. I am sorry. Congressman, can you repeat that
again, please, sir?
Mr. Ose. I stand corrected. Let me rephrase my question.
Did you have a discussion with Harold Ickes during the time
of your employment at the Department of Commerce regarding a
campaign by Jesse Jackson, Jr.?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Ose. What was the substance of that conversation with
Mr. Ickes?
Mr. Huang. The key thing, Congressman, the conversation was
purpose for other matter, these things came about during our
phone conversation. I cannot really repeat exact words, but I
can give you the general gist of that.
Mr. Ose. What was the substance of that telephone
conversation?
Mr. Huang. He say, can you--to see if I could do something
in the Asian American community to come up with $10,000 or
$15,000 for Mr. Jackson's campaign.
Mr. Ose. At this time--was Mr. Ickes at the DNC at this
time?
Mr. Huang. No. I believe he was at the White House, the
deputy chief of staff.
Mr. Ose. So the deputy chief of staff--well, let me ask the
question differently.
Did you call Mr. Ickes or did Mr. Ickes call you?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. That is a call, as I said, that the subject
was--the original purpose was for something else, but this came
about during the conversation. I did not call him, but he
called me on that.
Mr. Ose. He called you?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Ose. OK. The thing that I am curious about is that the
deputy chief of staff--well, where did he call you from? He
called you from the White House? Is that what I heard you say a
few moments ago?
Mr. Huang. I don't know where he exactly call me from. I
assume he call me from the White House.
Mr. Ose. Well, I am not going to make that assumption. I am
kind of curious.
So the deputy chief of staff at the White House calls you
during the term of your employment at the Department of
Commerce--did he call you at your Commerce office?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. So you were in a Federal position at that time and
he asked you to assist with fundraising in a congressional
campaign? That is a question, I should say. That is not a
statement; it is a question.
Did he ask you to assist at that time with fundraising?
Mr. Huang. Excuse me 1 second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I notice the gentleman's time has
expired, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that he be
given an additional 5 minutes to continue his inquiry.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, to answer your question, yes, he
did.
Mr. Ose. From your understanding of the briefing when you
first went to work at the Department of Commerce or the ethics
memos that might have otherwise come, is that an allowed
activity?
Mr. Huang. He--my understanding was he was not asking me to
give contribution, he ask me, you know, to find out whether
Asian community can do that. I was willing to help at that
time.
Mr. Ose. So he called to ask you to solicit support within
the Asian American community, rather than asked you for a
contribution directly?
Mr. Huang. Not solicit, to find out from the community
whether they can come up with something, because I am from
Asian American community. The perception was, I might have
known somebody, might be able to do something.
Mr. Ose. I am a little confused now. Let me back up a
little bit.
The deputy chief of staff calls you in your Department of
Commerce office and asks you to identify, talk to, visit with
members of the Asian Pacific community about fundraising? I
mean, I am unclear on the concept here about what this
particular portion of the discussion was about.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, let me put down to the point where
I did not feel comfortable. I probably know it is wrong to do
that. OK? That is the nutshell for that. I was not sure on
that.
Mr. Ose. I appreciate your saying that because I do have a
copy of the Hatch Act here, and unfortunately, I am not going
to be able to ask Mr. Ickes this same question. But I am just
trying to understand. I mean, at the congressional level, the
sanctions are pretty severe as to someone in my office or me
engaging in that kind of an activity, which you might say has a
rather significantly high smudge factor; it is kind of
indeterminate to do that out of my congressional office.
I am trying to understand how it is that in your case, in
this conversation with Mr. Ickes, that you could ever have
gotten this far on the telephone or in person sitting in your
Department of Commerce office, especially having had the
training from the memos and the--and what have you from your
personal testimony, and certainly Mr. Ickes having enjoyed the
same benefit.
Mr. Huang. I did not understand you. Could you repeat the
question? I am sorry about that.
Mr. Ose. If somebody calls me up and says, I want you to do
this, that, or the other thing, and it is vague--I mean, I
understand what they are asking me to do, but they are
purposely vague about the specifics; well, frankly, I
understand the law from the briefings and memorandums that have
been given to me as a Member of Congress what I can and can't
do, and clearly, you at least now understand the import of
those things.
I am just trying to understand where Mr. Ickes was coming
from and what light you can shed on what his perspective was
regarding that same activity. Because if it is not appropriate
for you to do it from your Department of Commerce office, it
certainly seems inappropriate for the deputy chief of staff at
the White House to ask you to do something inappropriate.
Mr. Huang. I express my feeling that it was not proper. I
don't know what Mr. Ickes was feeling at that time.
Mr. Ose. After the conversation, did you followup on what
Mr. Ickes asked you to do?
Mr. Huang. I did. I did not really do it immediately,
though. Later on, it did come through, I did do something.
Mr. Ose. And the result of the--we are not going to use the
word ``solicitation,'' because you are not comfortable with
that. I might use that, but you are not comfortable with it.
But the contacts that you made subsequent to that call
resulted in some benefit to Congressman--then Candidate
Jackson's campaign?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. I have to think about this, Mr. Chairman. Can we
come back on a next round? I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Well, before you yield back, if you would yield
to me quickly.
Mr. Ose. Certainly.
Mr. Burton. How much money did you raise for Mr. Jackson's
campaign?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, the total
amount, including the money from me personally and my wife, is
about $7,000.
Mr. Burton. $7,000?
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. How much was from you and your wife?
Mr. Huang. In total, about $1,000; $500 each.
Mr. Burton. About $3,000. So you raised----
Mr. Huang. No. $1,000, in total. $500 each.
Mr. Burton. About $1,000. So you raised $6,000 from other
sources?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Did you collect that money yourself? Did you
get the checks?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. Did you turn them over to the DNC or to Mr.
Jackson's campaign?
Mr. Huang. I deliver to the office on K Street somewhere. I
believe that was related to Mr. Jackson's.
Mr. Burton. When you did that, were you aware that you were
violating the Hatch Act or possibly violating the Hatch Act?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not feel very
comfortable in doing that, but I did not know for sure in that.
Mr. Burton. When you talked to Mr. Ickes, did you tell Mr.
Ickes that you thought that this was something you should not
do?
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. What did Mr. Ickes say to you?
Mr. Huang. He basically, as I said----
Mr. Burton. I know, but I want you to be a little bit more
specific. What did he say, do you recall?
Mr. Huang. He basically say, can you run up, you know,
$10,000 or $15,000 for the Asian community for Mr. Jackson's
campaign; and he say, you need to be careful about this--
something in that language, ``careful.''
Mr. Burton. He said be careful about it?
Mr. Huang. Be sensitive about it.
Mr. Burton. What do you think he meant by ``be sensitive
about it?''
Mr. Huang. The reason there was a primary election, you
know, there was different candidates running for that seat. I
can sense that probably he didn't want people to know somebody
is siding one against another among the Democratic candidates.
Mr. Burton. You don't think he meant you are treading on
the law and maybe you shouldn't be doing this?
Mr. Huang. At least I did not think of it that way.
Mr. Burton. But he could have meant that, couldn't he?
Mr. Huang. I have no reason to believe that was the case
though, sir, no.
Mr. Burton. OK. The gentleman can continue the next round,
I guess.
Mr. Waxman. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Members won't mind,
I would like to take some of my 5-minute round.
Mr. Ose. I would yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman is entitled to his 5-minute
round, and if he needs extra time, we can accommodate him.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday I talked about the issue of David Wang. David
Wang was the gentleman to whom we gave immunity. He testified,
and he said after we gave him immunity that Mr. Huang had come
and given him money to pay for a contribution he had given to
the Democrats, and then we at that time established that Mr.
Huang was not in Los Angeles, but in New York. We established
it seems to me, very, very clearly that Mr. Wang was not
accurate in his statement; yet, even though this accusation has
turned out to be false that Mr. Wang made against Mr. Huang, no
one seems to be willing to admit that there was a mistake, that
there was an accusation that turned out to be unsubstantiated.
Well, I want to show a video, if I might, from CBS
Television. It was a news show.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, that was from
April 1997. Here it is December 1999. We now have the 302s,
which are the interviews by the FBI checking into some of these
allegations, and I would like to have distributed to other
Members the FBI interview notes with Representative Solomon,
who made these accusations. I think that is going to be
distributed.
I want to read from this interview with Mr. Solomon,
because the FBI wanted to find out what Mr. Solomon knew.
He
Began the interview by stating that at no time has he ever
been the recipient of classified information from the
Department of Commerce. He tries to avoid receiving any type of
classified information so that he is not hindered when speaking
by a fear of revealing information that is classified. All
classified documents received by the House are directed to the
House Committee on Intelligence. If there was something that he
believed that he needed to review, he would go to that
committee and review the information there.
Then the FBI report said,
At this point, Congressman Solomon advised that he did not
have a copy of the article in question. Therefore, the relevant
portion of the article was read to him as follows,
and then they read back to him:
I have received reports from government sources that say
there are electronic intercepts, electronic intercepts which
provide evidence confirming what I suspected all along, that
John Huang committed economic espionage and breached our
national security bypassing classified information to his
former employer, the Lippo Group.
Congressman Solomon recalled that a Senate staffer at
either a Senate or a House reception told him that he (the
staffer) had received confirmation that a Department of
Commerce employee had passed classified information to a
foreign government. It was Congressman Solomon's understanding
that the staffer meant John Huang and that the information went
to China. However, the staffer did not say that.
Then--that was what he said on August 28, 1997. He also
said that he ``could not recall the staffer's name, but he
might recognize him if he saw him again.''
Well, then on February 25, 1998, the FBI further asked Mr.
Solomon about this, and Congressman Solomon advised,
He does not know this individual's name and he has not seen
him again. He advised that the statement made by this Senate
staffer was something to the effect that, ``Congressman, you
might like to know that you were right, there was someone at
Commerce giving out information.''
Congressman Solomon described this staffer as a male in his
30's or early 40's, approximately 5 foot, 10 inches tall with
brownish hair. This occurred in the hallway of the Rayburn
Building while Congressman Solomon was either going to or
returning from a reception.
Now, I know Jerry Solomon and consider him a friend, and I
don't think he meant to hurt anybody particularly, but when you
have an accusation like this made--it was on national
television, the accusation was on the front page of the L.A.
Times--and what is the basis for this accusation?
The basis appears to be some unidentified person saying
something to him at a reception, in or out of a reception in
the Capitol. He doesn't remember the staffer and he doesn't
have anything specific that ties Mr. Huang into anything along
the lines of giving information from the Department of Commerce
to China.
I just want to raise this to illustrate the fact that
Members of Congress particularly, and everyone, should feel
some restraint in making allegations that are so inflammatory.
The truth never quite catches up with the headlines.
Mr. Huang has admitted yesterday and today that he
committed what amounted to a felony in terms of giving a
conduit campaign contribution, but he has denied all of these
other accusations that have had such widespread reporting in
the major media for the last 3 years.
Where do you go to ever correct the record? Where do you go
to point out that the accusations that were made just turned
out not to have been true, not to have been substantiated? And
it just seems to me that when accusations are made by Members
of Congress for whatever reasons--including the fact that they
may benefit a particular party politically by attacking
President Clinton and his administration--that when you find
out that the allegations have no substantiation, people ought
to be willing to say they were wrong.
I said yesterday if some of these accusations turn out to
be true and we have evidence for them, I will admit that I was
wrong, but I haven't heard anybody, the chairman or anybody
else who has made these inflammatory accusations, ever admit
their error. Mr. Solomon maybe will want to do something about
this now, although he is not in Congress anymore, but he did
talk to the FBI on two separate occasions, and despite his
inflammatory accusations of what hints at treason by Mr. Huang,
pretty serious stuff, it turned out that it was gossip from
somebody he didn't really know about somebody that wasn't
clearly identified, from an individual who was in his 30's or
40's that he saw outside going in or out of a cocktail party.
I raise that point, and I think we ought to try to learn
from it, because we are supposed to be responsible people in
the Congress of the United States, and I hope we would
recognize our responsibility and take it seriously.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTourette. Will the gentleman yield to me for just a
second?
Mr. Waxman. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much. In the spirit of what
you are saying, I would like to ask a question. Maybe you know
and maybe the chairman knows. I have read the 302 that you are
referring to, Congressman Solomon or Chairman Solomon in the
hallway with a staffer, but in his 302 he talks about the fact
that his information may have also come from an NBC Worldwide
broadcast alert, and then I had the chance to read that while
you were talking.
The thing that is of interest to me is that the allegation
I saw Congressman Solomon make on television was that this was
information that was collected by U.S. listening stations.
According to this NBC article, at least, a staffer, again
familiar with intelligence matters, indicates that it was
picked up at U.S. electronic eavesdropping sites targeted on
trans-Pacific communications.
I remember yesterday when the chairman was making
observations about Senator Lieberman as well, who had made some
observations about classified information being passed on,
concerning intelligence matters that were collected by these
listening stations. I am wondering, were those the same things,
or something else?
Mr. Waxman. Well, I don't know. We have seen already in the
press, statements that there were intelligence intercepts of
discussions by people in the People's Republic of China talking
about how to try to influence the Congress and get more
involved in lobbying and whatever. We know about that report.
But Mr. Solomon said that he had information from an intercept.
That was where his statements on television came from, from an
intercept, an electronic intercept.
Now, Mr. Solomon, he has knowledge that if he were in
receipt of electronic intercepts, it would be a violation of
national security laws to release that information to the
press. And he said in this interview that he didn't have any
classified information from the Department of Commerce; and
then he proudly told the FBI, I don't--I try ``to avoid
receiving any type of classified information so that he is not
hindered when speaking by a fear of revealing information that
is classified.'' He said, if he were going to get classified
information, he would go to the intelligence community.
But the key point here is that Mr. Solomon, who made this
allegation, might have been sincere in making it, but he
apparently had no information. He was basing his allegation on
gossip, and that is what is so disturbing to me.
Mr. LaTourette. Will the gentleman yield further? I would
just like to make a request of you as the ranking member and
also the chairman.
I think that--I have heard Mr. Huang over the last couple
of days indicate that this didn't happen. I think it is a very
serious allegation. If there is, in fact, evidence in the
control of the U.S. Government that information was--and it has
been picked up by listening stations or intelligence services
or anybody else--that an official within the Commerce
Department was transferring classified information to a foreign
entity, I think that is treason, and I would hope that
understanding the issues of national security--but for crying
out loud, if this was in fact happening, as Senator Lieberman
apparently had some observations to make about it, Congressman
Solomon has had some observations about it, I think that Mr.
Huang should either be cleared or not cleared. And I think that
if we have the information, we have the tools and the ability
and the power to get to the bottom of this.
Mr. Waxman. If I can just respond to the gentleman, we have
had briefings by the FBI, and they have checked into all of
these allegations, and there is not any evidence that the FBI
has reported to us to indicate that these accusations have any
basis in truth. And if there were a basis in truth, if we could
establish these facts, then I would join with you in condemning
them and expressing outrage.
But what I am expressing is outrage about the allegations
that are made where there is no basis for those allegations,
that take a man's reputation--that is not sterling obviously,
because he has committed a campaign finance violation and
admitted guilt to a felony--but that doesn't justify accusing
him, based on gossip, of treason, selling out the interests of
the United States to the Chinese Government.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield briefly?
Mr. Waxman. Yes, be happy to yield.
Mr. Burton. Let me just say that we quoted Senator
Lieberman yesterday, and I would like to refresh everybody's
memory, ``Nonpublic evidence presented to the committee
demonstrates a continuing business-intelligence relationship
between the Riadys and the People's Republic of China
Intelligence Service.'' That does not mean Mr. Huang
necessarily. But the fact is, there may be other intelligence-
gathering agencies that have some information that we could
take a look at.
I will ask the staff to assist me in checking into this to
see if there is any verification. If there isn't, I agree with
you that we ought to make sure that the record states that
there is no evidence that Mr. Huang did that. But in the
meantime, before we take that step, I will see if we can't
contact the intelligence agencies to see if there is any
verification of what Mr. Solomon or what Mr. Lieberman said.
Mr. Waxman. If you will yield to me, I appreciate what you
are saying, and I think--and I will be glad to work with you
and have our staff work with your staff to find out the truth.
Mr. Burton. Sure.
Mr. Waxman. But if there were a connection between Mr.
Riady, who has business in Indonesia and China and I don't know
where else; and in his business activities over there, he has
any contact with the People's Republic of China and their
intelligence agencies or anything along those lines, what does
that have to do with Mr. Huang?
Mr. Burton. Well----
Mr. Waxman. Unless you can show that Mr. Huang had some
connection to it, it seems to me grossly unfair to accuse him
of treason based on gossip and connections between people he
worked for at one time and other activities that they might
have had, which haven't been established, but might be in terms
of some connection to the People's Republic of China and their
intelligence agencies.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman will yield, we will check that
out, and I will look forward to working with you and our staff
to see if we can't clarify that as quickly as possible.
Mr. Waxman. If you are willing to at that point admit the
error of some of the statements that have been made, I think
that is only fair. And I would hope you would keep in mind the
fact that we did an injustice to Mr. Huang when we had Mr.
Wang's statement that Mr. Huang went into his office and gave
him a conduit contribution, and it turned out that Mr. Huang
was in New York and it was someone else. Mr. Wang was wrong and
the accusations we made based on Mr. Wang's incorrect testimony
should be withdrawn as well. I hope you would take that to
heart.
Mr. Burton. Well, I don't think Mr. Wang's testimony should
be withdrawn in toto. If there was a mistake, that mistake
should be corrected. But he was a conduit for at least $10,000,
as you know, in illegal campaign contributions.
Mr. Waxman. He, meaning who?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Wang.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Wang was a conduit, but he said he was a
conduit for Mr. Huang.
Mr. Burton. And the information that you have just stated
to the committee, and I have not yet checked that out, was that
instead of it being Mr. Huang, it was Charlie Trie; and you
have stated--and I have not checked it, but we will--that
Charlie Trie has said in his 302s to the FBI that he was the
one that laundered that money through Mr. Wang.
Now, if you want to set the record straight, you will also
recall that your staff tried to get Mr. Wang's father to say
things that were untrue and that became a fiasco in the
investigation as well.
So I don't know that we want to go through that whole
rigmarole again. All I can say is that we will check that out
as well. If Charlie Trie was the one, as we have heard that it
is from 302s, we will set that record straight as well.
Mr. Waxman. You have made some allusion to my staff and I
have checked out that accusation, and that is absolutely
untrue.
Mr. Burton. Well, not according to the attorney for Mr.
Wang and from Mr. Wang's father.
Mr. Waxman. I will just tell you that it is untrue.
But let us check the record on Mr. Wang. Mr. Huang has
denied that he was there giving Mr. Wang the money. Charlie
Trie has said that he is the one who has done it, so it is
clear that Mr. Wang was mistaken and that mistaken testimony by
Mr. Wang became the basis for a very serious accusation by you,
Mr. Chairman, against Mr. Huang that should be admitted as
incorrect now that we have further information.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Given the nature of this debate, I have an
article I would like to submit into the record that relates to
this general point.
Mr. Solomon is not a member of this committee. I am sorry
for any wrong that was done to Mr. Huang from that. If, indeed,
the evidence holds that up, he deserves an apology from Mr.
Solomon and anybody else.
One of the unfortunate by-products of this investigation,
because millions of Americans are enraged that our secrets got
to China. We don't know who and how; and it is wrong for
anybody, which Mr. Waxman is warning us, to jump to conclusions
and say that about individuals until it is proven.
At the same time, there is kind of an implication here that
everybody involved in this has been jumping to conclusions, and
the article I want to insert in the record, merely because it
makes this point is by James Adams in the American Spectator,
not necessarily known as the most cautious publication in
America, in December 1996 that says John Huang was the fall guy
in the Indonesian scandal and was merely the errand boy of
billionaire Asian interests with long-standing ties to the
Clinton crowd; and it also says he was more of an errand boy
than a prime mover.
It says that he is being punished more than the politicians
who received his illegal money, my point being that even those
who have been very critical of this whole scandal since 1996
have not all maintained that John Huang was at the center of
the universe with this.
I think it is important for the record to show that people
have been all over the place. What we are trying to do with
these hearings today is to find out actual facts.
Mr. Burton. The purpose of the hearing is to get the facts
out and the truth out to the American people, and we will try
to do that. If the record is incorrect, we will correct it.
Who do we have next on the schedule?
It is the chairman. All right. We will go on to another--
Mr. LaTourette, are you prepared? I understand that you wanted
me to yield to you right now. I can get to my stuff afterwards.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, I want to go into another fundraising event that
occurred on September 26, 1996.
But before I do that, I was just--this discussion that we
have just been having with Mr. Waxman sort of jogged a memory,
and that is, during your opening statement, you indicated--you
made reference to Mr. Solomon's interview. I don't know if it
was the one that we just saw on CBS, but it said you had been
advised from an anonymous source at a cocktail party, who
turned out to be the source of Mr. Solomon's statements.
I didn't see, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Solomon's 302s from the FBI
until they were just distributed, and I guess I am wondering
how you came to be in possession of that information.
How did you know that Mr. Solomon said to the FBI that it
was a person at the cocktail party?
Mr. Huang. I was advised by my attorney.
Mr. LaTourette. Sometime I will ask your lawyer, I guess.
I want to turn to September 26th.
Mr. Burton. I think that is pretty important, because we
have an FBI 302 that was not yet made public, and if the
counsel for Mr. Huang was giving him information from an FBI
302 that was not made public, I think it is important to find
out how he knew that.
So with unanimous consent, I would like to ask the counsel,
Mr. Cobb, how he knew about that 302. Is there objection?
Objection not heard.
Mr. Cobb.
Mr. Cobb. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer that
question. I did not get the information from the 302.
Mr. Burton. From where did you get it?
Mr. Cobb. I got it from the Campaign Finance Task Force.
Mr. Burton. The Campaign----
Mr. Cobb. During the course of Mr. Huang's interviews, the
confusion about Mr. Solomon's statement was cleared up for us.
Mr. Burton. In the hearing with the Campaign Finance Task
Force? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Cobb. Yes, in the 20 days of interviews.
Mr. Burton. So they gave you that information during the
interviews?
Mr. Cobb. Not in the detail as reflected in the 302.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Cobb.
The other day I was wondering whether you gentlemen
represented Mr. Huang in this other stuff, and I saw you on TV,
so you must have. You again are excellent lawyers and you are
to be commended. If I ever get involved in this sort of thing,
I will call you.
On September 26, 1996, Mr. Huang, were you involved in that
event?
Mr. Huang. Was that referring to the Central City in Los
Angeles?
Mr. LaTourette. The Sheraton Carlton Hotel in Washington.
There was a fundraiser at the Sheraton Carlton Hotel on
September 26, 1996. You attended that, did you not?
Mr. Huang. I think the date is not correct, if you are
talking about Sheraton Carlton. It was not September 26th.
Mr. LaTourette. What day do you think it was?
Mr. Huang. Are you talking about in May, maybe?
Mr. LaTourette. July 13th?
Mr. Huang. I think it is May 13.
Mr. LaTourette. May 13th. Well, anyway, you know what,
there was a fundraiser at the Sheraton Carlton sometime in
1996; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. And you attended that event. Did you do
work for that event, help raise money for that event?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I helped organize it.
Mr. LaTourette. Did Mr. Riady, James Riady, attend that
event?
Mr. Huang. Not that event, no.
Mr. LaTourette. OK.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, trying to help you, I am supposed
to help you in any way to the committee.
Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate it.
Mr. Huang. Sheraton Carlton asked me to host quite a lot of
events for fundraising. It could be really referring to one
event probably in Sheraton Carlton, and Mr. James Riady did
attend, and probably not the May 13th one, it could be later
on. It could be the one you are talking about, the July, there
is one on that.
Mr. LaTourette. Specifically, the month of September, do
you recall an event at the Sheraton Carlton in Washington where
you were in attendance and Mr. Riady was also in attendance?
The reason I ask you is that David Mercer of the DNC indicates
that one of the last times that he saw Mr. Riady was at this
event with you.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. LaTourette. So I am going to try and help you too with
your memory.
Mr. Huang. Thank you. We are really in line with talking
about specific right now.
Yeah, Mr. Mercer organized and hosted that event that was
basically for the African American community.
Mr. LaTourette. And that was on September 26, 1996?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, right. At the Sheraton Carlton
Hotel, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. That took me about 4 minutes to get where
we were going originally.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is still in the
middle of his interrogation. I want to give him by unanimous
consent additional time. How about 10 minutes?
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman proceed for
another 10 minutes, but Mr. Huang ought to be given an
opportunity if he needs a break to take it now; otherwise, we
can keep going.
Mr. Huang. Personally, I don't have any objection to
continue.
Mr. Souder [presiding]. We will continue for these 10
minutes, and then if you would like, we will take a break then,
so you can have a few minutes just to rest up and then we will
come back.
Mr. Huang. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you sure, Mr. Huang? I am known for my
withering examinations. If you want to take a break ahead of
time, go ahead.
Mr. Huang. I am totally surrendering to all the lawyers. I
am not a lawyer. As Congressman Shays said, I am really at a
disadvantaged position.
Mr. LaTourette. We're at September 26, 1996, we are at the
Sheraton Carlton in Washington, DC. It's a fundraiser organized
by David Mercer, primarily you said was an African American
event was the target audience, and you are there with Mr.
Riady.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Was Mr. Trie, Charlie Trie, also in
attendance at this event?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't quite recall but I don't believe he
was there, though.
Mr. LaTourette. OK.
Mr. Huang. I could not quite recall.
Mr. LaTourette. That's OK. All I want is your best memory
and no guesses. I want to turn to the exhibit book if you can.
In exhibit 501--and maybe if we could put 501 up on the screen
as well for the benefit of everybody else. Exhibit--while it's
being gotten out, 501 is a ticket from the Carey Limousine Co.
While I--how I suspected you were in Washington on that day is
that it indicates that you arranged for a limousine on that day
to go from the Democratic National Committee Headquarters to
Dulles Airport, then to the Watergate South Apartment. From
there the limousine, according to the ticket, went on to the
Sheraton Carlton, then back to the Watergate South.
Do you see all that and agree that I have the itinerary
right for where that limousine went on that particular
occasion?
[Exhibit 501 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.301
Mr. Huang. Yes, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you able to explain to us--well let me
ask you a series of questions. Did you go in that limousine to
pick up James Riady?
Mr. Huang. I believe I did.
Mr. LaTourette. Would that be the stop at Dulles Airport?
Mr. Huang. I don't know--wait a minute. Yes, I did.
Mr. LaTourette. At Dulles. The Dulles stop on the ticket
would be picking up Mr. Riady.
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. It then went to the Watergate South and the
Watergate South is where Mr. Trie lived, is that correct;
Charlie Trie lived at the Watergate, stayed at the Watergate?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Was the purpose of the limousine on
September 26th to go pick up Mr. Trie next?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you recall why it is you went--you
directed the limousine to go to the Watergate South on that
day?
Mr. Huang. I think Mr. Riady was the guest, you know, to be
invited to stay there, and stayed in the hotel by Mr. Trie.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, OK. But the--according to the ticket,
it leaves the Watergate, goes to the Sheraton Carlton. So if
you picked up Mr. Riady at the Dulles Airport, you then go to
the Watergate South. I think that you picked up Mr. Trie and he
got in the car then you all went to the Sheraton Carlton. Is
that what happened, or did somebody--why would you--if he's
going to----
Mr. Huang. I did not quite recall Mr. Trie went for that
evening's event or he came along with a limousine directly go
to that event, though. If he did go, probably he went
separately by himself, yeah.
Mr. LaTourette. But it was your recollection that Mr. Riady
had been invited to stay with Mr. Trie at the Watergate?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. So the stop at the Watergate could have
been for Mr. Riady to drop off luggage or freshen up or
whatever before you headed over to the Sheraton Carlton?
Mr. Huang. If I am not mistaken Mr. Riady also stay
overnight.
Mr. LaTourette. At the Trie's apartment?
Mr. Huang. At Trie's apartment, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you stay there as well that evening at
the Sheraton Carlton?
Mr. Huang. I might have, yes. I might have.
Mr. LaTourette. You might have but you don't recall
specifically?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall specifically.
Mr. LaTourette. That same exhibit indicates that the
following morning you arranged for a limousine to pick someone
up at the Watergate South at 7:15 but there was no response. Do
you recall why it is that you made that arrangement; who it was
supposed to pick up, where it was supposed to go?
Mr. Huang. Are we on the right-hand side of the lower
bottom, sir?
Mr. LaTourette. Uh-huh.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. LaTourette. I'm at the lower right-hand side;
Watergate, time arrived.
Mr. Huang. The best recollection, probably everybody
overslept.
Mr. LaTourette. One more--everybody was gone already.
Mr. Huang. No, overslept.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Now that we have talked about and you
think that people had overslept, did you have a recollection of
spending the night at the Watergate with Mr. Riady and Mr. Trie
now? I mean, is this refreshing your memory that that's where
you were?
Mr. Huang. Yes. Yes, I do.
Mr. LaTourette. The three of you spent the evening at Mr.
Trie's place at the Watergate South Apartments.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. This visit--well, hang on a minute. I
want to go to exhibit No. 502 next, if you look at the next
page. It's another limousine ticket for the 27th. It indicates
that someone was taken from the Watergate to 14th and
Pennsylvania Avenue, then to the Democratic National Committee,
then to Connecticut and I Street, then back to 14th and
Pennsylvania Avenue. Are you able to give us a reason as to why
you hired a car for this purpose, who was in it and what was
going on?
[Exhibit 502 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.302
Mr. Huang. At this moment I could not.
Mr. LaTourette. Let me ask you this: Do you know whether or
not that limousine that we're now talking about in exhibit 502
picked up anyone other than Charlie Trie at the Watergate?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady came in with another executive from
the Lippo as well. So there is only two persons involved in the
limo as best I can recollect.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you know why it went to 14th and
Pennsylvania Avenue, and specifically the why; was it to pick
up Mark Middleton?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. No, although that I can really not recollect
exactly, you know, it might be to visit Mr. Middleton. Mr.
Middleton at that time already, I think--this is 1996, right?
Mr. LaTourette. September 26th.
Mr. Huang. Right. Mr. Middleton has already left the
government. He was a consultant for himself at that time. And--
--
Mr. LaTourette. You mentioned that there was another Lippo
executive besides Mr. Riady. Do you recall who that was?
Mr. Huang. No, I cannot recall. I never saw him before. But
he came along with Mr. Riady.
Mr. LaTourette. Did this particular visit that we're
talking about--September 26, 1996 was after the first news
stories about the campaign finance scandal had broken on
television. Do you recall when you and Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady
are spending the night at Mr. Trie's place at the Watergate
South, whether or not those news stories were the subject of
any discussion among the three of you or among two other people
in your presence?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall specifically on that. No.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. And do you recall in all of the 20 days
of interviewing that you had with the Department of Justice,
did they ever talk to you about this series of limousine rides,
that you can recall?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. LaTourette. At any time on the two receipts that I have
shown you, the 502 and 501, was the President of the United
States, Mr. Clinton, either before or after the event that
occurred at the Sheraton Carlton on September 26th, involved
with Mr. Riady on any of these trips that this limousine was
taking?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Clinton, you say? No. No, he was not
involved.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you aware of any ride, limousine ride
taken by the President of the United States with Mr. Riady
during this visit by Mr. Riady to Washington DC; that is, the
day either before or after the September 26th African American
event at the Sheraton Carlton in Washington DC?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. You were there.
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know how much time I have left, Mr.
Souder? Is there a clock? I don't want to start a new area. I
can stop here. Why don't I stop? I tell you what. I yield back
my time and I'll come back.
Mr. Waxman. If you want to go now and want another 10
minutes it's OK with me. I will give Mr. Huang a break.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Shays would like to ask a few. I'll
yield back at this moment.
Mr. Souder. The committee will stand in recess for 10
minutes.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton [presiding]. The committee will reconvene. Mr.
LaTourette, I think you have the floor.
Mr. Shays. If I could ask unanimous consent that he could
have the 10 minutes that Mr. Waxman suggested.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank everyone for their courtesy. I also
appreciate the break.
I want to talk next, Mr. Huang, about a document that
appears in your book as exhibit No. 513. And this is a document
that was taken from Charlie Trie by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. And the title of the document is Cooperation
Opportunities with James Riady. The original document, I just
want to get it here real quick, was in Chinese, and it's been
translated and as it appears now in exhibit 513. And I just
want to read it for the benefit of the record, although it will
be submitted into the record.
The text that we received is a translation as follows:
No. 1, Wal-Mart in Shanghai opens a store--and just an
editorial comment is where haven't they opened a store? Because
Lippo has a successful cooperation experience at Lippo Village
and received sweet reward at Shenzhen. Actively urged Lippo to
work with them in opening stores in Shanghai and Beijing.
Must obtain retail license and buy local product and
imports to sell before we can consider. Local government may
join in but maximum 10 percent. Wal-Mart takes 50 percent.
Remaining may be divided by you.
The needed land must be not less than 10,000 square meters.
Hopefully it will be a clear-cut deal. Distance from medium and
high-income area cannot exceed 20 minutes driving time.
Buy a hospital in Shanghai and modernize it. The Lippo
Village already has gained high-level hospital experience.
Plus, James is a trustee of the Arkansas Medical School. His
father is a trustee of USC. They may invite foreign doctors to
be visiting doctors as Shanghai and can send Shanghai doctors
for advanced training in foreign countries. The targets are
foreign businessmen and high-income people.
Buy a school in Shanghai or work out a joint venture for an
international school. Lippo Village's international school may
be used as a model for planning.
No. 4 there's a hotel in San Francisco--the stock should be
bought in total or in part. This hotel is owned by the bank and
is worth $7 million. It has a good record and may get a 60
percent loan. Suggest that you find 6 Chinese accounts to
invest $1 million each. Lippo will retain one-seventh of the
stock. These investors instantly become a partner of Lippo.
They can use that to request immigration.
L.A. Bank Stocks: Maybe a part of the L.A. bank stock can
be sold to Wang Jun. Knowing you have good relations with Wang
Jun, hoping you can be an intermediary. Proposing that Wang
Jung buy the Lippo bank stocks with money as reenforcement to
enter the U.S. market. You may also plan to get a part of the
stocks and a director position. James is a fair person. He
knows especially the long-term strategy and advantage of using
business partners. He knows you have good relations with China.
Hope you may be able to realize the above suggestions. He
agrees with my proposal and is willing to work with you on the
above items.
If you are going to Jakarta in October, he may send his
helicopter so you can visit Lippo Village. Thus you may have a
clearer picture to push for the above items in China.
He may wait until you finish meeting on October 9 and hold
a detailed talk with John Huang in New York on October the
10th.''
First, have you ever seen this document before Mr. Huang?
[Exhibit 513 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.303
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Either in its original form or in its
translated form?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. At any time did either Charlie Trie or Ng
Lap Seng ask you for a business help or introductions?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know if Charlie Trie ever had a
relationship, a business relationship with the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. Not prior to that, no.
Mr. LaTourette. Prior to what?
Mr. Huang. Up here what you are saying on this--the memo or
whatever the translation, anything prior to that--this
indication looks like they're going to go through some
business, you know.
Mr. LaTourette. You would----
Mr. Huang. I was not aware of that.
Mr. LaTourette. You would agree with me that exhibit 513
appears to be a recitation or a proposal that there be further
discussions for business between Mr. Trie and the Lippo Group;
that's what it appears to be?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you have any independent knowledge that
any of the items mentioned there in that document 513 actually
came to pass or are coming to pass? For instance, the first
item on the list is a venture with Wal-Mart in Shanghai. Did
you ever discuss that with Charlie Trie.
Mr. Huang. I did not----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I know about--around that period of
time I know about some of the matters like Wal-Mart situation.
For instance Wal-Mart had the joint venture with the Lippo in
Jakarta, in Lippo Village.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you aware that Charlie Trie has
anything to do with that?
Mr. Huang. For that Jakarta joint venture between Lippo and
Wal-Mart?
Mr. LaTourette. Right.
Mr. Huang. He might have know about it; he had nothing to
do with it as far as I know.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know anything--let me go back to my
original broad question. Do you know anything about a business
relationship between Charlie Trie, whether it's the items on
this memo that we're talking about, and the Lippo group?
Mr. Huang. The only information I had, I believe Mr. Riady
had a conversation with me, maybe around the period of time
indicating Charlie Trie visited Mr. James Riady in Jakarta. Mr.
Charlie Trie apparently is looking for business opportunity as
well. So it leads me to believe that's probably after that,
that kind of meeting.
Mr. LaTourette. Let me specifically run through the items
on the memo, just so we're clear. I have understood your answer
to the broad question. But I have asked you about Wal-Mart. The
second item is modernizing a hospital in Shanghai. Have you
ever had a discussion concerning this project with either
Charlie Trie or James Riady or anyone else at Lippo?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. The third project is a school in Shanghai.
Have you ever had a discussion, again, Trie, Riady, or anyone
else at Lippo?
Mr. Huang. Before you proceed on this, I don't know if it
will be helpful or not. It was understood Charlie Trie was
going over to Asia quite a bit, particularly in China. That was
known. Apparently he had established some contacts over there.
OK. So in the broader sense, things he knew, China, just in
case he want to have some help, or Charlie Trie might be a
help, and probably that would be subjects of discussion. So
what I was trying to answer is that on specific items, I did
not know about it, what you have read. But on the broader
basis, maybe he might be helpful about Chinese ventures in the
future. That I have heard.
Mr. LaTourette. Well, again going back to when we were
talking in the previous 10 minutes about the night of September
26, 1996, after the Sheraton Carlton event, apparently Mr. Trie
and Mr. Riady knew each other well enough that Mr. Trie was
comfortable having Mr. Riady be a guest in his home on that
particular evening. Is that right?
Mr. Huang. At that point, yeah.
Mr. LaTourette. And at that point--and I think that this
memo talks about a trip to Jakarta on October 9th. I guess I'm
thinking it's October 9, 1996?
Mr. Huang. 1996, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Which is right after, within 10, 12 days of
this event at the Sheraton Carlton; is that a fair observation?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. The fifth one then, and again I'm not
trying to trip you up, I understood you said you don't have any
knowledge of the specifics. But the fifth one specifically
refers to L.A. bank stocks. And it says that it may be a part
of the L.A. bank stock can be sold to Wang Jun. Wang Jun, do
you know who he is?
Mr. Huang. I know of this person but I never met with him
in person.
Mr. LaTourette. What does he do for a living, do you know?
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry; what was he doing?
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know what he does for a living?
Mr. Huang. I think he was a chairman of CITIC, or China
International Trust and Investment Corp. at that time.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know if he has any business dealings
that have to do with the selling of arms, firearms? Is he in
the gun business?
Mr. Huang. At that time I did not know.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know that today?
Mr. Huang. Because the news accounts indicated that, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you believe the news accounts? Do you
think he is an arms dealer or you just think like that business
that Mr. Waxman was talking about Mr. Solomon, that they made
that up about him? Do you have reason to believe that he is an
arms dealer?
Mr. Huang. Again, I don't know. I never verified that,
yeah.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Do you know, as you look at that
paragraph, what the paragraph refers to, what bank it's
referring to?
Mr. Huang. The bank is Lippo Bank of California he was
referring to.
Mr. LaTourette. Located in Los Angeles?
Mr. Huang. Head office at that time was in Los Angeles,
yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you ever have a discussion concerning
this paragraph, the L.A. bank stock and Wang Jun, with either
Charlie Trie, James Riady or anyone else at Lippo?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. To your knowledge did Charlie Trie ever
visit with James Riady or other member of the Riady family in
Jakarta?
Mr. Huang. As I indicated to you earlier, they had a
meeting when Mr. Trie visited Indonesia.
Mr. LaTourette. And do you believe that to have been on
October 9, 1996?
Mr. Huang. I don't know exactly, but probably around that
period of time probably.
Mr. LaTourette. Is it fair that it was in 1996, is that
your recollection?
Mr. Huang. Yes. Yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you--again, you said that you've never
seen this document before now, so I assume that the items
contained in this document never were the subject of
conversations between you, your lawyers and the Justice
Department.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Not in the specific sense as----
Mr. LaTourette. Go ahead.
Mr. Huang. Not in the specific sense as you indicated on
this memo. But I believe the Justice Department would like to
know at the time of the relationship between the Tries and
Riadys.
Mr. LaTourette. And then the last question I have is, as
the yellow light brightens our hallway, phone records indicate
that between September 23, 1996 and October 11, 1996, Charlie
Trie placed calls to James Riady eight times. Are you familiar
with the content of any of those telephone calls? And
specifically, since I believe that during some of this time you
were actually staying at Mr. Trie's home, were you present for
any of those telephone calls?
Mr. Huang. No, sir. I was not even aware he was making a
call to Indonesia at that time.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real briefly?
Mr. LaTourette. Be happy to.
Mr. Burton. Did the Department of Justice, when you were
being interviewed by them, did they ever ask you about this
document?
Mr. Huang. Not specifically about this document. This is a
translation of that.
Mr. Burton. What do you mean not specifically about this
document. Did they ask you about the contents of the document?
Mr. Huang. No. They were interested in knowing about the
relationship between Riady and Trie, Mr. Riady and Mr. Trie, or
Lippo and Mr. Trie. But----
Mr. Burton. Did they ask about Wang Jun at all?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I think so. What I knew in the whole thing is,
you know, what was his role, as Congressman was raising a
similar questions today.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't have any close dealings with
Wang Jun?
Mr. Huang. Definitely. I never met with him.
Mr. Burton. And you didn't know anything more than what you
said about the relationship between Riadys and Charlie Trie.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Thank you. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huang, I try to
remember that I have an advantage that you don't. I can ask
questions. You're put in a difficult situation, and I sometimes
look back when I have asked a question, regretted the question,
because I think I have misused the power I have. But I want to
ask you some very blunt questions and I also am going to ask
you some questions about salary, which I want you to know I
would have asked or wanted asked by the committee behind closed
doors, but we weren't given that opportunity. So I'm going to
ask you some questions that I would have preferred not to have
to ask you in public, because they may be important or they may
not. I am just in some cases going to be checking.
But first, and I don't mean to keep bringing it up but it's
the point of this question, you pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
defraud the U.S. Government for $150,000; then you said there
was about $800,000 that you were aware of that was basically
from the Lippo Group, from the Riadys or their related
companies, by employees that ultimately you suspect was paid by
the Riadys. I want to know if this was your scheme or their
scheme.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady--well, let me track back. Mr. Riady
has made the commitment to raise the million dollars. That
commitment is made.
Mr. Shays. He told this to the President, that he would get
$1 million to the----
Mr. Huang. To help raise or whatever, to give, whatever.
The end result is the same anyway.
Mr. Shays. You need to get $1 million.
Mr. Huang. Right. And then the--I was in the United States,
I was the point person to put everything into execution and
work with him and get everything facilitated.
Mr. Shays. And you knew this was illegal?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. OK. But was it your idea to him that he should
do this, or was this his idea to you or was it a team effort?
Mr. Huang. The thought process is coming on a joint basis,
but I implement the whole thing.
Mr. Shays. So both of you were involved in this conspiracy
to defraud the government and to ignore campaign law. Now,
frankly you probably could have done it by a soft money
contribution, because who knows whether that's illegal since
it's not called campaign money. But at any rate, you went this
route. It was clearly illegal. And I would have said if you did
the soft money, it was wrong but it may not have been illegal.
And what I want to know is why would I have confidence that
you were qualified now to work for Commerce, given that you
were involved in a very serious scheme of close to $1 million?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. As I reported to Congressman Waxman's question
yesterday, you know I would have hope nobody would have caught
up, for longest time had nobody caught up on this matter. So
nobody knew about this matter. If anybody knew about it in the
processing in my appointment, probably I would not be
qualified.
Mr. Shays. But the challenge--thank you. The challenge,
though, the question I'm also asking, is why should I have any
confidence that when you basically raised $2 to $5 million,
that you weren't involved in the same stuff? Why did you all of
a sudden decide to be honest when you worked for the DNC?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I knew I did wrong during that 1992
and 1994 period of time. I tried very best not to do the same
thing again. When this campaign finance matter erupt in 1996, I
think the Justice Department has made an extensive
investigation, and I have been trying very hard to cooperate
with them completely on that.
Mr. Shays. The question mark I have for you is you made
$60,000, well less than you were qualified in the DNC, and you
had a very unique arrangement. You had a bonus arrangement. And
the bonus arrangement was based on what?
Mr. Huang. Based on the--hopefully based on the
performance, how much I can raise. I was leaving that to the
DNC meeting, the chairman of the Finance Committee, to make a
decision later on.
Mr. Shays. Could I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman, that
I have 10 more minutes?
Mr. Waxman. Do 5 and let's see what happens after that.
Mr. Shays. I'll need 10, so I'll come back afterwards.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman, did you have some questions?
Mr. Waxman. Yeah, let me take a round of questions.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, I want to ask you about your
cooperation with the Department of Justice. I think this
follows after what Mr. Shays was questioning you about. Prior
to pleading guilty to campaign finance violation, you had been
cooperating with the Justice Department's Campaign Finance Task
Force; isn't that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. And according to the Justice Department, the
Department contacted your attorney in August 1998 about a
possible preindictment plea agreement; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. And were you willing to talk to them?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. In fact, according to the brief filed with the
sentencing court by the prosecutors, ``From the outset of these
discussions, Defendant Huang indicated a desire to cooperate
with the government's investigation.'' They went on to state,
that, ``Defendant Huang never adopted a confrontational posture
with respect to the negotiations.''
I understand that you met with the prosecutors and
investigators approximately 20 times between January and April
of this year. Is that right?
Mr. Huang. At least. Probably even started earlier than
that, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Do you believe that you provided useful
information to the Department of Justice?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. According to the prosecutor's brief submitted
to the sentencing court, the prosecutor said,
Defendant Huang was deemed to be credible throughout the
proffer sessions. His cooperation was substantial in that it
answered many questions which would otherwise remain mysteries
and provided incriminating evidence pertinent to numerous
ongoing investigations. Moreover, defendant Huang admitted to
wrongful conduct beyond that which the government would
otherwise have been able to prove.
Mr. Huang do you feel badly about your involvement in
making illegal conduit contributions?
Mr. Huang. Yes, very much sir.
Mr. Waxman. The Department of Justice had the same opinion.
According to the prosecutors, Mr. Huang, ``always exhibited
bona fide remorse for his actions.''
I would like to read for the record what the Justice
Department said about your character.
Defendant Huang appears to have lived an upright life.
Moreover, his reputation in the community and observed behavior
have demonstrated to the government that he is generally a
self-effacing and kind individual. During the course of the
investigation, the government has interviewed numerous credible
witnesses who, without exception, speak to defendant Huang's
integrity.
These are not my words because I wouldn't know whether to
say it or not, but these are the prosecutors that you talked to
for over 20 separate times. Today is Thursday. You were in this
hearing all day yesterday. I think we started at 1 o'clock. We
went until close to 6. We started at 10, it's almost 3. So
you've been here, you alone as the witness for this hearing.
And the day before you came here, you testified in California,
what was the----
Mr. Huang. The grand jury, yes. In Los Angeles.
Mr. Waxman. How long did that grand jury testimony go?
Mr. Huang. That started something like 10 o'clock through
2:30, and I'm going again next week I believe.
Mr. Waxman. So you go next week again to the grand jury.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Waxman. You flew a red-eye flight to be here with us,
not last night but the night before, to be here with us
yesterday.
Mr. Huang. Not quite. I arrived at 1 o'clock, as I told
chairman and also the committee, not quite exactly the red eye,
but I did arrive like 1 o'clock a.m.
Mr. Waxman. I see. I was feeling sorry for you because I've
taken that red eye. I know how grueling it can be. I know that
flight that gets here at 1 o'clock is also grueling but not
quite as grueling.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I saw you in the flight before. I
used to commute quite a bit before, myself, because my home was
in Los Angeles. I apologize I didn't come over to speak to you
at that time.
Mr. Souder. Would the gentleman yield? What conversations
did you have with Mr. Huang on your airplane flights?
Mr. Waxman. I don't recall that I have ever met Mr. Huang
before today. I might have met him at some party or other.
Maybe going in or out of a cocktail party he might have passed
on some word about somebody's reputation, but of course I
wouldn't have repeated it.
I just want to put this on the record because, Mr. Shays,
you're asking why you should believe him. I don't know if you
want to believe him or not. The only way you can see whether a
witness is telling the truth is to get all the facts, ask him
the questions, look at him, look at his demeanor and then rely
on other people. And this is what the Justice Department has
said about him. He certainly did a wrong thing. And it was a
seriously wrong thing that he did. It was a felony. It amounted
to a felony violation. But there are times when even though
somebody has done something wrong that they're not--everything
they do can't be assumed to be duplicitous or wrong-headed.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Let me just take a couple minutes, then I'll
yield the balance of my time to you.
At the beginning of our meeting today, I read some
information from the 302's of the President and the Vice
President. And the Justice Department did not ask any questions
of the President or the Vice President about John Huang,
Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, Pauline Kanchanalak or anybody
involved in the finance scandal. The Justice Department did
fine Mr. Huang. Charlie Trie was not fined by the Justice
Department, but the judge in the case was so upset, or upset
enough, because the Justice Department was just giving Charlie
Trie a slap on the wrist, that he himself imposed a $5,000 fine
on Mr. Trie.
Now, the reason I bring that up is you're using the
statements from the Justice Department as a reason for us to
show credence to the witness and possibly to others. The
Justice Department has been totally uncooperative with us for
the last 3 years. They've kept documents from us. We had to
subpoena them. We weren't going to get the 302s from the
President and the Vice President until I threatened to
subpoena--in fact I did subpoena the Assistant U.S. Attorney
from the Justice Department, and he was going to have to come
over here. When they found out he was going to have to come
over here and tell us why he wouldn't give us the 302s, they
finally coughed those things up.
So, I just want to point out that the Justice Department
has been anything but upfront and cooperative with our
investigation for the past 3 years. And for that reason--and
regarding Mr. Trie and Mr. Huang, even the judge in the Trie
case was concerned about the way they handled that. So I don't
think just because people in the Justice Department make some
positive comments about any person, not in particular Mr.
Huang, that we should take that as gospel.
And with that, I'll yield to my colleague.
Mr. Waxman. Would you yield to me, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Burton. I know what you're going to do. You're going to
respond to what I said.
Mr. Waxman. What's wrong with giving me a chance to
respond?
Mr. Burton. Well, you'll have--all right. Respond.
Mr. Waxman. I just want to point out that I know that no
one can say anything to you in the defense of the Justice
Department.
Mr. Burton. Not much.
Mr. Waxman. But I will say this: that the Justice
Department was acting at the request of the FBI, because these
302s were the FBI's interrogations of the different witnesses.
The FBI asked the Justice Department not to make certain things
public. And then again I talked yesterday about the phases, and
phase 5 is whether the White House, Justice Department, or FBI
capitulates and we usually receive the information.
Well, we did receive the information. In fact, you
described yesterday how our staffs had to go and look at the
President and Vice President's 302s because they wouldn't
release it. Well, now that they've released it, we have it,
we've agreed to your request that we make it public, and the
people can see what the interview consisted of, by the FBI,
not----
Mr. Burton. I don't believe the FBI was the ones that was
asking those questions, at least in that one interview. They
were just people from the Justice Department.
Mr. Waxman. That ought to be on the record, so we'll see.
Mr. Burton. It's in the 302s.
Mr. Waxman. We'll see what the 302s say. The only other
thing I point out is whether it's FBI or anyone else asking
questions of the President of the United States, they had two
specific issues that they were asking him about. Unlike this
committee, I don't think they thought they should go on a long
fishing expedition and ask the President of the United States
every possible thing that they might ask him about. There has
been no evidence that the President of the United States ever
knew that any of these contributions were illegal, that they
were foreign sources----
Mr. Burton. Let me reclaim my time.
Mr. Waxman [continuing]. And therefore pursue those
questions----
Mr. Burton. Let me reclaim my time and just say this:
You're not going to find out what the President knew or when he
knew it unless you ask the questions. They asked absolutely no
questions about John Huang, Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak,
any of those people when they went over there. And the people
that went over there, some of them felt like they were not
supposed to ask those questions because they might have a
problem.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Could I renew my request for unanimous consent
for 10 minutes?
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. My question was, given that you had
done these, I had asked why should I have faith that you
wouldn't continue them. Because you hadn't yet been caught. You
gave me an answer that you regretted it, and you said you
didn't want to do it again. But I guess the next question is
why should I have any sense of confidence that the Riadys and
their organizations would want to function in a way that would
be honest? What was--what made them want to change? Should I
assume that they have changed or that they're continuing to be
manipulating the system and defrauding and so on? Why should I
have any confidence that they are like you, have seen the
light?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I agree you'll be concerned based
on the past records, but at that period of time when I when
with the DNC, I didn't have any reason to believe that they
were going to do those things.
Mr. Shays. Now, it's your testimony that when you were at
the DNC you did not have--make any effort to raise money from
the Riadys; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Did you make an effort to raise money from
people who worked with the Riadys, had business deals with the
Riadys?
Mr. Huang. The reason I pause, I have been trying to think,
you know, to the best of my knowledge I did not.
Mr. Shays. None of their business partners you didn't raise
any money from?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, the reason I paused a little bit,
because there are instances that could draw some dot-dot line
there. Wiriadinata, the contributions----
Mr. Shays. You were what? I'm sorry.
Mr. Huang. Wiriadinata's contribution.
Mr. Shays. And what about that?
Mr. Huang. Because the Wiriadinatas, Mrs. Wiriadinata's
father, Hashim Ning was a partner with the Lippo.
Mr. Shays. And your reason for not raising money for the
Riadys was that they no longer had green cards? And no longer
worked--why wouldn't----
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady had already at that point had
already----
Mr. Shays. I mean, there is no logic why you wouldn't have
asked him for contributions.
Mr. Huang. He gave up the green card already. He did not
have the status to give any more money.
Mr. Shays. Because he no longer had a green card, that was
the reason why you didn't seek to raise money from him. But he
still had business associates in the United States. Why
wouldn't you raise money from them?
Mr. Huang. Well, the only person--that's what I'm trying to
say. The only person he's trying to help me is the--on the
Wiriadinata, who he know, you know, that was only links we can
control right now.
Mr. Shays. How much money was that?
Mr. Huang. As I reported to you, the couple made about
$450,000.
Mr. Shays. And I should have confidence that that was their
money?
Mr. Huang. I have no reason to believe it not. They come
from a very substantial family.
Mr. Shays. Now, should I feel comfortable that in 1997 and
1998 you received $18,000 from the Riadys and 1997 and 1998 you
received $20,000. Why should I feel comfortable about that?
Mr. Huang. Despite the fact all these things happened in
the Riady family--I worked for Riady family for a period of
time. There was still some friendship there. And you know, I
was definitely--functionally I was not employable. I'm pretty
sure as a friend, or any friend of any person probably feel
concerned about the financial situation, I guess that at the
time he was trying to help me out on that.
Mr. Shays. And I understand they were trying to help you
out, Mr. Huang. And this is a difficult kind of question to
raise. But it's not unlike trying to help Mr. Hubbell out. You
are a key witness and now we have to determine whether your
vulnerability financially doesn't put you at risk.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, in the event what you're suggesting
is going to play any role, I probably would not implicate the
Riady family. As I reported to you in whatever they've done in
the past, you know, that was involving, you know, $800 some
thousand in the past. And I was, you know, cooperating fully
with the Justice Department.
Mr. Shays. You see, the challenge that we have, and it is
really part of the public record, and that is that the Riadys
have deals in China.
Mr. Huang. Um-hmm.
Mr. Shays. And it is inevitable, frankly, when you have
dealings with the Chinese, that you are going to be dealing
with the military and their intelligence community. That's a
reality. And for me to make a claim like the Senate report
does, that they had these contacts, is really almost a
nonstatement. You're not going to have that kind of dealing
unless you have that kind of communication with the businesses
that are run by the military and the businesses that are run by
the Intelligence Committee, which gets us into this next
question. And that is why would you--what did you do for the
Commerce Department? What was your responsibility there?
Mr. Huang. The title is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Economic Policy. Actually my role in the end
was--when I joined in, was assisting Assistant Secretary Chuck
Meissner. The primary role in my function is to--mostly will be
on the organization side, did not have any territorial
functions. As the IEP, the international economic policy was--
say something was in charge of Japan and somebody in charge of
the Asia Pacific, some people in charge of the Middle East or
Europe, I did not have those kind of role.
Mr. Shays. Then why would you have been--why did you need
top security clearance?
Mr. Huang. The best I can answer that is Mr. Meissner and I
went in Commerce late. In fact, Mr. Meissner went in even
earlier than I am. That historically functions and duty were
taken away from him. I'm pretty sure he was trying to make
every effort to reclaim his responsibility back.
Mr. Shays. So you had top security clearance and you were
provided information on a weekly basis, on a daily basis? And
what kind of information would you have generally been
provided? Not the specifics.
Mr. Huang. The most of the information given to me, it's
not on the, as you say, the daily basis. There's some material
coming in. There will be security briefing by the--I believe
the CIA's person stationed in the Commerce Department on the
more regular basis.
Mr. Shays. In a lot of cases this was raw data, correct;
this was not--this was pretty raw data that you were given,
very sensitive data, it also gives you sources of where this
information came from.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, I will be very honest with you, I
don't know how to define what is raw data and not raw data. I
never work in the government before.
Mr. Shays. But you were provided not only information as to
economic secrets, but also potential sources for this
information; is that not correct?
Mr. Huang. I think you're correct on that, yeah.
Mr. Shays. And I'm still not clear why you needed that
information.
Mr. Huang. That was given to me by Mr. Meissner.
Mr. Shays. But why?
Mr. Huang. I can't answer that for Mr. Meissner on that.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield real quick? As I
understand it, it didn't take you long to get your security
clearance. In other words, I was told the process was speeded
up. How long from the time you went to the Department of
Commerce until you got your security clearance?
Mr. Huang. I did not know for sure, Mr. Chairman, at the
time, but the news accounts indicating that I even got that in
January that year, or the end of January or early February that
year.
Mr. Burton. When did you go to work for them?
Mr. Huang. Before I went to work for Commerce Department. I
did not even request for----
Mr. Burton. No. No. Before you went to work for the
Commerce Department, you had a security clearance.
Mr. Huang. According to the news account. I did not know.
Mr. Burton. You don't know when?
Mr. Huang. I do not know for sure, yeah.
Mr. Burton. I just want you to know that for us to get
security clearance for our staff, sometimes it takes 3, 4, 5, 6
months, and they do a very thorough FBI background check. To
your knowledge, did they do any kind of background check or FBI
check on you?
Mr. Huang. Again, I have to say I never work in the
government before. They did ask me to fill out all kind of
form. I assume they will check all my data. It's very thick
forms I had to fill out.
Mr. Burton. But to your knowledge, you had your security
clearance before you even went over to Commerce?
Mr. Huang. I did not know that part.
Mr. Burton. But from what you heard, and we'll check on
that, you had your security clearance when you went to
Commerce.
Mr. Huang. No I did not. I have some clearance on that
because somebody had to check my background. I thought that was
all about.
Mr. Burton. Did anybody ever interview you at the FBI or
anybody else about your background or your connections or
whether you beat your wife or anything?
Mr. Huang. I don't beat my wife, by the way.
Mr. Burton. I know you don't beat your wife. But what I'm
saying is did anybody ever interview you about anything
regarding security interviews with the FBI?
Mr. Huang. No, not from the FBI, no.
Mr. Burton. And you got a security clearance. That's
something we're going to have to look into.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I have a new category of questions that I would
like to discuss. And I'm a member of the Natural Resources
Committee, relatively new member. I would like to ask you a few
questions about the Riadys and their coal interests.
Mr. Huang. Coal interests, OK.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain a little bit of what your
understanding is of what the Riadys own in Indonesia related to
the coal industry?
Mr. Huang. That was long, long before. I didn't even know
what, whether he really had any substantial interest in coal. I
think they have some coal mines way early back into late
seventies or early sixties. I know for fact probably they don't
own any coal mine at the time when this issue was--you know,
occurred.
Mr. Souder. Do you know anything about the P.T. Kitadin
Mining Co?
Mr. Huang. Yes, there was a company under Lippo Group in
early stage. That was--I think that might be related to the
coal mine, coal mining interest that they own.
Mr. Souder. You say it was at the early stages of Lippo.
And to your knowledge, at wasn't functioning during this
period, or that was----
Mr. Huang. My best guess is that during that period we're
talking about this event in 1996, I don't--because in the group
literature is never mentioned about the company's name any
further.
Mr. Souder. Do you know where its mines were located or
anything about the value of their deposits?
Mr. Huang. I don't know about those, no.
Mr. Souder. Do you know anything about the Lippo Group
whether they owned the P.T. Adaro Mining Co?
Mr. Huang. That I don't know.
Mr. Souder. In your interview with the Justice Department
or the FBI, you stated that Mr. Riady's coal interests were
minimal and that Indonesia had significant infrastructure
problems that prohibited the development of the country's coal
resources.
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did say that. Yeah. I will explain to you
further why I thought that. Because Mr. Riady, Sr., in the
early stages he mentioned that the coal mining they did could
not even come out to the big ship. So the ship would have to
dock in the deep water ocean area. They would have to have some
kind of barge, a small boat, and load it back and forth. That's
what I meant that the facility was not that well.
Mr. Souder. Are there other companies in Indonesia that are
a lot bigger than the Riadys' coal holdings, than P.T. Kitadin
or P.T. Adaro?
Mr. Huang. I don't know about that. I don't know about
that.
Mr. Souder. The reason is, were you aware that Indonesia is
the fourth largest exporter of coal in the world?
Mr. Huang. I'm aware they're large. I don't know their
ranking though, yeah.
Mr. Souder. And the problem that we're trying to work
through here is to try to reconcile--yes, they have
infrastructure problems, which of course can be fixed over
time, but already they're the fourth largest coal exporter in
the world; in fact, of low sulfur coal. That's its most
environmentally, what, appropriate, sensitive. They're the
second largest holder in the world of this low sulfur coal.
Were you aware of that?
Mr. Huang. I was not aware of that.
Mr. Souder. Your testimony is that you do not know this.
But P.T. Kitadin and P.T. Adaro were two companies that owned
and we are trying to figure out how much of that they own
because it is the second largest resources in the world. And
the political problem here and what there has been a lot of
debate about is that the largest resources in the world in Utah
were pulled off during this time period.
I would like to, at least, put in the record some of our
concern and then ask followup. And there is not really any
short way to do it. I would just like to put this in the
record. And that is, September 18, 1996, the President
unilaterally established a 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.
Now, we have battled with whether or not this is an
appropriate use of the national monument. The area is a
beautiful area. And you could argue either way whether this
should be part of our national monument park wilderness system.
And quite frankly, this President has shown a willingness to
take almost any park or area and turn it into a wilderness
area. And furthermore, they had a great picture that ran in the
front page in color in my home newspaper of Vice President Gore
doing a signing with the Grand Canyon in the background, so
they got a good political hit.
But it appears there was more to it than that. Because a
1997 congressional investigation learned that, for example,
Kathleen McGinty, in correspondence, the chair of the Council
on Environmental Quality, stated, ``I am increasingly of the
view that we should just drop these Utah ideas. These lands are
not really in danger because they are under the Federal
Government control. They were not in danger. So why did they
need to be a national monument.''
Then further investigation revealed that it was to protect
the land from coal mining. In fact, at the signing ceremony,
the President said it was to protect this from Dutch coal
companies. The mining was conducted by a Dutch coal company,
Andalex, and was strictly of the areas of vast reserve of
clean-burning, low sulfur coal, some of the most
environmentally sensitive.
Then, furthermore, this is what ties in because he did not
have a traditional national monument justification. Even his
own administration in correspondence said they did not do it.
Then he actually went at the signing ceremony and said this is
because of the coal and what in effect he did was pull the
largest resource of this coal mining off the market, which
could have been for a number of reasons, which I grant, but
happened to then make the Indonesian holdings the largest
holdings in the world of this low sulfur coal.
This happens to coincide is, after $2.5 million had gone in
from related organizations into the campaign from 1992 to 1996,
$450,000 was given to Clinton immediately after the creation of
the monument. And furthermore, on top of that, we had the money
that we were talking about earlier that went to Webb Hubbell.
So it is at least something that many people wonder about
because it was such an unusual, extraordinary, and not really
defensible position and in the normal course of things of why
he did it. Although, it could have been for campaign reasons. I
grant it, it could be others. But it looks very suspicious.
Now, what I would like to know is that, at any time with
your work with the Lippo Group, did you hear this type of thing
discussed? Was this part of the multiplicity of interests?
Earlier you testified that Mr. Riady had a multiplicity of
interests in getting involved in campaigns and trying to get
influence with the government. Was coal mining one of those
interests?
Mr. Huang. No, that subject never came up, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield to me for 10 seconds?
Mr. Souder. Yes, I yield to you.
Mr. Waxman. I just want to report to you that on July 24,
1997, according to the Washington Times, certainly a
conservative newspaper, it says, ``Congress checks Lippo link
to clean coal.'' And they said, after receiving hundreds of
pages of administration documents turned over to congressional
investigators, the Washington Times said they saw no Lippo
connection.
Thank you for yielding to me. I just wanted to put that on
the record.
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry.
Mr. Souder. Did you have any further comments on that?
Mr. Huang. No, coal issue never came up.
Mr. Souder. Did you have any discussions at any time about
the Escalante National Monument?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Souder. Were you familiar that that was occurring?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't.
Mr. Souder. When you were a representative in Asia for, as
I understand the historic record, the Worthen Bank that became
part of the Lippo organizations----
Mr. Huang. Lippo had some investment interests in the
Worthen Bank jointly with the Stephens, Inc.
Mr. Souder. And that Lippo had interests with Stephens. Let
me not get diverted in Stephens for a second. But you represent
their Asian interests.
Did that include Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. No. I represent for the Worthen Bank as a Far
East representative when I was in Hong Kong.
Mr. Souder. Did that include Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Souder. Far East. When you say ``Far East'' in Hong
Kong.
Mr. Huang. I was the representative in the Worthen Bank for
Far East area.
Mr. Souder. And by Far East, in definition, it would have
included Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. That's right. Indonesia, Hong Kong, China,
whatever.
Mr. Souder. And in those Far Eastern interests, at any time
was that related to coal?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Souder. So coal never came up as an interest to any of
the people?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Souder. Did you know or did you ever hear that Mr.
Hubbell, who worked at the Rose law firm at that time, and you
said he represented some of Lippo interests, whether he ever
had anything to do with the Lippo interests in coal? Because as
Mr. Waxman pointed out and you said earlier, it does not appear
there were active coal mining interests at the time of the
Escalante decision but that Lippo had interests that were
relevantly, we do not know whether they were dormant, in other
words, they could not get access to their land and they were
just a holding company at this point, or whether they had sold
them off it would be interesting to know.
But what we do know is that in this earlier period when you
worked with Worthen Bank and when Mr. Hubbell did, that there
were interests in coal.
Do you know whether Mr. Hubbell had anything to do with
those interests?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. Souder. So this is something that I still find
disturbing, but I appreciated your answering those questions
because many Americans were trying and still are trying to
figure out how all of a sudden we wind up with this huge
national monument, much of which is clearly environmentally
precious area that would be protected, but a lot of it was
pretty marginal and when, in fact, we had major United States
resources pulled off the market and the primary beneficiary is
Indonesia. And we would still like to figure out how that
happened. Whether or not it was Mr. Riady, it may have been
other interests, as well. So thank you for your responses.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, I have some questions about Pauline Kanchanalak.
Before I ask those questions, I want to report to my friend,
Mr. Waxman, that during one of the breaks I called my office
about Mr. Solomon's 302s and when I told them staff reception
Rayburn, mid-thirties, dark hair, they said that if he was also
wearing a Navy blue suit they think they know who he is.
I have a couple of observations that I would make about
Pauline Kanchanalak. She was at, as we already established, at
the head table at the event on February 19 that we have talked
a lot about. I want to focus on another date, June 18, 1996, a
coffee, one of the infamous coffees at the White House. And
Pauline Kanchanalak was in fact involved with the coffee on
June 18, 1996, at the White House, was she not?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. And did you arrange and work with her on
June 18th in preparation for that coffee fundraising event?
Mr. Huang. I did work with her, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Exhibit 441, if you could flip in your
programs to 441, is a briefing paper for the President of the
United States prepared, by I suppose, the Democratic National
Committee. It is dated June 6, 1996. I would ask if you helped
prepare this briefing paper as part of your role at the
Democratic National Committee?
[Exhibit 441 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.305
Mr. Huang. Exhibit 441, sir?
Mr. LaTourette. Exhibit 441, right. I think I have the
number right.
Mr. Huang. Yes, I'm looking at it right now.
Mr. LaTourette. That's fine. Take your time. Did you help
prepare that document?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know who did prepare it?
Mr. Huang. Excuse me, Congressman. Are you talking about
exhibit 441, the following page of 441, the chart, right?
Mr. LaTourette. The chart.
Mr. Huang. I did not prepare 441.
Mr. LaTourette. The document 441, regardless of who
prepared it, projects that the coffee to be held on June 18,
1996, would bring in an estimated $400,000. Do you see that?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you know how that projected figure was
determined?
Mr. Huang. This is not the first coffee event that the DNC
had. DNC had quite a few--I shouldn't say many--quite a few
coffees previously. Essentially, through those events, they
were trying to inspire some people to come in and have a chance
to have a meeting with the Chief Executive of the country or
Vice President and hopefully we can inspire these people to
later on make contribution. But generally for those kind of
events they would target--the target, hopefully, after these
coffees they can raise approximately $500,000.
Mr. LaTourette. But in particular, when they were talking
about this, and I understand the purpose behind the coffees,
but somebody said, you know, like any fundraising event they
say, we hope to raise $1,000 or $5,000. Somebody thought that
you could raise $400,000 at the June 18th coffee or the
$400,000 could be realized for the campaign as a result of the
contacts made at the coffee. I am asking you how that figure
was determined. Do you know?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I do.
Mr. LaTourette. Why don't you tell us.
Mr. Huang. This was Ms. Kanchanalak, she would like to have
a coffee. She said she would like to, you know, raise this
amount of money.
Mr. LaTourette. And then so that figure came from Pauline
Kanchanalak?
Mr. Huang. It is her idea she wanted to have coffee and
somehow she knew about roughly doing coffees how much she was
willing to raise that kind of money.
Mr. LaTourette. As we already established, as a result of
her attendance at the event in February, you had a
misimpression as to her immigration status or citizen status at
this period of time, right?
Mr. Huang. In fact, the impression was way earlier back in
1992 when first time I met with her.
Mr. LaTourette. Today, as we sit here in Washington, you
know that in 1996 she was not a citizen of the United States?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Nor a green card recipient?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. Now, Richard Sullivan already testified and
he testified that originally at this coffee there were only
eight invitees or eight people to be in attendance at this
coffee on June 18th: President Clinton; yourself; Donald
Fowler, who is the chairman of the Democratic National
Committee; Marvin Rosen, who was the finance chairman; Pauline
Kanchanalak; and then three additional individuals, Khun
Dhanin, Khun Sumet, and Khun Sarasin I believe.
Does that fit with your recollection? Is that true?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. LaTourette. That is a pretty small group. That was the
original group that was to be present?
Mr. Huang. That was not original group to be present.
Mr. LaTourette. That was?
Mr. Huang. Was not.
Mr. LaTourette. Who else was going to come?
Mr. Huang. Apparently when we planned this kind of event
you supposedly have a target, potential guest list being
presented. So originally I think few weeks, maybe a couple
weeks earlier, maybe even 3 weeks earlier there was a list. I
request Pauline to come up. I believe she faxed to me. That
list of the names is different from the final names on the list
who actually attended that coffee event.
Mr. LaTourette. Right, more people eventually attended than
I just read to you. But my question was, Mr. Sullivan testified
that, and we are going to get into why more people eventually
showed up, but it was his recollection that this was the group
that was originally going to be there and then some people had
some questions and concerns about it when they said, yikes,
other than DNC officials, there is not a U.S. citizen in the
batch. And so I am asking you if that is true or not. Is Mr.
Sullivan's recollection correct based upon your own?
Mr. Huang. He did not really express that to me. I am going
to go back to why I am saying original list is important.
Original list was involving quite a lot of American
businessmen. Ms. Kanchanalak was also involved in United
States-Thai and business counsel so we had a lot of members
coming from American side. Apparently she had the intention to
invite some of those members on American side to attend. The
lists were coming down, some of the guests you just mentioned,
the names are very long, I could not even pronounced them right
at this time.
Mr. LaTourette. Again, going to Mr. Sullivan, and for the
record, who is Richard Sullivan?
Mr. Huang. He was the director of finance at DNC.
Mr. LaTourette. According to Mr. Sullivan's deposition that
he delivered over to the Senate, he stated that he grew
concerned that the Kanchanalak coffee, and apparently was it
ever known as the Kanchanalak coffee this June 18th event? Did
people start calling it the Kanchanalak coffee as opposed to
the coffee at the White House?
Mr. Huang. This is the first time I heard that it called
Kanchanalak coffee.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Well, he indicated in his deposition
that he was concerned, he grew concerned that Kanchanalak
intended to invite only her foreign clients to the June 18
coffee.
Did anyone mention that concern to you?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall that, no.
Mr. LaTourette. He also indicated to you that he expressed
concern to you, this is Mr. Sullivan talking again, about
Kanchanalak using the coffee for an improper purpose by
inviting only foreign businessmen.
Do you recall Mr. Sullivan telling you that?
Mr. Huang. I do not recall that, no.
Mr. LaTourette. Is it true, based upon your remembrance of
this particular fundraising event, that Kanchanalak was in fact
using the coffee for an improper purpose?
Mr. Huang. At the time, no.
Mr. LaTourette. Do you believe so today based upon what you
know? Or what are you telling, at the time you did not think so
but maybe you do now?
Mr. Huang. At the time I did not think so.
Mr. LaTourette. How do you feel about it today?
Mr. Huang. The reason, she was not eligible to give, so
that's not proper already.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Sullivan testified also and I want to
read you part of his deposition,
When John came up with a preliminary list of who she was
going to bring, it included--the list was her and the three--
the three people from Thailand. I said, John that's not--I
recall saying, John, that's not what we're looking for. I don't
want to get--I said, I would prefer, you know--I was thinking
she was bringing in some people, fellow people, that she would
be working with in fundraising, some people that might be
potential donors, American citizens. We wanted potential donors
and to tell her to at least to get some more American citizens,
more potential donors, more people who are of greater use to us
down the road.
Did he say that to you?
Mr. Huang. If he did say that, I could not recall that,
sir.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Sullivan indicated that not only did he
say that to you but you said that the coffee was very, very
important to Pauline Kanchanalak and that you and Kanchanalak
were adamant about having the coffee and insisted that the CP
group businesspersons be permitted to attend.
Is this true?
Mr. Huang. Part of the statement what you are saying, the
point you raised is like this, it is important to Pauline.
Pauline did indicate to me this is going to be very important
to her. But culturewise, I would not really, you know, go in
the confrontational basis to anybody on that. Especially
Pauline, you know, has records at that time to, you know, what
was giving a lot of money in the past before.
Mr. LaTourette. Then that goes to the next point. Again Mr.
Sullivan's deposition indicated that it is the only time that
he can recall that you expressed some emotion about a
particular event. And according to him you said something about
the effect of,
You know, you know, Richard, Pauline has been a big
contributor, a big supporter, and it goes back to Vick Rasier
and Ron Brown and she is very high maintenance. She has been
good to us and she is making--she is going to be good to us and
help us in the fall. This is important to her and I feel
strongly about it.
Does that pretty much fit with what you were just saying?
Mr. Huang. May not be the exact language, but the meaning
probably is that I did indicate the importance of Pauline.
Now, what I would like to supplement to the committee is,
Pauline has been quoted by the DNC, other members of the
finance committee, to come up with money, without much success.
Pauline to me personally said, these people always want to give
money and I don't get any benefit on that. So, therefore,
that's how I was approached, she said, John, I want to work
with you on that basis. This is how that happened.
That's why I was sort of advocating certain points on her
behalf.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Norton, it is nice to have you here. And you have 5
minutes and probably more if you would ask for it.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang, in the press--there have been indications made
in the press about whether you had any agreement with people to
violate or circumvent campaign rules and regulations. I am not
sure I have seen that in any previous statements, so let me ask
you straightforwardly.
Did you, in fact, have any conversation or meeting with Mr.
Riady where the two of you discussed violating or circumventing
campaign rules and regulations?
Mr. Huang. Congresswoman, just a second, please.
Congresswoman, there was no specific discussion in that
kind of language to say we're going to violate the rules or
not.
Ms. Norton. Or circumvent the rules?
Mr. Huang. Or circumvent the rules.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentlelady yield just for the benefit
of the gentleman, not to interrupt you.
But given your testimony so far, I just wondered if you
want to reconsider your answer. Do you want time to just talk
to your counsel on this issue? I just think it might give the
wrong impression.
Ms. Norton. If I could clarify my own question. Because
much of what we believe we know about this matter comes from
the press, and I am specifically concerned about whether you
had any agreement with people to violate or circumvent campaign
rules or regulations, as the press has implied.
I have looked at Mr. Huang's prior statements and I have
not found that, and I want to know whether I have missed it or
whether there was indeed any conversation or any meeting where
there was a discussion of circumventing campaign rules and
regulations.
You have been admonished to be careful. I am looking to see
whether there was any such agreement between the two of you.
Mr. Huang. Congresswoman----
Ms. Norton. Let me make sure you understand. I am aware of
what you have pleaded to. I am aware of your actions. We are
trying to ascertain the extent to which Mr. Riady was involved
in an agreement to circumvent campaign rules and regulations.
Mr. Huang. To answer your question, Congresswoman, I plead
guilty to agreeing to violating the rules. And also, I can do
it, you know, it is about $800 some thousand, maybe around that
figure. But there was never explicit use of the terms of what
you have mentioned.
Ms. Norton. If one looks at the Senate testimony from July
1997, a former Lippo Bank official testified that the Lippo
Bank did not receive any benefits either financially or in the
form of regulatory assistance.
Now, when you made political contributions, did you do so
with the intention that the Lippo Bank or any other Lippo
entity would receive favors or benefits as a result?
Mr. Huang. Congresswoman, the contribution would benefit
Lippo Group in general. Since Lippo Bank California is one of
the units of the Lippo Group, certainly Lippo Bank get some
sort of benefit. But I don't know. I can't specifically mention
anything at this point, you know, what the bank was benefited
right now.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Let me just take a couple minutes
here for some questions.
You told us that you identified an additional $700,000 or
$800,000 in illegal contributions to the Justice Department
between 1992 and 1994; is that correct? I think you said it was
in addition to the $156,000 that you pled to, $700,000 to
$800,00. Is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Burton. Do you include in that total the $450,000 that
James and Aileen Riady gave to State parties in 1992?
Mr. Huang. That is not.
Mr. Burton. So in addition to $700,000 to $800,000, there
is another $450,000 that they gave to State parties?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Burton. Those were illegal contributions, as well?
Mr. Huang. At the time, Mr. Chairman, Mr. James Riady had
the legal status in the United States as a PR, a green card,
and so does Aileen Riady at that time.
Mr. Burton. It is my information that Mr. Riady had not
been a permanent resident of the United States for a couple of
years in 1992, he had abandoned his residence, he was outside
the country for at least 2 years or about 2 years.
Mr. Huang. The only thing I can report, Mr. Chairman, is
the knowledge I know is that Mr. Riady in 1992 he had a green
card with him.
Mr. Burton. Was he living in the United States?
Mr. Huang. He had a residence.
Mr. Burton. Was he living in the United States? According
to the information we have, he had been living in Indonesia for
about 2 years and had abandoned his residence by 1992 and was
not living in the United States.
You were working for him. You must have known where he
lived. He was not living in the United States.
Mr. Huang. He was traveling back and forth. When he was in
the United States, he would use his residence, though. That's
the only thing I can answer to you.
Mr. Burton. Where was his family?
Mr. Huang. His family was traveling with him.
Mr. Burton. So everybody lived on an airplane.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Where did he spend most of his time?
Mr. Huang. At that period of time he spent more time in
Indonesia.
Mr. Burton. So he was living in Indonesia, but when he came
here, he was staying at a residence here?
Mr. Huang. That is correct. But he also had a green card
with him.
Mr. Burton. I think we are splitting hairs here. The fact
is that he was not a permanent resident of the United States.
Did the Justice Department tell you that they considered
this $450,000 in contributions he made to the State parties
illegal?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, they did
ask about it, you know, and we also explained to them. I didn't
believe they expressed an opinion on that.
Mr. Burton. They did not express an opinion about whether
or not it was illegal or not for him to give them money?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Burton. Earlier you said that James Riady could not
make contributions when you were at the DNC because he had
abandoned his permanent residence, is that right, here in the
United States?
Mr. Huang. I did not ask him. He did not have any legal
status, so there is no point.
Mr. Burton. Did he still have that place he visited and
stayed at when he came to the United States?
Mr. Huang. I think the residence was still maintained, yes.
Mr. Burton. So he still had the residence just like he did
back in 1990 and 1991 and so forth when he flew back and forth.
But now, once you are at the DNC, you are saying he did not
have legal status?
Mr. Huang. He did not have the green card.
Mr. Burton. He gave his green card back?
Mr. Huang. I believe so.
Mr. Burton. I see. So that is the difference, he gave his
green card back. But the fact is he has lived as a permanent
resident since about 1990 in Indonesia, he just traveled back
and forth.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. So the $450,000 that he gave to State parties
was given when he had a green card but he was living in
Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. Most of the time, yes.
Mr. Burton. I want to go into a number of questions, but I
think what I will do now is yield to Mr. Shays because I want
to get into the Hsi Lai Temple and the contributions that took
place and that is going to be quite lengthy. And so I will go
to Mr. Shays now.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Huang, I just want to clarify something I
did not think we needed to go over but I want to be somewhat
specific. I mean, the sense I had with you, without going into
every bloody detail, was that you had decided to find a way to
have Mr. Riady carry out on his million dollar contribution
effort to the President. So now I want to ask you some specific
questions. Because my view to the questions I asked was I asked
was this a team effort and you said yes.
Did you inform James Riady of every contribution made on
behalf of the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. During 1992----
Mr. Shays. 1993 and 1994, yeah.
Mr. Huang. I'm trying to answer. 1994, for instance, there
is a Lippo executive who made a contribution, or I solicited
from them to give a check to me. I did have on occasion to
mention to him, say each and every individual.
Mr. Shays. How did you do this?
Mr. Huang. Through phone.
Mr. Shays. Did you provide Mr. Riady with precise
information on each contributor?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Shays. Did you tell the Justice Department that James
Riady had enough time to write down all of the information on
each contribution?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Shays. Did Mr. Riady record all the information you
gave him?
Mr. Huang. As far as I understand. But he was on the other
side of the phone and I did not see him.
Mr. Shays. Does this apply to all Lippo-related
contributions in 1992, 1993, and 1994?
Mr. Huang. Basically, you're correct on that, sir.
Mr. Shays. So the bottom line is both of you were working
together to find a way to have them carry out this pledge and
you worked hand-in-hand in this effort. That is true, isn't it?
Mr. Huang. Yes. He was aware of what I was doing, yes.
Mr. Shays. And he had to implement what you were doing and
he had to make sure those individuals were reimbursed; isn't
that correct?
Mr. Huang. To affirmatively answer to some of the people, I
know they were reimbursed. But some of the people I did not
know, but I assumed they were.
Mr. Shays. You assumed they were and that was the basis. I
thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask a couple of questions here, unless
are you ready for more questioning, Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. Yes. But you can go ahead.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, you indicated you had questions
that were going to be somewhat lengthy on the Hsi Lai Temple.
Mr. Burton. Yes. I think I'll defer on those until
tomorrow.
Mr. Waxman. I was going to suggest that if you could ask
those questions now, we can get those questions on the record.
Mr. Huang has been here, I think it has been 11 hours, maybe 12
by the time you are finished with those questions; and I think
he answered almost everything that anybody could think to ask
him. But I am sure there are other questions. Maybe we could
then submit questions in writing and have him respond for the
record. He did say he is testifying next week again in Los
Angeles on this matter.
Mr. Burton. No.
Mr. Waxman. But it seems to me that----
Mr. Burton. We have waited 3 years for Mr. Huang and we are
going to complete the questioning tomorrow or Saturday. We are
going to try to get it all done. We need these questions
answered as thoroughly as possible for the record. And then
after we get these answers for the record, we are going to go
over them with a fine-tooth comb and check them against other
things. So we do not want to do it in writing. We want to do it
in a very thorough and meticulous way. So we are going to
proceed.
Let me take 5 minutes now, unless there is objection.
Mr. Huang, we were talking about your severance package
some time ago. Did that cover all your political contributions
for you and your wife in 1994? I believe you said yes.
Mr. Huang. I did say yes.
Mr. Burton. How much did it cost you to maintain your two
homes in California?
Mr. Huang. It varies because I had variable mortgage rates.
Mr. Burton. I know. But give me a rough idea each year how
much you had to pay to maintain those homes in California.
Mr. Huang. Anywhere from, monthly, probably between $8,000
and $10,000.
Mr. Burton. Well, the records we have say you said it cost
$137,000 per year to maintain the homes. Is that about right?
Mr. Huang. Including other maintenance and expenses,
probably that's correct, yes.
Mr. Burton. Your salary was $127,000 a year. How did you do
that?
Mr. Huang. To answer the question, you have to give me a
little time to give you some background on this. If you allow
me to do that.
Mr. Burton. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Huang. The two houses actually I had the chance to own
in the concurrent time did not start until the latter part of
1989 and forwards until last year. To understand that, we have
to go back to how I got involved in those two houses in the
first place.
As I reported to the committee, I was working in Hong Kong
between 1983, and actually my family stayed all the way through
1987, although in 1986 I was working in the United States.
Being No. 1, being in the United States for all these years, I
really appreciate the country offering me the opportunities. I
got married and worked and also had to save some money and also
invest some money in the stock market, have a little savings
there before I went to Hong Kong.
Now, the law allow, if I understand correctly, when people
working overseas the income up to, say, $70,000 or $75,000
would be totally tax exempt. So I enjoyed that kind of benefit.
Working during that period of time, virtually the rent for the
apartment in Hong Kong was paid for by the corporate entity and
the school expenses for the children also being paid by the
corporate entity. And also there is a car involved. And even
that, my wife and I did not really chose to hire maid, we were
working for ourselves.
So, basically, in that period of time, most of the income
was captured as a saving basis, did not really go to a lot of
expenses, like most of the time like when we living in the
United States, you know, pay a lot of things.
Mr. Burton. So how much did you save?
Mr. Huang. Between $70,000 and $75,000. Very easily that
amount was paid during that period of time probably go over
$200 some thousand. Now, in 1987 when I brought my family back
here, that was the tail end in California of the real estate
boom. We have a Congressman here from California who can
probably testify to that as well. I took the opportunity to
take some risks at that time.
For instance, the first home we got was in Cerritos in
1987. I believe I put in something like $70,000 or maybe even
$90,000 as a down, and I borrowed the money for the remaining
of the house of $393,000 plus some closing cost expenses.
That's small relatively.
And in the meantime we found out in the Cerritos area where
we lived, although very nice, but I was working basically in
Chinatown, downtown in Los Angeles, and the commuting time was
quite horrendous. So we were looking for someplace a little bit
closer to where I was working at that time. So we had to have a
place to live. So we liked Cerritos, the environment was good,
so we bought a home.
At the same time, my wife and I was using the remaining of
the savings or at least a part of the savings to find out that
in the Glendale location there was a new development over
there. We were talking to the sales agent at one time, and next
thing we know the price had gone up $20,000 or $30,000. So we
got a message on that. So we took a very big gamble and say we
probably like to live in the Glendale area because from there
to downtown is only about 15 minutes driving and the area is
very near, it is a mountain area. So we used the money to put a
contract to construct two homes in the concurrent time.
One was the city view, the much better. The other one was
with a mountain view. Because we did not know which one in the
end we were going to live in. So by the time the house was
finished, we decided we would put our Cerritos home, which I
bought at about $393,000, on the market and I sold for over
$555,000 in less than 1 year time.
And in the meantime, the two contracts I did put in those
two houses being constructed in Glendale, the contract price,
one was $595,000 and the other one was $599,000. And finally we
decide to sell one of the house and we decide to live in one.
And we put that house on the market. I believe we sold in a few
months for about $840 some thousand.
So through this combination of things, there would be money
stashed away for us and I was very fortunate at the time on
that.
Mr. Burton. So when you went to the Department of Commerce
and you were making around, what, $60,000 or $70,000, how much
were you making at the Department of Commerce?
Mr. Huang. In the Commerce Department I was making close to
$110,000, $120,000.
Mr. Burton. $120,000.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Chairman, I did not really finish what I was trying to
say.
Mr. Burton. I think we have the general idea. But go ahead
if you would like to finish.
Mr. Huang. Yeah. And I also call the sort of the human
nature, I thought this was going to continue moving forward. I
sold one house already. I had more money. They were selling the
last lot in the development area. So my wife said, Why don't we
get that one? Hopefully, by the time we are finished with that
one, we can decide. That one has larger, city view. Also
smaller one is city view was $800 some thousand already. So I
want to get into that one. I will hope when I finish we can
sell one of them and get more profit on that basis.
Then we got caught and the boom ended. With all the
intention of only own one house, but at that time we ended up
with two houses. Now you go into the weakness of human nature.
You say, well next year it is going to be better. Next year it
is going to be better. But next year never came for a period of
time.
Yet I was traveling, doing all different things. When I got
the final home when I was working in New York, was traveling
back and forth, I never had time to take care of that. In the
meantime, you always hope the best, next year is going to come
better.
So, basically, from that time, all the money I was making I
decide to get it back because you have to carry those two
houses. As you mentioned, it is not really cheap to maintain
those two houses.
Mr. Burton. So when you went to the DNC, you were making,
what, about $60,000 a year?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. You went from $110,000 down to $60,000. And you
have been maintaining two homes at about $137,000 a year. Now
you're living off the money you made from those previously; is
that what you're saying?
Mr. Huang. This is not true. Part of the moneys are being
used, maybe still have residual moneys. But the key point is
the help came in from the severance pay, remember, in 1994 I
got from the Lippo Group?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Huang. That was about another $240,000 or $250,000
coming in. That gave me the breathing room for the following
few years. So that carried on for a few more years until 1996.
Because I think the campaign at the DNC is only for a short
period of time. Afterwards I either going to find another job
or go back to the government or whatever it is. Then my
financial condition will be restored on the normal basis and I
can carry on on a normal basis.
But this thing erupt, so I was functionally unemployable
during the past few years. The crunch time really came in 1998.
And I have to be very truthful to you, I virtually had to
borrow money from people. And then when you really made a
determination, luckily the real estate market start gradually
turning around a little bit.
So in 1998, exactly about a year and month ago, we sold the
house and did not lose money. We were able to get all of our
equity back. And also I sold another investment which my wife
and I were carrying when we were living in D.C. area back in
the seventies, sold one of the rental homes as well. We were
using those kind of money to pay off the debts and pay off my
living expenses, legal expenses. That's how it become.
Mr. Burton. All of the bonuses that you received, the
$20,000 this year or the money--you got $20,000 from the
Riadys, I guess this year in 1999, and $18,000 last year; is
that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is not a bonus. That is a gift.
Mr. Burton. Did you get any other gifts or bonuses like
that?
Mr. Huang. During this couple years, sir?
Mr. Burton. Well, in the last several years.
Mr. Huang. I didn't recall anyone else giving money.
Mr. Burton. On the bonuses you received from the Lippo
Group, the Riadys, you said sometimes you got money in cash
from some people, the $18,000, $20,000, did you report all of
that on your income taxes?
Mr. Huang. No, that was a gift. It was not a bonus, sir. In
other words, the gifts to--in other words, as far as I learn,
you know, I am entitled to receive gifts of less than $10,000
without even reporting anything.
Mr. Burton. And you do not pay taxes on that?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Did you borrow any money from Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not borrow from him.
Mr. Burton. Those gifts were $20,000, you said, and
$18,000?
Mr. Huang. In different years.
Mr. Burton. In different years. And you said if it is under
$10,000 you don't have to report it?
Mr. Huang. For two persons, one for my wife, for each
person. Actually, the money went to my wife did not come to me,
but I am reporting it because I consider my wife is part of me,
and so I just mention to you, sir.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. As is always true, when people abuse power
higher up and people along the road wind up abusing power, too,
there is really sad family tragedies.
I think one of the things that touched me most in all these
hearings, I was talking 1 day to Johnny Chung in between some
meetings and he told how he would go down to the pier in San
Diego and always loved to fish there with his son, but after
this broke, he could not go there because the media was there;
and one of the things that he missed most was being able to
fish with his son.
He also said that all the people that used to welcome him
over at the White House and Mrs. Clinton's office and other
places, he said, they don't consider me a friend anymore.
Those are tough times. It happened in Watergate, too, when
there were tons of people who lost everything they had, some of
whom were marginal players, some of whom were bigger players,
and some of whom really deserved what happened to them.
I do not know for sure where all you fall, but I am sorry
for your personal struggles.
Mr. Huang. Well, I thank you for bringing up, Mr. Souder.
In fact, my lawyer didn't even know when this so-called treason
thing came up. And my son received a call. Somebody called and
said something, that apparently treason is death by hanging,
you know, just openly spoke through the phone. And my son told
me very nervously on that basis.
Certain thing it did happen. If I'm allowed to make a few
points here, more personal things, I never proclaimed that life
is going to be fair and people are going to be fair, all life
is going to be smooth.
If I did not come to work in the government and did not
come to work for DNC, probably I working for other profession.
I will meet other challenges, as well. The key when we face the
challenges, we have to honestly to the best of ourselves to
face the challenge and then get it over with. That would be one
event in your life. Because the event is not going to last you
for life because you have many more years to go in your life.
Hopefully you can get it over with as quickly as possible.
This is the thing, that's the attitude I'm taking.
Certainly I was sorry. I made a mistake. I create a lot of
notoriety. I caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. But I
did it, so I'm trying to correct it as much as I can on that
basis.
Mr. Souder. One of the things that I hope you understand,
too, is that it is not always comfortable being in our position
in trying to get to this. But there are a number of issues that
we are at the edges of here. The most probably significant
thing to the United States of America is the fact that, for
whatever reason, incompetence, virtual slobbering over
increased trade to China, and possible decisions that were made
inside this administration that may have been influenced by
money, have potentially lost every nuclear secret we have in
this country; and my son and my children could die because of
that.
So in addition to whatever problems you have and the
individuals that get involved in these investigations, in fact,
somewhere along the line all of our families have been put at
risk.
Furthermore, when decisions are unilaterally made by an
administration regarding coal policy, and they take other
people's assets who invested much money in these companies and
hoped to do that; in addition there are many people involved
who were following laws on political campaigns and they try to
run campaigns and that leads to employment for different people
and they may have lost their jobs.
There are lots of different stories. But I think, I myself
am a Christian, and I think anybody whose heart does not go out
to you as an individual is insensitive. But there are, I think,
larger questions that we need to pursue.
Mr. Huang. Right. I fully agree with you, you know,
Congressman. That's why I'm here and hopefully can make a
satisfactory conclusion afterwards.
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you.
I now have another series of questions and they relate to
what we referred to a couple of times as the Wiriadinata
contributions. And I apologize if I mispronounce it. But I get
called at least half the time Sooder rather than Souder. My
name is not as complicated, but we all do that. I will do the
best I can. If I make any errors, please forgive me.
Could you explain how you met them?
Mr. Huang. I met the--let me call the first name, probably
be easier because the last name is very long. Would you agree?
Would that be OK with you?
I think the man's name is Arief and the wife's name is
Soraya. So it is much shorter and easier.
The first time I met with the couple was in the summer of
1994, not too far after I joined the Commerce Department.
Soraya's father is Mr. Hasjim Ning, as you know very well
already. Apparently he travel around the world very, very
regularly. And he has got daughters here in Virginia in
addition to Soraya. I have learned other daughters are coming
from different mother from the other two sisters living in this
neighborhood.
The summer Mr. Hasjim Ning suffered a heart attack. So he
immediately went to the hospital. So out of that kind of
concern, and I happened to be here in Washington, and so I was
contacted indirectly or directly by Mr. Riady, indicating would
I could extend some courtesy to visit to Mr. Hasjim Ning on
that basis. Besides, I met Mr. Hasjim Ning during some kind of
group kind of meeting back in Indonesia.
So in the hospital, that was the first time I met with the
couple.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the
gentleman an additional 5 minutes to pursue his investigation.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Souder. Could you look at exhibit No. 210? This is a
letter from President Clinton to Dr. Ning. Did you request that
letter?
[Exhibit 210 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.306
Mr. Huang. I did not request that letter.
Mr. Souder. Did Mr. Riady request the letter? Do you know
who requested the letter?
Mr. Huang. I don't know whether that was Mr. Riady's
suggestion, let me go straightforward--straight suggestion to
Mr. Mark Middleton. Hopefully he might be able to get something
like this to show some gesture to make him feel better on that.
Mr. Souder. So you were approached by Mr. Middleton.
On exhibit 211 there is a letter from Dr. Ning to President
Clinton. This is dated September 5th.
Do you know how long Dr. Ning took in recovering?
[Exhibit 211 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.307
Mr. Huang. I am not sure he really recovered. He was
constantly a little bit better and then worse, that kind of
situation. But he was here for quite a few months.
Mr. Souder. And in the letter it says it thanked the
President for Mr. Middleton's visit.
Were you with Mr. Middleton when he visited the hospital?
Mr. Huang. Yes, we did.
Mr. Souder. Anyone else with the two of you?
Mr. Huang. No, just Middleton and himself and myself.
Mr. Souder. Do you know whether the President requested Mr.
Middleton to go?
Mr. Huang. I didn't believe that was the case; no, sir.
Mr. Souder. Did you or anyone else make an effort to have
Vice President Gore visit the hospital?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Souder. In exhibit 212, it is a November 8, 1995 letter
from President Clinton to Dr. Ning sent to Mark Middleton--do
you know why it was sent to Mr. Middleton?
[Exhibit 212 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.308
Mr. Huang. I do not know. This is the first time I have
seen this letter, though.
Mr. Souder. How often did you see Soraya and Arief in
between the time Dr. Ning fell ill and the November 2nd
fundraising event? Did you see them very often?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not. But we met a few times, yes. And
occasionally, Congressman, as I mentioned to you, my home was
in L.A., there is a large Indonesian community over there as
well. Occasionally I brought in for them some Indonesian food.
Because the family member was here, they flew in, I think wife
of Mr. Ning was here.
Mr. Souder. Had you visited their home before?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not.
Mr. Souder. Did you know what their careers were or what
their jobs were?
Mr. Huang. You are talking about Arief? I did not know for
sure his exact job. But he received a master's degree from the
University of Pennsylvania and he was planning to set up a
business in California.
Mr. Souder. Did they seem very wealthy?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Or just kind of more middle class?
Mr. Huang. No, for themself it is not, you can't really
judge from the outside. But I do know deep down in back of my
head the family is very, very wealthy.
Mr. Souder. Because of Soraya's parents, or how would you
know that?
Mr. Huang. Soraya's parents, yes.
Mr. Souder. But you did not know whether they actually had
that money, you just knew that she was potentially going to
inherit that money?
Mr. Huang. Sort of over your life you sort of develop some
kind of judgment. Now the real judgment is correct or not
correct, that's another story. But the impression, the family
is very well off. The kids always have money.
Mr. Souder. By ``very well off,'' do you mean like
millionaires?
Mr. Huang. Definitely in that range, yes.
Mr. Souder. But then they were living in a townhouse at the
time. Do you know why they had been living in a townhouse if
they were millionaires?
Mr. Huang. I don't know. I don't know. You know, by where
they are living and what kind of car they are driving, really
sometimes it is not much barrier to the wealth of the person,
though.
Mr. Souder. Because--this is important--because they put a
lot of money into the campaign; and the question was, was that
their money or not their money? And that is kind of where I am
headed with some of my questions. So I am trying to establish
what you knew and what you suspect.
Mr. Huang. Sure.
Mr. Souder. Are you aware of the statements that they made
in the Senate reports on campaign finance?
Mr. Huang. I am not aware of that, no.
Mr. Souder. That they made it clear that you directed all
of their political contributions, and that they--Arief
acknowledged that your solicitations began in 1995 when you
were still a Commerce official. It goes on to state, ``Arief
acknowledged that your solicitations began in 1995, when you
were still a Commerce official.'' It goes on to state, ``Arief
recounted that long-solicited November 9, 1995 contributions in
connection with the Washington, DC, fundraising event.'' Do you
believe those are accurate statements?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, starting from that time.
Mr. Souder. Were you aware that they were given a large
amount of money in early 1995 by Dr. Ning?
Mr. Huang. By Dr. Ning?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. I was not aware of Dr. Ning ever give money, no.
Mr. Souder. No, that the Wiriadinatas were given a large
amount of money from Dr. Ning? You were not aware of that?
Mr. Huang. I was not aware of that, no.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, may I have additional time to
finish?
Mr. Burton. Without objection. He wants 5 more minutes.
Mr. Waxman. OK.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Souder. On November 2, 1995, the day of Vice President
Gore's fundraiser, they opened up a bank account, and Dr. Ning
wired each of them $250,000 that day for that bank account.
Then they wrote their checks to the Democratic National
Committee 6 days later, the day after the wire transfer came
in.
So, in other words, he wired them each $250,000, they
opened up a bank account on November 7th. The transfer of
$250,000 each came in on November 7th. On November 8th, they
wrote the fundraising check.
Were you aware that they needed to get the funds to
contribute from Mr. Ning?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman Souder, I have seen some of these
records that you mentioned about, but in my mind, you know, I
never had a thought that it was Dr. Ning's money, you know. I
always felt that was their resources.
Mr. Souder. Because what they did wasn't legal.
Did you ever speak to Mr. Riady about their contributions?
Did you ever have any discussions about what the Wiriadinatas
were doing?
Mr. Huang. Excuse me a second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Congressman, first of all, I did nothing that
was illegal for their contribution on that. They were coming to
me the through the recommendation of Mr. Riady on that.
Mr. Souder. So after they gave the money, did you ever talk
to him about the contributions? Did you ever discuss how they
were helping and where the money--not necessarily where the
money came from, but just about the contributions?
Mr. Huang. I believe Mr. Riady knew about--knew that you
know, they were making contributions, so I did not report it
and say well, has made how many thousand-dollar contribution
today, the next day is $25,000. It was not under that kind of a
situation.
Mr. Souder. I probably should have asked this earlier for
the record. Could you explain the relationship between Dr. Ning
and Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. They were--now, first of all, Dr. Ning was
supposed to be categorized with Ford of Indonesia, just like
our Ford Motor Co. here, meaning he is in the automotive
business. I think he is probably a billionaire in my
recollection on that. They have a bank, but I believe they have
joint interest in the Lippo Bank in Jakarta. That is to the
extent I know for a fact. For other interests, they might have
other joint interests which I don't know.
Mr. Souder. So at a minimum, they had a joint interest in
the Lippo Bank in that Dr. Ning and Mr. Riady were interrelated
in Lippo?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. The Wiriadinatas were not on the list for
attend Vice President Gore's fundraiser, yet it appears they
did attend. Do you recollect that?
Mr. Huang. They did attend, yes.
Mr. Souder. Could you look at exhibit 207, which is a
photograph taken at the event, and that is them in the
photograph, correct?
[Exhibit 207 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.309
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Did you introduce them to the Vice President?
Mr. Huang. I did. I was standing right next to the Vice
President.
Mr. Souder. And you said earlier you contacted them about
this event? You made the contact to them?
Mr. Huang. To Arief and Soraya, yes, I did.
Mr. Souder. To this event. And you solicited them. So it
was through you that they found out about the event.
In exhibits 208 and 209, the solicitor of the $15,000
checks is your wife, is that correct? Because you were at the
Department of Commerce at this time.
[Exhibits 208 and 209 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.311
Mr. Huang. Yes. They listed--my wife's name is on there,
yes.
Mr. Souder. Did she ever talk to them about attending that
event?
Mr. Souder. No.
Mr. Souder. Were you aware that--why did she get listed
then?
Mr. Huang. I did not--I do not know, but this issue is
being discussed so many times over the last few years with
various investigations. I did not know at that time.
Mr. Souder. The DNC contact is Mercer, correct?
Mr. Huang. Yes. This says Mercer, yes.
Mr. Souder. OK. That is all the questions I have on that
particular fundraiser. I have questions on the coffee
fundraiser that will take some time. So at this point I will
yield back unless you want me to continue on this.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ose [presiding]. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waxman. If I might be recognized.
Mr. Ose. The Chair recognizes the ranking member.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you. I haven't asked too many questions
today because this is an opportunity for people to go into all
of the issues in the campaign finance investigation. Mr. Burton
indicated that he has been waiting for 3 years to have you here
and he wants to pursue all of these things, and I think it is
appropriate to pursue it. So I haven't really asked a lot of
questions, and I thought that Mr. Souder's questions were very
pertinent to the investigation.
But just sitting here, I just want to make an observation
that is on my mind. Mr. Souder said, I don't want to be
critical of him, but he said he is frustrated because the
Chinese seem to have all of our nuclear secrets. There is just
no information at all that links you in any way to the Chinese
having nuclear secrets, and I asked you about those questions
yesterday. You have said you have nothing to do with any of
that. I know of no evidence that indicates that. We are looking
at campaign finance violations that involve conduit
contributions. A very serious matter, but I hate to say it, not
a very unusual kind of practice among Democrats and
Republicans. I wish we could put a stop to it and prosecute
people who have violated the law as you have now had to own up
to your violation of the law. That bothered me.
The second thing that sort of bothered me and I just want
to say it is that I don't think it is the business of anybody
to go into your real estate transactions and your personal
life. I just don't see the relevance of that to anything. You
have been here now almost close to 12 hours of questioning, and
Mr. Burton says he still wants to continue on, and I gather we
are scheduled tomorrow to ask more questions and you are going
to testify next week in Los Angeles. I am not going to take my
full time here; I just want to make these comments and express
my feeling that I am troubled, I am just troubled to have to
hear about things that I just don't think have anything to do
with anything, whether it be your personal financial matters,
those are personal. That is why they are called personal
financial matters. If there is anything else that anybody has
to say about matters that really genuinely concern the
committee, then we ought to pursue those, and I think Members
have generally done that and you have responded well to those
questions. But I am just troubled and wanted to share my
feelings about it.
Mr. Shays. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. Sure.
Mr. Shays. I know you say it sincerely, but I just want to
say to you that the reason why we are asking questions publicly
is that you felt that it should be done publicly rather than by
the committee in private, and then we would focus only on those
areas that seemed the most pertinent. And the reason to check
on houses or anything else is to understand the financial
circumstances that makes this witness a credible witness or
not. Is he vulnerable to gifts? Is he vulnerable to people who
then make his testimony more questionable, and that is the
purpose of it.
But in your letter you said, as you know in the past, many
Members of our committee have expressed concerns about the
practice of extensive questioning of witnesses in closed
sessions. This is a letter you wrote to Mr. Burton. I share
that concern and continue to believe that the committee and the
American people will best be served by having Mr. Huang appear
at a public hearing with no restrictions to the amount of
questions he would face. Yet, you keep bringing up the number
of hours we have been here. We are going to be here tomorrow.
The bottom line is, we are going to fulfill the request of your
letter. We might have had this hearing done in a day, if we
could have had the committee be able to do some of the ground
work first. So, we are here.
Mr. Waxman. Let me just comment, because this is on my
time.
I wouldn't want this session to be behind closed doors in a
deposition. I don't want Mr. Huang subjected to all of the
hours that he has had to put himself through here to answer
questions without the public having a chance to see the kinds
of questions that are asked, and that is why I objected to the
abuse that I thought has taken place by this committee in these
closed-door depositions.
So we have him here, people can ask him questions, let the
public, if they want to watch all of this, it is on C-SPAN, it
is on the Internet, it is all public, and if I don't see the
relevancy of Mr. Huang's real estate transactions, but if
people do, they have a right to ask exactly those points. I
just think that from my observation of having sat here all day
and yesterday as well, and I will be here as long as we go with
this event tomorrow, people have to ask--stick to what is
really at issue. And I think most of the Members have, and I
appreciate that. That is why I have not interrupted people and
given unanimous consents for additional time for Members to
pursue every possible lead that might be of some relevancy. But
I just think that--I just think there is such a thing as
government intruding in people's lives, and we are government.
And we are sitting up here on the rafters of a committee room
looking down at Mr. Huang. That is the way we structure the way
Congress works. I think we have to be mindful of the fact that
he is an individual whose personal life ought to be respected,
unless it has some real, clear relevancy. Also, even if we are
all concerned, as we are, about China having nuclear secrets, I
don't think we ought to look at Mr. Huang and assume that he
has something to do with it, just by looking at Mr. Huang.
Mr. Souder. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. I am going to yield back my time.
I will yield to you, sure.
Mr. Souder. Before you referred to something that I said
earlier, and I want to make it clear, I am uncomfortable first
getting into some of the financial questions as well, although
whenever you have these kinds of investigations, I mean there
was certainly no reluctance, and I am not known as big defender
of our former speaker, but I tell you, you talk about getting
into finances and ripping somebody's personal record apart and
then having it basically not be true, it has certainly
happened. I am not saying the gentleman from California did,
but partly, to get to truth, we had to see what kind of
documents his firms were doing and got into his personal life
and on the loans and so on, and that is part of what happens in
an investigation, whether it is fair or not.
The second thing is that I have been very careful in what I
have said today regarding Mr. Huang's involvement in China,
because I don't think--we are in the process right now of
trying to establish what he knew, what he heard at different
meetings, and where it might have been, because it is clear
that Chinese military money got to the United States. We don't
know what that accomplished. And I just--I think it is
important to point out, I am not--I don't believe we are at the
point yet, and we may never get to the point, because it
doesn't sound like he may have had the knowledge, but this is
the fact. The Congress report, which was a unanimous report of
Republicans and Democrats, has four pages with a picture of Mr.
Huang referring to the Lippo Group in other things. It is a--I
have not referred to it and others haven't, and quite frankly,
we are not necessarily even rising to that level; we are trying
to get to lower building blocks, but it is clear that it does
have potential relevance to this, that according to this
report, which was unanimous, there was classified information
that was gone and that the concern is not so much what Mr.
Huang necessarily did, but what others who he worked with,
Charlie Trie, Mr. Riady and others who may, in fact, have been
conduits with that.
So it isn't just some kind of a wild-eyed allegation that I
made; I just said as a broad nature, this report, unanimous
from both parties, raises that question.
Mr. Waxman. I have the highest regard for you, Mr. Souder,
and I think the questions you have been asking are right on
target. These are the kinds of questions that this kind of a
hearing ought to go into in terms of the campaign finance
issues, and I want to yield back my time to have Members
continue their inquiry, although I think at some point we ought
to let Mr. Huang have some time off and maybe, if we are coming
back tomorrow--I would have hoped we would have finished
today--we ought to end for the day at some point and in the
not-too-distant timeframe so that we can give him a break. I
think it is the humanitarian thing to do, and give ourselves a
break too.
Mr. Ose. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. Shays. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTourette. I will yield.
Mr. Shays. We planned to end at 5 at your request, so we
are endings at 5, and I would just make a second point. I do
have some gigantic disappointment that tomorrow, Mr. Huang, I
am going to have to ask you questions on security issues that I
would rather have had to ask you privately, because I think
some of it is unfair to have to ask you publicly. But this is
the only way I am going to do it. And then I take some
exception to then having my ranking member suggest that maybe
this is inappropriate. This is campaign finance, and it is the
question of security of our country. And you have been linked
to it, and we should ask you questions about it, and you should
answer questions about it, and we should give you every
opportunity to respond to them. I suspect that maybe at the end
of the day we will find our concerns were misplaced, and for
you and our country, I hope that is the case. But we are going
to get into that tomorrow. I am just going to say to you up
front, I am sorry that we had to do it publicly, because I
would have preferred to ask some of these questions privately
because then I may have determined I didn't need to ask any of
them.
Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Shays. No. I don't have the time. I yield back.
Mr. LaTourette. I am happy to yield.
Mr. Waxman. The fact is that Mr. Huang is answering these
questions and he would have been posed these questions over the
same length of time, because that is the intention of this
committee, the majority of this committee, and if he is going
to be subjected to that--it is my view, and we have a
disagreement--let's let the American people see what kinds of
questions he is going to be subjected to and let Members sit
here.
You know, I showed up at some of those depositions. Most
Members weren't there at those depositions. It was staff
attorneys hour after hour after hour asking questions. And I
pointed this out earlier, in those depositions, the Democrats
weren't even allowed to ask any question whatsoever, our
lawyers weren't allowed to ask any questions whatsoever because
the Republican majority, which included Mr. Shays, voted to
change the rules. They used to say there would be a half-hour
on one side and then a half-hour on the other. They changed the
rules to say that the Republicans could ask questions for 10
hours, and then if there is time left over, the Democrats could
ask. So the rules of the depositions were unfair.
It strikes me that it is also unfair to subject people to
almost a star chamber process where no one really knows what is
being asked of them. Later, some time later depositions are
released. But I think--I have been very impressed by your
forthrightness and your demeanor, and no one would have been
able to see that if it had been in a deposition. Most of the
people who have been deposed by our committee lawyers never
came before a committee for a public hearing, yet they went in
one case 20 hours. Maybe you are going to match that, 20 hours
of questioning.
Well, I want people who are watching this, and I don't know
who would watch this long meeting, to think about having the
Congress of the United States bring them in a room and make
them answer questions about their real estate transactions, or
their personal lives, or their drug use at different times in
their lives, looking for something that might be related to an
investigation on money that was given improperly. I don't want
to minimize the business of abuse of the campaign laws, but I
do think that at some point individual Americans can be abused.
You are here with two lawyers, you are paying for two lawyers.
People who were very minor figures--you were a major figure in
the conduit schemes involving the Democratic party, but I have
seen people who had almost nothing to do with anything have to
sit through 5 or 10 hours of questioning in a closed room,
taking time off from work, paying for lawyers, and the public
wouldn't even have the ability to know what was going on.
So maybe we have a disagreement, and obviously we do, but I
think there is some value in letting the public see--whatever
public may be watching this--this kind of proceeding.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank both Mr. Waxman and Mr. Shays for
their observations on why we are here. Again, of the 161 people
that were deposed, and as I said yesterday, it is my
understanding none of them were part of the freeway in New
Jersey or anything, they are all still with us.
So Mr. Huang, I would like to go back to asking questions--
--
Mr. Waxman. I ask unanimous consent that you be given the
full time to ask questions, because you were so kind to both
Mr. Shays and myself.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you very much.
Mr. Waxman. Does the gentleman want 10 minutes?
Mr. LaTourette. Ten minutes would be a wonderful thing.
Mr. Ose [presiding]. Actually, Mr. Waxman, I think we only
have 9 minutes. Is that agreeable?
Mr. LaTourette. You know what? I will take whatever you all
want to give me.
Mr. Ose. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 9
minutes.
Mr. LaTourette. This is going to be great. Let's move back
to some real estate that is within the public domain, and
that's the White House. We were talking about a coffee that
occurred there on June 18, 1996, and I asked you if it was
referred to as the Kanchanalak coffee and you said you never
heard it referred to as that. I was looking through some
exhibits, and it was actually referred to as the John Huang
coffee of June 18, 1996, in DNC documents, and so I guess I
will call it the Huang coffee.
We were talking about Richard Sullivan from the DNC and the
fact that he had at least indicated to the Senate and expressed
some concerns that there weren't any U.S. citizens on the list
coming to this original coffee. I read you some things that he
said and asked you for reactions to things that he said you
said. He indicated to, again, to the Senate that Pauline
Kanchanalak reacted to his concerns that there weren't any U.S.
citizens coming to this coffee by inviting two U.S. citizens to
the coffee, Dr. Karl Jackson and Clarke Wallace.
Were you involved in the extending of an invitation to
either of those gentlemen?
Mr. Huang. No. That was totally as far as I know through
Ms. Kanchanalak's initiation.
Mr. LaTourette. According to Mr. Wallace, he testified that
a day or two before the coffee, you visited Ms. Kanchanalak at
her office and after that meeting, Kanchanalak asked him,
Clarke Wallace, to attend the coffee and told Wallace to inform
Karl Jackson also of the U.S. TBC that he was invited to
attend.
Were either of these individuals expected to make a
contribution at the coffee, the June 18th coffee?
Mr. Huang. In my mind, no.
Mr. LaTourette. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sullivan said he
was concerned about the propriety, still concerned about the
propriety of the Kanchanalak-Huang coffee, suspecting,
correctly, as it turned out, that neither Karl Jackson nor
Clarke Wallace would contribute to the DNC.
Mr. Sullivan further stated that he was so concerned about
the appearance of this coffee that he invited three additional
people to attend, a Beth Dozoretz, Robert Belfer and Renee
Belfer. Were you aware of or part of this decision?
Mr. Huang. No. In fact, when the other people show up, Ms.
Kanchanalak said, what happened to them? Who invited them?
Mr. LaTourette. And that was Mr. Sullivan as it turns out
who I guess wanted more people who could actually give money to
the DNC there.
At the event itself, according to Karl Jackson and Clarke
Wallace, the late invitees to the dance, they indicated that a
couple of people spoke at the coffee. One of them was Mr.
Fowler, chairman of the DNC, and they remember him saying
something to the effect of: It is a pleasure to welcome all of
you here to this coffee on behalf of the Democratic National
Committee, and these coffees are important so that the
President can maintain contact with people. Particularly this
is important because it is particularly important in an
election year, and this is an election year, arguably the most
important since the one that brought Abraham Lincoln to this
house.
It is interesting that Mr. Fowler would invoke the name of
Abraham Lincoln and it might explain why they used his bedroom
so many times during the course of the campaign season if they
thought it was such an important coffee.
How long did the coffee last?
Mr. Huang. I don't know for sure. Less than 1 hour.
Probably around 40 minutes or so.
Mr. LaTourette. And aside from Mr. Fowler speaking, who
else did some speaking that you recall to the assembled group?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall. I don't know whether Mr. Rosen
spoke or not. He was there. And the rest----
Mr. LaTourette. Did you speak?
Mr. Huang. I did not. There was no place for me to speak in
that kind of function.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Again, going to Mr. Jackson and Mr.
Wallace, they recall, and I will ask you about this either in
my remaining time today or maybe we can pick it up tomorrow,
but they recall that you did make some observations about how
expensive elections were in front of the assembled group. Do
you recall that at all?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I was aware of the testimony from Mr. Karl
Jackson. I was not aware of it--you know, I disagree, I
disagree with what he said.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. That is fine. I want to turn your
attention to exhibit 442, and maybe this is where I can stop
today if I can cram this in. Exhibit 442 is 6 pages of notes
taken from your diary that appeared to have been taken at the
coffee on June 18th. The second page of the exhibit has the
following notes: China needs U.S. high-tech auto
telecommunications. U.S. should be there.
Are those, first of all, your notes from your diary, and if
so, what were those notes made in reference to, sir?
[Exhibit 442 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.317
Mr. Huang. First of all, Congressman, these were my notes;
it was my handwriting. Basically, notes--more or less jotted
down notes of the guests that Ms. Kanchanalak was making some
points, so I took down those notes.
Mr. LaTourette. So you believe that those notes were made
simultaneous or contemporaneous with observations that Ms.
Kanchanalak was making at the coffee?
Mr. Huang. Not her. Her guests.
Mr. LaTourette. The foreign nationals that I indicated to
you were----
Mr. Huang. The head of the CP group.
Mr. LaTourette. Who were Taiwanese citizens. Excuse me,
Thai citizens.
Mr. Huang. Very long Thai names. Skip my mind. Very well-
known person.
Mr. LaTourette. Khun Dhanin, Khun Sumet and Khun Sarasin.
Those are the three individuals?
Mr. Huang. Khun Dhanin made the points in--I don't know if
it is in Thai or not, but it was translated by the other
gentleman.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. The second page also contains a
discussion of the poultry industry and there are a number of
references to the Tyson companies. Were those notes also made
in reference to something that Mr. Dhanin, remarks that he
might have made at the coffee?
Mr. Huang. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. The bottom of the third page and the fourth
page contain several mentions of the relationship with Taiwan.
There are statements referring to a leadership change and a
political change in Taiwan. Were those also notes taken
contemporaneous to observations that Mr. Dhanin might have been
making?
Mr. Huang. I believe so.
Mr. LaTourette. At the bottom of the page is marked COM 204
and 205. They are mentions of the World Trade Organization,
which we have had a rather interesting meeting recently in
Seattle; and China. Who brought that issue up, and if you can
recall, what was said? Was that also Mr. Dhanin?
Mr. Huang. I believe so.
Mr. LaTourette. And last, I guess for today's purposes, yet
again, you are aware that the committee, the Congress, the
Senate has had testimony from other individuals that you
discussed the need for election funds at this coffee, and I
would ask you as my last question of today, are you absolutely
certain, sir, under oath, under penalty of perjury that you did
not discuss the need for election funds to reelect the
President of the United States at this coffee on June 18, 1996.
Mr. Huang. During the coffee you are talking about?
Mr. LaTourette. I am talking about at the coffee in the
White House.
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you, and I yield to the chairman.
Mr. Burton. Did you discuss with anybody during, before, or
after the coffee any of the people in attendance, during,
before or after the coffee, campaign----
Mr. Huang. I cannot recall on that, sir.
Mr. Burton. Well, you were pretty definitive when you said
no, you didn't do it at the coffee, but now you are saying you
don't recall.
Mr. Huang. The reason I----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I did not say in the coffee, period. Your
question is before or after.
Mr. Burton. Did you say it before or after the coffee? Did
you ask for any money or indicate?
Mr. Huang. I have to tell the truth. The only time--the
reason I am hesitating a little bit, Mr. Chairman, was the
chance during the beginning of the coffee--not beginning of the
coffee, before we even went in the White House; remember, we
all have to sign at the security gate, they have to check it
out, how you are going to get in. There might be a very small
moment there was a conversation talking about I might have
mentioned the campaign, you know, touch upon campaign saying we
spent a lot of money, it is a very costly campaign. That was
the only, only thing you can link to, any inkling to touch upon
this issue. That was the only time that it was mentioned. But
definitely was not very bluntly stood up on the table and say
we want everybody to give money and so on and so on. No.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, is the green light really
still on? Because I just want to make one more observation.
Mr. Burton. It is still on.
Mr. LaTourette. I just want to tell you, Mr. Huang, as you
go from here tonight, that there is a very specific
recollection that you indicated elections cost money, lots and
lots of money, and I am sure that every person in this room
will want to support the reelection of President Clinton. That
comes from Karl Jackson, Clarke Wallace and also two other
individuals, R. Roderick Porter and John Taylor.
So it is not--I think that either these four gentlemen are
sadly, sadly mistaken in what occurred, but we do have a big
conflict, and I think you need to know about it, between their
recollection of that day and your testimony under oath before
us today.
With that, if there is anything else you would like to add
to it, fine. Otherwise, I am done and I am happy to be done.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, when this account came out through
news media, I have been aware of this. This is probably one of
the like the other few events that I have been accused of to
say really, deep down in my heart, I did not make any comment
in that event, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you for your answer, and I thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Huang.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I think we have exhausted this day. I will see
everybody at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at 9 a.m., Friday, December 17, 1999.]
THE ROLE OF JOHN HUANG AND THE RIADY FAMILY IN POLITICAL FUNDRAISING
----------
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Burton, Shays, Souder, LaTourette,
Waxman, Norton, and Cummings.
Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C.
Wilson, chief counsel; David A. Kass, deputy counsel and
parliamentarian; Mark Corallo, director of communications;
Kristi Remington, senior counsel; James J. Schumann and M.
Scott Billingsley, counsels; Kimberly A. Reed, investigative
counsel; Nat Weinecke, professional staff member; Renee Becker,
deputy press secretary; Robert Briggs, assistant clerk; Robin
Butler, office manager; Michael Canty and Toni Lightle, staff
assistants; Nicole Petrosino, legislative aide; Maria Tamburri,
assistant to chief counsel; Corinne Zaccagnini, systems
administrator; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil
Barnett, minority chief counsel; Kenneth Ballen, minority chief
investigative counsel; David Sadkin and Paul Weinberger,
minority counsels; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk; Jean
Gosa, minority staff assistant; and Andrew Su, minority
research assistant.
Also present: Ty Cobb and Jack Keeney, counsel to Mr.
Huang.
Mr. Burton. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Government Reform will come to order.
Mr. Huang, we want to once again remind you, you are still
under oath.
We will now resume questioning with Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I thank the chairman and welcome you again this
morning.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Souder. Yesterday, in my last round of questioning, I
was talking about the Wiriadinatas, Arief and Soraya, and we
had discussed some the evening event that they attended and
established that your testimony is that you didn't--you thought
that they had a large degree of personal money based presumably
on your knowledge that Soraya's father was Dr. Ning and Dr.
Ning was a partner, is that correct, of Dr.--or Mr. Riady----
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. In Lippo, and possibly other
ventures?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Souder. And that you were not aware that right before
they attended the fundraiser that Dr. Ning had wired each of
them $250,000?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. And then they contributed $15,000 each the day
after they received the $250,000 each, but you weren't aware of
that?
Mr. Huang. I was not really aware. I was aware of the
$15,000 contribution.
Mr. Souder. Not the $250,000?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Souder. Now, that was on November 8th, that evening.
On December 15th, there was a coffee, and did you--were you
involved in arranging their attendance at the coffee?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Souder. What was the purpose of their going to the
coffee? They had just been a month ago to a dinner.
Mr. Huang. See, they were--they were going to help me
anyway from the very outset. So that would be an event they
could help me for that event.
Mr. Souder. Help you solicit other contributors?
Mr. Huang. No, no. Further contributions.
Mr. Souder. In other words, they were going to give you
multiple contributions?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Souder. Why wouldn't they have just done that at one
time?
Mr. Huang. Because that coffee event did not require for
the--all the money, more than the--what's required.
Mr. Souder. And then the records indicate that on December
11th and December 13th, December 15th and December 18th they
each gave $25,000, for a total of $200,000.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, from the very outset I believe the
couples were willing to help me for a large sum of money in
aggregate. So subsequent with various events--so the different
amounts of money coming in--but they were willing to help me
for all the--much aggregate, higher amount for that.
Mr. Souder. But why would you have had a pattern--in other
words, since they were giving on December 11th, December 13th,
December 15th, December 18th, $25,000, four different times,
why just not give $100,000? Was there a reason for that?
Mr. Huang. I could not answer that.
Mr. Souder. And just for the record, that total is
$200,000, and they'd earlier given, as we had established,
$30,000, so that at this point the total is $115,000 each. Now,
did you have any discussion with them about why they were
willing to put this much money in? This is pretty extraordinary
given their fairly middle-class means at this point.
Mr. Huang. Again, with the assumption they were quite well
off from my point of view, at very outset they were willing to
come up with--up to $500,000 for my effort, for my new job. I
really need that kind of help as well.
Mr. Souder. Had they ever given contributions like this
before?
Mr. Huang. Oh, no.
Mr. Souder. What made you think that they would in this
election?
Mr. Huang. They offered to me.
Mr. Souder. And they didn't tell you any reason why they
said they would at this time--we have never given any money
before but this year we are going to give hundreds of
thousands?
Mr. Huang. Well, the reasons--remember, Dr. Hashim Ning was
ill, in hospital for quite a few months, and then we also
learned my new job is going to be in DNC as a fundraiser, and
they more or less, sort of a kind of appreciation from their
own heart. The type of money they were giving from ordinary
purpose, a citizen basis, that's quite a lot, but the way I
understood the people with some means, that really was not
really that much, in my point of view.
Mr. Souder. Well, there aren't a lot of $200,000 givers,
and how many givers did you have that gave $200,000?
Mr. Huang. Five, roughly, I think.
Mr. Cobb. Him personally?
Mr. Souder. Yeah, that you raised.
Mr. Huang. About four or five.
Mr. Souder. So that's pretty rare, and what you're in
essence telling me, as I understand this, that because her
father was ill and because they had a visit from Mark Middleton
and a thank you card and because you were now over at the
Department of Commerce and a friend, they suddenly decided,
after having never been in politics before, to put hundreds of
thousands of dollars each in. That's basically what you're
stating.
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Souder. May I ask----
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. To finish this round of
questioning?
My concern here is that we find out from the records, which
you apparently did not know at the time, was that in fact it
wasn't their money. They received $250,000 from Dr. Ning to do
these contributions. Because the pattern was that each received
$250,000, then the contributions started the day after that and
were moving then for a month or two which is illegal, but
you're saying you weren't aware of that, which I understand.
Mr. Huang. Well, the way I understand our culture, some of
the money might be kept by the head of the family but being
allocated to the various children. Dr. Ning, I venture to say
right now, since I said it before, has a few wives, so have
different children. I think being head of a family probably
have something planned for themselves as being allocated for
their money, but this is not unusual in our culture.
Mr. Souder. I understand what you're trying to say, and I
even understood yesterday or whatever or day before with Maria
Hsia when you said people at the temple have a communal pool of
money, they took the money in. But the fact is when you're
operating in an American political system, there are laws that
have to be followed. Because, while that sounds somewhat
reasonable on the surface, the fact is this is a way that
billionaires and millionaires can alter the face of American
politics by having large funds that they suddenly pass through
to their kids when they want to run for office or for a
candidate they want to do, they can give it to their children
in large sums. It's a way to distort our entire political
process.
So I'm not arguing that it's not cultural. What I'm arguing
is that it is illegal because it didn't come from a trust fund
that was operated by them individually which meant they had
control over the money. It meant that Dr. Ning had the control
over the money because he had the right to check, which
therefore becomes his money, not their money, regardless of
whether he intended it for them at some point or not. This is a
fairly standard money laundering thing that happens in
congressional races, Senate races, Presidential races long
before you got involved and will probably attempt to be done in
the future. But these are not small items, and it's hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
Now, what--so did you discuss Arief's and Soraya's
contributions with Mr. Riady at all? Do you know?
Mr. Huang. About their contribution?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. At that time or now?
Mr. Souder. Well, at that time. Because of the size of
these contributions coming regularly, I think yesterday you
said that in general you had, but I wanted to get that
clarified. At this point, rather than just the $15,000 now
they've each given $115,000. Have you discussed it after the
coffee with Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. On the event-by-event basis, no.
Mr. Souder. We are going to--I would like to show a
videotape of the December 15th coffee, if we could.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Souder. This is the December 15th coffee, and we're
going to have to get the sound up because you should be able to
hear Mr. Wiridinata says James Riady sent me.
Mr. Burton. Can you run the tape back and turn the sound
up?
Mr. Souder. And then so at one point Mr. Wiriadinata says
James Riady sent me, and then if you keep listening to the
tape, as he speaks to the President, a voice can be heard
saying we should show tapes of the advertisements to Mr. Riady.
This sounds like Vice President Gore.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Souder. I will turn off the tape.
I heard at the end there we should show tapes of the
advertisements. A lot of the voices were blended, but it's
clear if you sort the voices out that Mr. Wiriadinata says
James Riady sent me. Why would he say that?
Mr. Huang. I don't know. I thought it just one type of
connections he has. He knows James Riady. Maybe referred, yeah.
Mr. Souder. Why would then----
Mr. Burton. You need 5 additional minutes?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. Why would the Vice President have said
we should show tapes of the advertisements to Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I really don't know, Congressman, no.
Mr. Souder. Do you think it would be logical and do you
think that the President and/or the Vice President knew that
Mr. Ning was a partner of Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. Again, I don't know about that.
Mr. Souder. Would it seem--did you ever discuss with Mr.
Lindsey, Mr. Middleton or other key friends of the President
that Soraya was the daughter of Dr. Ning who's a partner in
Lippo?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall I personally did. Definitely not
Mr. Lindsey.
Mr. Souder. Would it be very hard for them to learn of
that? In other words, I know, for example, when I get large
contributions, which I have never gotten a $200,000 because
that would be illegal, but $1,000, I would try to find out
what's this person do? What's their background? Would it not
seem logical if there aren't that many $200,000 contributions
that you might try to ask something about them?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And why would the Wiriadinatas want to
establish a connection with Mr. Riady? In other words, in the
President's eyes, were they in a sense saying we are part of a
group that's behind Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. That I don't know, Congressman.
Mr. Souder. Did you counsel them to make any of those kind
of ties to Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. Counsel them? Them being?
Mr. Souder. Meaning that, in effect, it strengthens the
influence of Indonesians because they were Indonesian?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not, no.
Mr. Burton. Because you have testified multiple times that
part of the goal of this was to try to increase Asian American
influence and the influence of the multiplicity of interest
because you felt that their voices weren't being heard and this
was one way for the voices to be heard. It would seem logical
then to try tie up together that you're part of a group
together.
Mr. Huang. No. If that was--No. 1, what you stated that
that was my purpose, if we cannot achieve that, we can use
different ways through the different channels to elevate the
Asian American status and identify the community had raised X
number of dollars. That's sort of a help to the party or the
campaign, and the political side can exercise that kind of way
to do that.
Mr. Souder. On March 9th in San Francisco there was another
fundraiser, and were you involved in that at the McFarland home
in Hillsborough?
Mr. Huang. I was asked to join in the last probably a few
days.
Mr. Souder. Exhibit 378 in our briefing notes has a guest
list, and page 1 indicates that it's supposed to raise
$500,000. Did you get involved in the amount that was committed
for that?
[Exhibit 378 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.323
Mr. Huang. Not for that event, Congressman.
Mr. Souder. In exhibits 379 and 380, there're two more
contributions from Arief and Soraya dated February 18. Did you
solicit those contributions for this event?
[Exhibits 379 and 380 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.324
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.325
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Souder. How did you receive those checks?
Mr. Huang. In fact, those checks were in my control,
Congressman.
Mr. Souder. Meaning they had given them to you earlier?
Mr. Huang. Earlier, yes.
Mr. Souder. Were they dated earlier?
Mr. Huang. No, much earlier. As you know very well from
various account already, Dr. Hashim Ning probably passed away
earlier in that year or the latter part of the previous year.
So the children had to go back to, you know, to--all the family
had to get together so they all left. So at the time when they
left, although they had already given that sum of money you
just mentioned, but remaining commitment, they made a
commitment, they gave me the checks. I had a control on all
those checks. So I have discretion in, you know, allocate the
money into various events. So I was using that.
Mr. Souder. Why did you allocate it to this event?
Mr. Huang. Because the whole event, the McFarland event
apparently, based on my understanding, although that's the name
for--you mentioned a number of $500,000, probably did not
achieve the goal based on the best estimate. So they need a lot
of people to help. So I was one of them to, you know, answer--
to come in with some contribution.
Mr. Souder. So to some degree you were holding Arief's and
Soraya's contributions to fill gaps whenever you felt there was
a shortage and it might look bad. You'd just stick checks from
them in and then say, hey, will you go to this event?
Mr. Huang. It is exactly--you put it better words than I
could find, yes.
Mr. Souder. In the--on May 13, 1996, there was another
event. They contributed $100,000 in four different checks of
$25,000 each. That is this same----
Mr. Huang. Same concept yes.
Mr. Souder. On June 9th, the Feinstein dinner, that in
addition to yourself, I may not pronounce this name X-I-A.
Mr. Huang. Xia.
Mr. Souder. Xiaoming attended this. He's the head of Asian
securities, and a number--he's also listed as entering the
White House on the 6th. Now, were you involved in this
fundraiser at the home of Senator Feinstein?
Mr. Huang. I was not involved in the organizing fundraiser.
I was there just to have Mr. Dai join in--to participate in
that event.
Mr. Souder. And your testimony is that the same thing here
where there were two contributions of $25,000 each and then
another one from Arief attached to the Feinstein event, it was
part of the filling in?
Mr. Souder. Right.
Mr. Souder. Why was Dai at this event?
Mr. Huang. He was--I believe was a partner with the Lippo,
and he happened to be in the United States, and I was referred
there might be interest for him to join in on that.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does anybody have any questions at this time?
Mr. Shays. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. Burton. If not, without objection, we will yield you 5
additional minutes.
Mr. Souder. Did--was $25,000 the amount of letting somebody
in to the event?
Mr. Huang. I believe that was. That's the ticket amount,
yeah.
Mr. Souder. And so the third ticket was for Mr. Dai?
Mr. Huang. You talking about the June one?
Mr. Souder. Yes, June 9th.
Mr. Huang. I believe so, and myself I think.
Mr. Souder. So he didn't give any money. He used one of
their----
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. In effect as a pass. The Asian
Wall Street Journal reported in 1994 that the Bank of China
bankrolled his purchase of the Lippo Group share of Asian
securities. Do you know if that's true?
Mr. Huang. I don't know about that.
Mr. Souder. Did you ever discuss him with the Lippo Group?
Mr. Huang. Except I mentioned to you he might have been a
partner with the Lippo or purchased some interest from Lippo.
That's about all to the extent I knew about that.
Mr. Souder. Did you discuss his attendance at this event
with anybody from Lippo? Did anybody from Lippo call you and
say, hey, he's over in the country, we'd like him to come to
this event?
Mr. Huang. Mr. James Riady is indicating he might be in
town, and that's why I commented on that.
Mr. Souder. So Mr. Riady called you and said, we would like
this gentleman.
So did Mr. Riady feel that to some degree--in your opinion,
were you doing this as a favor to Mr. Riady or do you believe
Mr. Riady felt that to some degree, if the Wiriadinata's money
was there, he could call to have it used for somebody with his
organization?
Mr. Huang. I was doing favor to Mr. Riady.
Mr. Souder. And that--did you consider this unusual at all?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Souder. And I know that you're almost a perfect
practitioner of the administration. They have a frustration
with this in other areas, but clearly, you're a perfect
practitioner of don't ask, don't tell, but still I am going to
ask you this question.
Did you ask why he wanted him to come to this event?
Mr. Huang. I suspect probably it's going to be good for Mr.
Riady.
Mr. Souder. But you don't know how it was going to be good
for Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Souder. Because this person was bankrolled by the Bank
of China to come into the Lippo Group for their share of Asian
securities, but--OK, let me ask you one more.
July 22, 1996, once again, Soraya contributed $25,000 to
this event. I assume it's the same thing. Did you tell them
when you were putting the money in for the different events or
call and invite them to come? How did that pattern work?
Mr. Huang. No. I had a full control over these checks
anyway. As a situation arises, I just use my own discretion to
utilize those funds.
I don't know what the July 22nd event was about.
Congressman, can you tell me what that would be?
Mr. Souder. I don't know either. Let me ask. Mr. Riady was
at the event apparently, and he sat at the head table on July
22, 1996.
Mr. Huang. That's the Los Angeles one?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. It was?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mr. Huang. In Century City?
Mr. Souder. Yes, I assume.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Souder. So, once again, because you had control of
these contributions and you viewed--apparently you viewed these
contributions as--it is hard for me to understand because they
gave the money, in effect, after Dr. Ning passed away. You said
they went back to Indonesia but they had given you the checks
before they left the country.
Mr. Huang. Right, with the intention to come back, though.
Mr. Souder. Oh, with the intention to come back?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Souder. But you're under control of these to be used at
your discretion in the way that you would feel that it would
have the maximum influence for what--to influence the
President, to benefit friends, to benefit Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. The main purpose is because this--this was the
first time I become a fundraiser in DNC; and also, I have
personally set a mission of trying to do something for the
Asian--Asian American community, but when I do event, there's
no assurance that each event is going to be a successful one.
For instance, there might being a shortfall situation. It
is always nice to have some larger supporter's money sitting
like a reserve type of thing just in case there's shortfall, so
you can utilize the funds to come in to make up the numbers.
That was a key intention on that. But along the lines,
certainly it may come in and a certain person might be
interested in coming; and I had the discretion to say, you'll
become the number. The money is already there.
Mr. Souder. I understand the concept that you're putting
forth on the control of the money, but what it does appear to
be a pattern of is not so much a pattern of just helping the
Asian community, because the Asian--it appears to be a pattern
of helping Mr. Riady, because we started with the tape where--
that Arief and Soraya are saying Mr. Riady sent us.
Then the Vice President saying, show him the commercials.
Then we have the gentleman from--Mr. Dai, who Bank of China
bankrolled his share of Asian securities from Lippo Group,
that--then we have Mr. Riady at a head table. So the continuity
that we see through this is Mr. Riady. Is that because you
believe Mr. Riady was the best way to influence the interests
that you were advancing, because he didn't invite these kinds
of random Asian Americans with the money.
Mr. Huang. It's not--at least this is not the thoughts I
have, he was not really the best person to influence the
President. I would not question the Riadys probably getting the
benefit out of that, but from very outset this person was
referred by Mr. Riady. So in my mind, in that period of time,
the situation arises it just happened that way.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. But it does--the records, looking
historically back now, do show that the money wasn't only that
they were influenced through Mr. Riady. The fact is that the
money to them that was then given for your control came from
his partner, which you did not know at the time, according to
your testimony; but in fact, it does look like money came
through, and the way it followed through fits that.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, in terms of money part, even at
this stage, I still don't have any reason, you know, to believe
that's not their money, even at this stage, but----
Mr. Souder. We showed yesterday an exhibit that there was--
--
Mr. Burton. Without objection, the gentleman will get 5
additional minutes.
Mr. Huang. I understand what you're saying.
Mr. Souder. In your mind, it's their money and her father
was just holding it, but that's not the law.
Mr. Huang. I understand what you're saying. Maybe we're
talking from different angle on that basis. At this moment, I
did not know at that stage that was that way.
Talking about the relationship for influencing by the
Riady, Mr. Riady has already known Mr. President ever since the
Arkansas time. So I don't think that every instance is
influencing on that basis.
Mr. Souder. So----
Mr. Huang. They were friends already.
Mr. Souder. But they were--so he was giving him these--
well, he--in other words, it doesn't particularly comfort me
that he was influencing him from the time he was back in
Arkansas, but that at the same time he rode in the limousine--
he wanted the time to give him $1 million.
We went through with Mr. Hubbell, where he bailed out as a
friend predominantly with some job attachments, that he had
multiple meetings with Mark Middleton, several of which were
social. But clearly by the third one where he was separate with
more than just a social visit, because he had multiple visits
the day that--some of it, there's no doubt that some of this,
that anybody is attracted to kind of the power, prestige of an
administration. You like to go visit, bring your family. That's
fairly standard.
But this is beyond that, and you acknowledged at the very
beginning that he had a multiplicity of interests. I mean, Mr.
Riady was China Energy at one point, that--when we talked
yesterday briefly about the coal interest, the island where at
least one--there's two companies there. We know he has interest
in one. We don't know the other. Appears to be now since
Escalante National Monument off from coal mining appears to be
the largest coal reserves in the world of this nonpolluting
coal or not as much polluting coal. So that's another interest.
We are still sorting through what other kinds of banking
interests there are. So while they are friends, you
acknowledged at the beginning he has a multiplicity of
interests here, it is not just a friendship.
Mr. Huang. You're absolutely correct, yes.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield briefly?
Mr. Souder. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. Burton. I don't think this ought to be fuzzied up.
Yesterday you were asked a question by Eleanor Holmes Norton,
and that question, she asked you whether or not there was
influence being acquired, so to speak, from these--from these
contributions, and you downplayed the benefits to the Lippo
Group from the million dollars in contributions that were made
after the limousine ride.
We looked at your 302s, your FBI 302s. I want to read to
you what the FBI said that your statement was. This is on page
5, and it says,
James Riady was more active than Huang in politics at the
time Huang made his first contribution in approximately 1987.
Huang advised that in the banking business it was necessary to
establish numerous contacts. Such contacts were important in
order to drum up business for the Lippo bank. The philosophy of
the Riady family was that if people attended functions they
would get to know more people, which would help them personally
and in business.
Huang explained that people who do business need political
contacts. The U.S. was a very powerful country and other
countries pay attention to what happens in the U.S. It is
important for foreign businessmen to establish contacts or
links in the U.S. Foreign businessmen who maintain political
contacts in the U.S. are highly regarded in foreign countries.
For instance, a foreign businessman would be highly regarded in
his country if he is seen greeting a U.S. senator in a familiar
manner.
Although Huang doesn't recall a specific conversation with
James Riady concerning the above, Huang was certain--certain
that he had a conversation with James Riady at some point in
time about this.
Now, the impression that you're giving in the line of
questioning is, you know, that there really weren't any ties to
all of this. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Huang, they did
expect that this was going to result in some positive results
for them because they got to know great leaders like the
President by giving them a lot of money. Now, isn't that the
case?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 percent what you just
read out of the 302, the concept of benefit going to get, but I
didn't believe what Mr. Souder was referring in the way, you
know, you were characterizing that.
Mr. Burton. Well, I think----
Mr. Huang. They are going to get benefit, that's no doubt.
It's also multiple interests on that, and they are going to
benefit on that.
Mr. Burton. So what Mr. Riady and you were trying to
achieve through these large contributions were access, No. 1,
and No. 2, to become very friendly so that if a decision needed
to be made, you would have a very good connection with whoever
it was?
Mr. Huang. No. Through all these events, the other very
major things which you just refer in the 302, by meeting with a
lot of business people, you know, those people can become big
donors. They are also some big businessmen that create
opportunity for them and know them and probably will have joint
ventures being made in the Asia. Those become business benefit,
at least conceptually that was done on that.
Mr. Burton. The philosophy of the Riady family was that if
people attend functions, they would get to know more people,
which would help themselves personally and in business.
Huang explained that people who do business need political
contacts. The U.S. was a very powerful country and other
countries pay attention to what happens in the U.S. It's
important for foreign businessmen to establish contacts or
links in the U.S. Foreign businessmen who maintain political
contacts in the U.S. are highly regarded in foreign countries.
So you expected to benefit and the Riadys expected to
benefit from these contacts?
Mr. Huang. One of the things I need to--what you did not
read probably is buried in what my thoughts was in what you
just read out of the 302.
The thing about it is, the Riady family, they are Chinese
Indonesian, they're overseas Chinese. You know, looking back in
the histories, many businessmen in those South Asian countries,
because of the lack of political ties, whatever routine
changes, whatever they have accomplished, however successful
they were in the business side can turn around to nothing on
that. So one way to--I assume they were trying to do, if they
have some ties with the United States in a daunting way, that
will portray them much better domestically in the various
countries they resided in.
That's the thoughts I really did not mention. That would be
the benefit.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we
will grant him 5 additional minutes, but let me go on to the
next paragraph then.
It says,
The transition from Huang's first contribution to the time
when he began making numerous contributions to various
campaigns began when Huang became involved in the community and
began working with community leaders. Huang began to receive
telephone calls requesting that he raise money for various
candidates.
At the time, Huang's primary goal was to get the 1990
immigration bill passed--to get the 1990 immigration bill
passed. However, Huang's contributions were also intended to
benefit Lippo Group in the long run. Huang used his own money
to pay for the contributions because making such contributions
was part of his job at Lippo Group due to his expected
involvement in community relations.
But you told us that you were reimbursed for those.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. So that did come from the Lippo Group.
There was an understanding that Huang would support Lippo
Group by making contributions. This understanding was evidenced
by the dollar amount Huang received for his bonuses. It was
part of Huang's job performance to make these contributions.
Huang submitted written reports to James Riady perhaps
annually listing who Huang had contributed to and the dollar
amounts of such contributions. Sometimes Huang had discussions
with James Riady regarding the candidates who received
contributions. Although Huang and James Riady did not
explicitly discuss Huang being reimbursed for the contributions
listed on the report, Huang knew that he would be taken care
of, ``for doing such a good job which was reflected in Huang's
bonuses.''
So the fact of the matter is that you were trying to get
the immigration bill passed and you felt like and I presume the
Riadys felt like large contributions to the right people would
help get this done.
Mr. Huang. That's a part of the interests, you know, the
multiple interests in that. That's one of the interests.
Mr. Burton. I know, but the point is, I think what Mr.
Souder was trying to make and I think he's made it very well is
that there was a pattern here. You give money, you get access,
you give money to the right people, and things start to move
the way you want them to move, and that was what you were
concerned about.
Mr. Huang. There's--Mr. Chairman, what you said was true on
that, but there's some distinction. Mr. Souder was talking
about in 1996 that he related to Arief or Soraya.
Mr. Burton. I understand.
Mr. Huang. But what you're talking about was 1992 to 1994
when I was at Lippo at the time. But conceptually, basically
that's correct.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Souder yields back the balance of his time.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to yield my time to Mr.
LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.
I only need about 5 minutes in this round, I think, to
clear up, Mr. Huang, where we were yesterday and just to
refresh your memory and sort of give myself a reprise, too. We
were talking about the coffee at the White House that we now
call the John Huang coffee at the White House on June 19, 1996;
and I think where I left off and maybe where the hearing closed
yesterday was, there were a few late invitees to the coffee.
And specifically, let me read you again what one of them had to
say after the Democratic National Committee chair, Mr. Fowler,
indicated that the 1996 election was just as important as the
1860 election wherein Abraham Lincoln became our 16th
President, which--I think that came as a little surprise to me,
and probably to most Americans, that the election, the re-
election of William Jefferson Clinton was as significant in
history as the election of Abraham Lincoln.
But be that as it may, they then indicated that you, as the
DNC vice chair for finance, stood up and said, ``Elections cost
money, lots and lots of money, and I'm sure that every person
in this room will want to support the reelection of President
Clinton.''
Now, I understand that--and again I read you the names of
not only Karl Jackson, Clarke Wallace, but also R. Roderick
Porter and John Taylor indicate that that observation was made
in the White House at the time of this function; and I think
you understand what's troubling about the statement. There's
two things: that there was nobody at that coffee except for
people who worked for the DNC or people who were invited who
you acknowledged yesterday weren't going to give donations.
There was no one who could lawfully contribute to the President
of the United States at that coffee. That's the first thing
that's troubling.
The second thing that's troubling is this whole notion of
soliciting campaign cash at the White House, the White House
owned by the people of the United States.
But I would--you have had over night to think about it and
I indicated to you that everybody has filed affidavits,
testified under oath, and in fact, that's what you did at that
occasion, and I ask you again if having reflected on it over
the last 8 hours, is there anything you want to add to your
statement?
Mr. Huang. No, I do not.
Mr. LaTourette. Now, we were talking about Pauline
Kanchanalak, and one thing as I was reviewing notes last night,
is apparently Ms. Kanchanalak, her checks say P. Kanchanalak,
and somewhere she's made the allegation that that is really her
mother whose initial--did you ever see her mother at any of
these functions? Is her mother a donor to your knowledge?
Mr. Huang. I might have been introduced on one occasion at
a very large fundraising event, being introduced one Thai lady
as her mother-in-law or something like that.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Well, understanding that you didn't say
that campaigns cost lots and lots of money and everybody should
support the President, regardless, the coffee on June 18th did
raise lots and lots of money, at least lots and lots of money
was credited as a result of that coffee, and Pauline
Kanchanalak is credited with giving $135,000 to the DNC at that
event, and her sister-in-law--is it Georgie Kronenberg, is that
her name?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. LaTourette. All right. Gives $50,000 as a result of
that coffee. Where did you--where and when did you receive
their checks of $135,000 and $50,000 for the coffee?
Mr. Huang. There was a series of checks coming in at a
different time. I really could not put into sequence. I do know
that some of the checks I went to the office, her office to
pick it up.
Mr. LaTourette. And do you know the original sources of
where the funds for these contributions came from?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. LaTourette. If you could look in your book, the other
thing that was going on that I think bothers me just as much as
this whole notion of illegal money coming to the Democratic
National Committee is at the same time illegal money is going
to Democratic party organizations in the various States, and
directly following this--well, at about this time, Pauline
Kanchanalak and her sister-in-law Georgie Kronenberg are also
writing some checks to State Democratic organizations, are they
not?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. If I could turn your attention to
exhibits 446 through 450, I think you will find that these are
checks made out by Pauline Kanchanalak to--the first one is to
the Florida Democratic party for $35,000; the Illinois
Democratic party for $25,000; one that I find particularly
obnoxious, the Ohio Democratic party for $33,000; and the
Pennsylvania Democratic party for $25,000. Now, do you know was
Pauline Kanchanalak just a lover of the States or how did
these--how is it that a major national donor, who is at a
coffee at the White House and is contributing gobs of money
illegally to the President of the United States' re-election,
how does such a person become interested in making a donation
of $33,000, for instance, to my home State and to the State of
Ohio Democratic party to be used for--I mean, let's be clear
about this. This money is to be used for Democratic party
building activities within the State of Ohio, not tied directly
to the elections or reelection of the President of the United
States but to be used in races for State representative,
Governor, Secretary of State, Ohio Attorney General. I mean
this woman through these illegal contributions is not only
tainting the reelection process of the President of the United
States, but she wants to have a hand in the election of
everything from President to dogcatcher. Now, how did these
checks get written?
[Exhibits 446, 447, 448, 449, and 450 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.330
Mr. Huang. OK. First of all, Ms. Kanchanalak expressed to
me she was a bit concerned because she was written in magazine
called--that's called Mother Jones. There's a----
Mr. LaTourette. I'm familiar with Mother Jones.
Mr. Huang. So her name was mentioned over there. She did
not--you know, she prefers to keep a little bit lower profile,
and she suddenly have all the money, a very large sum of money
appearing on the report. She felt less comfortable, is there
any way, you know, can spread that things out, and I ventured
to check with DNC and so have this money be reallocated to
various State party.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. So let me get this straight. So Mother
Jones writes an article and Pauline Kanchanalak shows up as
what, 1 of the top 10 givers to the Democratic party in the
country on some list?
Mr. Huang. Whatever the ranking will be, yeah, her name was
on the list.
Mr. LaTourette. She's a big player, and so she says how can
I not be so obvious to Mother Jones and other people that are
interested in this?
Mr. Huang. She was concerned about that, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Could I ask unanimous consent for just 2
more minutes, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Burton. The gentleman needs additional time?
Mr. LaTourette. Just a couple of minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, the gentleman is yielded 5
additional.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So she comes to
you with this problem, she says listen, I don't like being--I
was in Mother Jones once and I didn't like it very much either,
to tell you the truth--so she comes to you and says how can I
get off this Mother Jones list?
Mr. Huang. She expressed concern during conversation with
me, yeah.
Mr. LaTourette. And so you then go to the DNC and say
Pauline Kanchanalak, who we know is high maintenance already
based upon some things you said yesterday, wants to get off
Mother Jones' contributor list and how does she do that, and
someone says to you, well, rather than writing one big check
for $1 million, she can write a bunch of little checks to State
party organizations. Is that how that works?
Mr. Huang. Well, I may even suggest, is there any other
avenue we might be able to accommodate, for instance, the State
party on that.
Mr. LaTourette. How did the States get picked? I mean, for
instance, did you tell her to write a $33,000 check to my home
State of Ohio?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not. The States name came out from
DNC.
Mr. LaTourette. How did she know how to make the check out?
Mr. Huang. Through me. DNC sort of identified what--you can
have a check issued to Florida State Democratic party for
whatever amount, for the other State Democratic party for what
amount.
Mr. LaTourette. So the Democratic National Committee not
only told you who should she write the check to but--because
they are different amounts. I don't know whether, you know, she
maybe doesn't like Illinois as much, they only got $25,000.
Ohio got $33,0-00 and Florida gets $35,000, but all those
numbers were supplied by the DNC as suggestions for Pauline
Kanchanalak, who we now know is a Thai citizen, not eligible to
participate in any election in this country, that she should
write these checks to those organizations, right?
Mr. Huang. I believe so, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Around likewise, her sister-in-law Georgie
Kronenberg, the next set of exhibits I think run from 452 to
456, are checks that Georgie Kronenberg writes to State
organizations, and I think they are pretty much the same, and
again, what I find particularly obnoxious is that among these
is another illegal contribution of $20,000 to the Ohio
Democratic party, and did that work the same way?
[Exhibits 452, 453, 454, 455, and 456 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.335
Mr. Huang. A similar way, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. That you went to the DNC. Was Georgie
Kronenberg somehow on the list of Mother Jones, too?
Mr. Huang. I was not sure about her name though, sir.
Mr. LaTourette. And this process isn't unusual, is it? I
mean, this, this isn't--these aren't the only two people that
this is done for? In other words, you would go and receive a
list of State Democratic organizations and dollar amounts for
other large donors, and the DNC would give you that?
Mr. Huang. It happened to me a few times. As I report to
you, Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Riady you brought up, remember Mr.
Riady also in 1992 time wrote some checks to the State party.
So we had some precedent. So personally I have some experience
on that.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. Based upon what we now know today and
on the December whatever it is, 1999, about Pauline
Kanchanalak's immigration status at the time that she was
writing these checks, not only the $135,000 that she gave as a
result of the coffee, the John Huang coffee on June 18th, but
also these checks she wrote to State organizations, all of
these contributions are illegal. You do know that, today, they
are illegal?
Mr. Huang. Assuming the reports are accurate. I did not
really----
Mr. LaTourette. Assuming the reports are that she isn't a
citizen and was not a citizen?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. LaTourette. And I mean, is there some question in your
mind about that?
Mr. Huang. I don't know because from very outset I thought
she had at least green card status.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Huang.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTourette. Could I make a request of the Chair? I
know, Mr. Chairman, during the course of this discussion there
was some talk about the Democratic National Committee returning
a million six or a million eight out of the $3.4 million, but
this is a whole other layer to me of illegal activity that
occurred as a result of this fundraising operation, and I would
really appreciate if the counsel or someone on the committee
could report back to the committee how much of the money that
was raised illegally and sent directly to the State parties to
beat Republican State representative candidates, Governor
candidates, county commissioner candidates, Members of
Congress, whether or not the Ohio Democratic party, for
instance, returned these illegal contributions, whether or not
the Pennsylvania Democratic party returned these illegal
contributions, and I would hope that we could get to the bottom
of that and have a report. I'm sorry, I have a little work but
I had some friends lose in that election, and now we find out
that they lost because people were cheating, and I think that
that's unfortunate, and I'd be glad to yield to the Chair.
Mr. Burton. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I will
instruct the committee staff to look into that to find out if
any of those contributions were returned. Could I ask that the
gentleman be given an additional 5 minutes. Without objection,
we will give the gentleman an additional 5 minutes and I
appreciate your yielding to me.
The reason I wanted you to yield to me is that Mr. Huang
said that he did not know Pauline Kanchanalak was a U.S.
citizen at the time and therefore it was illegal for her to
give contributions to State parties. However, and I think you
have already alluded to this, James Riady in 1992 had gone back
to Indonesia. He did have a home here and he did have a green
card, but he was living in Indonesia, and so it was not legal
for him, according to the law, as far as we know, for him to
give contributions to State parties or to candidates for
Federal election, and in August 1992, he gave $5,000 to the
California Democrat party. August 13th he gave to the DNC
$15,000. September 30, 1992 he gave $75,000 to the Michigan
Democrat party. October 5th he gave $75,000 to the Ohio
Democrat party. He gave $5,000 to the Arkansas Democrat party
on October 8th. He gave $75,000 again on October 8th to--maybe
it was the 27th to the Arkansas Democrat party. He gave on
October 12th $75,000 to the Louisiana Democrat party.
His wife Aileen Riady on August 13th gave $5,000 to the
California Democrat party, and on August 17th or 13th to the
DNC $15,000. On August the--or October 8th she gave $5,000 to
the Arkansas Democrat party. On October 12th she gave $50,000
to the Georgia Democrat party, and on October 15th she gave
$50,000 to the North Carolina Democrat party.
Now, I assume, Mr. Huang, he didn't know which parties,
State parties those money should go to. Whose idea was it to
make contributions by Mr. Riady to these State parties?
Mr. Huang. To the best of my knowledge, at the time I
arranged through the DNC at that time.
Mr. Burton. Were you involved in any way in that? I mean,
were you helping him with that?
Mr. Huang. Yeah, I would facilitate through giving the
names of the State party.
Mr. Burton. So you were talking to the national Democrat
party saying where does he want the money to go?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Were you talking to the White House as well
about that?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Were you talking to the candidate for
President, Mr. Clinton about that?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. You're sure about that?
Mr. Huang. I'm sure about that.
Mr. Burton. OK. Did you receive instructions directly from
someone at the DNC or elsewhere on where you should direct the
contributions?
Mr. Huang. I was working with the lady called Mary Leslie
at that time.
Mr. Burton. Mary Leslie, so was she the one that was
directing where these contributions were going?
Mr. Huang. Yeah, but I don't know where she get that
information from.
Mr. Burton. But she was telling you where you ought to send
the money?
Mr. Huang. Yeah.
Mr. Burton. Did she know that Mr. Riady was living in
Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. She might. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. Well, if she knew that Mr. Riady was living in
Indonesia then she must have known it was illegal. Did you tell
her Mr. Riady was living in Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. I suspect she might, might be knowing Mr. Riady
was traveling back and forth, basically, the way I know that
Mr. Riady and Mrs. Riady had the green card at that time.
Mr. Burton. Did you--but he was living in Indonesia. I
mean, it's pretty clear, we have checked the records. His
permanent residence was Indonesia. He had a house in
California, and he did travel back and forth, and he did have a
green card, but the law is that he was living in Indonesia at
the time.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, that may be your conclusion or
that you may be right on that, but I was operating under the
situation is they both have a green card, they were able to
give.
Mr. Burton. Did you give instructions directly to James
Riady after you talked to this lady Ms.--what's her name again?
Mr. Huang. Mary Leslie.
Mr. Burton. Mary Leslie--as to which States to direct the
contributions to or did anyone else directly deal with him to
tell him where to send the money?
Mr. Huang. I did tell Mr. Riady and--about various entity
of the checks to be written.
Mr. Burton. Do you know where he was when he wrote the
checks? When he wrote the checks where was he?
Mr. Huang. It's very hard for me to pin down where--
sometimes he might be over the other side, sometime he might be
here.
Mr. Burton. So sometimes he was in Indonesia when he wrote
the checks?
Mr. Huang. It's very possible, yes.
Mr. Burton. And then sometimes it was when he was here?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Did you or James Riady directly discuss these
contributions or was someone else from the White House or the
DNC involved?
Mr. Huang. No, no.
Mr. Burton. It was just between you and the DNC?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. And Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. But to your knowledge, nobody from the DNC
contacted Mr. Riady directly, it was you?
Mr. Huang. That was, that was correct, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and Mr. Huang, just
on Mr. Riady, if he had a green card, that means he's, as I
understand, legally able to give a contribution even if he
travels and spends most of his time in another country. Was
that your understanding?
Mr. Huang. That was my understanding, yes.
Mr. Waxman. And the chairman seems to think otherwise. I
don't know, you say he may be right, I don't think he's
correct, but since we all have a question of opinion on this
matter, it's not hard for me to see how Mary Leslie--what was
her position?
Mr. Huang. I think she was the finance director at least
for California at that time.
Mr. Waxman. How she or you or some others might not know
whether the contribution from Mr. Riady was illegal or not. You
presume it's legal unless you have some indications otherwise.
I was pleased that my colleague Mr. LaTourette raised the
issue of contributions to State parties, and I think we ought
to look at that, but I do want to point out, again, that the
issue isn't just on the Democratic side. There was a
contribution from a Thomas Kramer on July 18, 1997. He was a
German national and he was fined $323,000 by the Federal
Election Commission for making illegal foreign campaign
contributions. This was the largest fine ever imposed by the
FEC on an individual. Mr. Kramer contributed more than $400,000
to Federal, State and local campaigns during the 1994 election
cycle, including $205,000 to the Florida Republican party. The
Florida Republicans were fined $82,000 by the FEC for accepting
Mr. Kramer's contribution but still refused to return $95,000
of the contribution.
We have another instance of a Mr. Kojima, who was called
America's worst deadbeat dad by the LA District attorney's
office. He contributed $598,777 to the Republican party during
the 1992 election cycle, including $500,000 to the President's
dinner, which bought him a seat at President Bush's table, and
there are a lot of instances--was he fined? The money for one
$100,000 contribution was written on an account that would have
had insufficient funds but for a wire transfer from a foreign
corporation that was received before the check cleared. Mr.
Kojima brought five Japanese businessmen to the dinner. It's
been reported that these businessmen paid Mr. Kojima as much as
$175,000 each to attend the event. In return for Mr. Kojima's
contributions the RNC arranged for 10 meetings between Mr.
Kojima and U.S. Embassy personnel in Asia and wrote at least 15
letters on Mr. Kojima's behalf. At the time of the
contribution, Mr. Kojima was almost $1 million in debt for
failure to pay child support or his business creditors.
That second example was not particularly an example of a
State party contribution, but both of these are two examples of
Republican party fundraising abuses and involved foreign
contributions.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield? Was he fined?
Mr. Waxman. I don't think so. I don't know, but I don't
think so.
If I might continue what I have to say, this committee
hasn't shown any interest in looking at these Republican
foreign contributions into their party. They haven't shown any
interest in looking at why the Florida Republican party didn't
give back that $95,000. Mr. LaTourette suggested appropriately
that we look at this matter, but if we're going to look at it,
we ought to look at it in a clear, nonpartisan, fair manner.
But this investigation has not been conducted on that basis.
What we have today and yesterday and the day before, now that
we have Mr. Huang here, is an interrogation that is really
quite unprecedented, going over and over and over issues on
what can't help but be described as a fishing expedition.
I described a couple of days ago when we started this
hearing the six phases of the investigation--because we settled
into a pattern in this committee of six phases. Phase one is a
false accusation and then there are headlines. And then the
accusations are not supported by any facts. Then there's a
claim that there's a cover-up. ``There's stonewalling. That's
why we're not getting the facts.'' And, after that, we get
information from those who are presumably stonewalling. They
give the information and there's a clear indication that the
facts weren't there to support the original allegation. And
then we have the next phase which is a new accusation that's
also false.
I'd like to ask for 5 additional minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Waxman. Usually that plays out over a period of months.
Well, I think we can see that having played out over the course
of just 3 days.
Mr. Huang was accused of being the linchpin of this whole
conspiracy to sell United States confidential information to
the People's Republic of China. He was accused of laundering
money from China, and the President knew about it and was part
of the conspiracy. The Vice President knew about it and was
part of the conspiracy. Mr. Huang was asked these questions
directly over the course of these last couple of days, and he's
clearly said, no, the President didn't know anything about it.
The Vice President didn't know anything about it. He was not an
agent of the Chinese Government. He did not engage in any
espionage. He didn't give any confidential classified
information to either the Lippo Group or the Chinese
Government. That meant those accusations turned out to be
inaccurate.
What do we have now? A new inquisition. Yesterday, Chairman
Burton came in. Since the facts didn't support his original
series of inflammatory allegations, he came back with a new
one. The new one was that Janet Reno refused to ask the
President questions about foreign contributions. And he said
this is an outrage, that this didn't happen, and the press
picked it up. Washington Post: ``Representative Burton
criticizes Reno: fundraising probe not thorough on roles of
Clinton and Gore.'' I don't criticize the Washington Post for
reporting this story. When a Congressman, chairman of the
committee, makes an accusation, it's picked up.
And the story did report at the end how Mr. LaBella, who
headed up the task force looking at foreign contributions for
the Justice Department, said that Janet Reno acted
appropriately; that in fact LaBella emphasized that, while he
did not agree with Reno's conclusion about an independent
counsel, he said the Attorney General does not deserve blame
for the decision by prosecutors not to ask questions about
foreign contributions prematurely. He said that they were not
looking at foreign contributions. They were looking at two very
specific issues, and they asked questions about those issues.
They had no evidence that the President knew anything about
foreign contributions. They didn't have it then, and they don't
have it now.
So LaBella said, ``I'm not here to defend her. I'm just not
going to let her get beaten up unfairly.''
And I can commend Mr. LaBella for that statement, but let's
look at the rest of the press. Mr. Huang's been here. He's been
accused for 3 years of all sorts of terrible things. This is
the first chance he's had to publicly explain his side. The
press didn't report what he had to say.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. No, not yet. The press didn't report what he
had to say that exonerated him from all those headlines of
other Congressmen attacking him. They report the next charge.
Now, I'm pleased to report that one newspaper in this
country did give a report, and that was the L.A. Times. It
makes me especially proud because it was the L.A. Times. The
L.A. Times headline: ``FBI notes dispel `evidence' of security
breach by Huang.'' They picked up what came out at yesterday's
hearing, which was that Congressman Solomon made these false
accusations about Mr. Huang turning over classified documents
because Solomon said he had intercepts, confidential intercepts
to prove it, and it turned out in the FBI interview with
Solomon that it was all based on gossip.
Well, at least one newspaper picked up a clarification of
how an accusation that was made long ago has now been so
clearly refuted. But we don't see the accusations that have
been refuted. We only see the new ones made, which is a good
strategy. And, again, it's the phases of this investigation.
You make an accusation. You can't prove it. You come back and
say somebody's not giving you the information. They give you
the information and then the information doesn't substantiate
your allegation so you come right back with another one.
Now, the chairman's statement was picked up in another
newspaper--this one you'd expect to have it as a screaming
headline. This is the Washington Times. ``FBI never probed
Clinton, Gore on key scandal figures. Burton wonders if
investigators forgot.'' Full of sarcasm.
Now, the charge is that Janet Reno didn't allow her Justice
Department people to question the President about foreign
contributions. But it was the FBI which was doing the
investigation, and that wasn't the purpose of their
investigation at that time. Their questions had to do with
whether the President was making calls out of the office. They
had to do with whether the President knew about the hard money
versus the soft money. Those were the matters for which there
had been some evidence of potential wrongdoing that the
President might have been involved in. Unlike what we've had
with Mr. Huang, Mr. LaBella and the FBI didn't feel that it was
appropriate to go into a long dissertation, questioning a
President of the United States on everything they might think
that he might have done wrong when there's been no evidence
that he ever did anything wrong.
Let me just say this about Mr. LaBella. Dan Burton said
He has run the task force investigation of foreign money in
our elections for the last 10 months. Janet Reno handpicked Mr.
LaBella for this job because of his sparkling credentials and
his reputation as an outstanding prosecutor. I can't think of
anyone in America who is in a better position to know the
facts.
That's what the chairman said about Mr. LaBella, and Mr.
LaBella was quoted of course at the tail end of the article in
the Post saying that ``I'm not here to defend'' Mrs. Reno, but
``I'm just not going to let her get beaten up unfairly.''
Mr. Burton. I'll take my time now, and I hope the gentleman
will be equally generous as far as me getting additional time.
Mr. Waxman. I've certainly been generous to you and to the
members of this committee.
Mr. Burton. I know you have, and I hope you will continue
to be.
Mr. Waxman. I hope you will also, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I will.
First of all, let's start with the last thing first. I
think what you read in the paper was all right, but you left a
little bit out. Mr. LaBella also said, we always figured we'd
have other chances to question the President about his
relationship with key fundraisers after developing cases
against him.
They were never given that opportunity. The President and
the Vice President were never asked about their connection to
Mr. Huang, Mr. Trie, Mr. Riady; and Mr. LaBella felt like, as
the head of the task force, that he would get another
opportunity to do that; and he never did.
That particular meeting you're talking about was limited,
but the reason it was limited was because they thought they
were going to go back and ask him again about these things, and
the Justice Department and Janet Reno never allowed that to
happen. That's the first thing.
The second thing, you started talking--incidentally, the
people who did the questioning at that meeting were not FBI
agents. They were all Justice Department people. Robert Meyer,
James Cooper, Lee Radek, and Charles LaBella and the FBI guys
that were there, all they did was take notes. So the FBI didn't
do any questioning. It was the Justice Department, and they
were limited. They did not question him about his connection or
possible connection with these people who were raising money
illegally.
Now let's talk about these people like Mr. Kramer and Mr.
Kojima. The FEC found that the Republican party of Florida got
this contribution from Mr. Kramer that you said was illegal.
The Federal Election Commission said it was legal. The money
that came from Mr. Kramer was legal. Now, I thought that was
wrong, and I introduced a bill that was cosponsored by many of
my colleagues, including Mr. Shays and Mr. Souder and Mr.
LaTourette, which would say that any foreign contributions
coming into this country would be illegal. And I asked you to
be a co-sponsor, and you said no.
Now Mr. Kramer, because of this loophole, the FEC said it
was legal, but you didn't want to sponsor or co-sponsor a bill
I did that would kill it and would make sure it would never
happen again. I would like to once again extend my hand to you
and say I hope you will sponsor that bill with me.
Let's go back to some of these people who gave
contributions. The Republicans that you mentioned, with the
exception of Mr. Kramer, one was fined $325,000; one was fined
$5 million; one was fined $8 million; one was fined $6 million;
one was fined--I can't remember all of them. But the Democrats
who have given money illegally have not been fined once that I
know of by this Justice Department. Or at least if they have
been fined, nobody's been fined as much. You show me some that
have been fined $8 million, $5 million, $6 million and got time
in jail.
Now, there's a couple of other things I think that are
important. I guess the thing that I want to make clear is that
if a Republican breaks the law in giving campaign
contributions, they should be penalized to the full extent of
the law. If a Democrat breaks the law or a foreign entity
breaks the law, they should be penalized to the full extent of
the law. But the Justice Department should apply the law
fairly, justly and equally.
And the Republicans who have broken the law in the Dole
campaign have been penalized as far as I know, some extremely
severely, whereas people like the Riadys and Mr. Huang and Mr.
Trie have gotten a slap on the wrist. Mr. Huang, who is
responsible for over $3 million in illegal campaign
contributions, $1.3 or $4 million that's been returned, got a
$10,000 fine and some community service time. Mr. Trie was not
even going to get a financial fine at all, and the judge
thought that was wrong so he imposed a $5,000 fine himself, and
he got community service time. $10,000, $5,000 for two of the
major conduits of illegal contributions while people on the
Republican side got an $8 million fine from the Justice
Department, a $6 million fine, a $5 million fine and on and on.
So what I'm saying is there ought to be fair application of
the law, and that has not been done. And if you're going to
quote Mr. LaBella, for whom I do have a great deal of respect,
I hope you'll always tell the full story. And the full story
is--and I'll reiterate this one more time--he said, we always
figured we'd have other chances to question the President about
his relationship with key fundraisers after developing cases
against him. The cases were developed against Mr. Huang, Mr.
Trie and a number of others, and they never--Janet Reno never
sent anybody back over to question the President or the Vice
President.
I'll yield back my time.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Could I have you yield to me, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Burton. I'll yield to Mr. Shays first and come back to
you.
Mr. Waxman. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I have let members
on your side go 15, 20 minutes.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays has the time.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Cummings is here, and he is seeking
recognition and hasn't had an opportunity at all for his time.
Mr. Shays. I just want to put on the record two points.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a point of
order. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Waxman. The rules of this committee provide that
members shall have 5-minute rounds each.
Mr. Burton. Right.
Mr. Waxman. And no member should be recognized for a second
round until all members have been recognized for the first
round.
Mr. Shays. I'm not asking to be recognized. I'm asking for
the gentleman's time.
Mr. Waxman. Are you asking for my time?
Mr. Shays. No, Mr. Burton's.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Burton's time has expired.
Mr. Burton. I'll respond to his point of order. We're
already into the second round. Mr. Cummings has just arrived.
I'm going to yield to Mr. Shays.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Cummings is seeking recognition. He hasn't
been recognized on the first or the second round.
Mr. Burton. I will recognize Mr. Cummings as soon as I
recognize Mr. Shays.
Mr. Waxman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The rules
provide----
Mr. Burton. I have ruled on your point of order. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Cummings. I was here before the first round ended. I'm
just trying to figure, does that mean I am denied a right to
ask questions in the first round?
Mr. Burton. You will have----
Mr. Cummings. Ten minutes?
Mr. Burton. You will be recognized as soon as Mr. Shays
completes his questioning.
Mr. Cummings. You didn't answer my question, Mr. Chairman.
I just asked you one simple question. Do I get to ask my
questions in the first round because I'm going to ask them in
the second round, too, where I'm limited to the second round or
are you going to give me 10 minutes in the second round?
Mr. Burton. We'll be liberal with the time. My staff has
just apprised--made me aware----
Mr. Shays. I'm just curious of one thing.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I wish to
be recognized.
Mr. Shays. I want to know who has the time.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on the
point of order.
Mr. Burton. I have ruled on the point of order.
Mr. Waxman. The point of order is still pending, and I want
to bring an argument to the chair.
Mr. Burton. I have ruled on the point of order.
Mr. Waxman. The chairman has not read the rules. The rules
say that each member gets 5 minutes before others get it and we
alternate, one side and then the other. Mr. Cummings has not
been recognized at all.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman just yield?
Mr. Burton. You want to yield on his point of order?
Mr. Shays. I'm just asking first--I'm not asking for my 5-
minute time, and I'm very happy to have Mr. Cummings have his
time. I just want to know, do you still have the time left or
had your time run out? If your time ran out, I'm not asking for
you to yield.
Mr. Burton. I did have some time left on the clock.
According to the staff, I had 1 minute left on the clock.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Waxman, if you don't agree, I'm happy to
just drop it. Because, frankly, you want to make a circus out
of this. I don't intend to. I just intend to ask some
questions. I thought my chairman had the time. If he didn't
have the time, I don't ask----
Mr. Waxman. I don't think he did. He's now being told by
this staff he has a minute left, but I looked at the clock, and
the red light came up. I don't think he has the time.
Mr. Shays. I totally withdraw any complaint. I'm happy--I'm
going to be here all day.
Mr. Burton. I'm the chairman of the committee, and I will
say this. There was 1 minute left on the clock. We will take
the 1 minute and I yield to Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I'm happy to yield back.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. We're certainly are not
trying to make a circus here, Mr. Chairman. We're just trying
to go by the rules as the ranking member has stated.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Cummings. I will certainly yield to Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. LaBella said they would go in and ask the
President questions if they developed a case that indicated
that he in any way knew that foreign contributions were
involved. The only way we could ever establish a case that Mr.
Clinton knew was if someone said he knew. Mr. Huang indicated
he was the one involved in raising this money, and that the
President of the United States never knew about these foreign
contributions.
But I do want to point out somebody who did participate as
an officeholder or has been accused of knowing as an
officeholder by the person involved in giving a conduit
contribution. There's a fellow named Cloeren in Texas. He
admits giving a conduit contribution to a Republican House
candidate. And then he not only admits having done it, he said
he did it at the request of Congressman Tom DeLay, the
Republican whip.
Now, when you have the man who admitted to giving the
conduit contribution say that the officeholder suggested he
give it, you would think that ought to be investigated. The
chairman talked about everybody being fair. This committee
refused to even investigate that matter. Every Democrat wrote a
letter to the chairman requesting an investigation of these
very serious charges of campaign violations. To show how
serious it is--it's as serious as Mr. Huang's violation of the
law, because what Mr. Huang did was a conduit contribution and
what Mr. DeLay is accused of doing is a conduit contribution as
well.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will now tell us you're going
to investigate that clear indication where someone was
involved. And the distinction again is there's evidence that
Mr. DeLay was involved and knew--not only knew but orchestrated
a conduit contribution. There has not been any evidence--a lot
of headlines and charges, but there's never been any evidence--
to indicate the President of the United States knew of any
foreign contributions. And the one that would have been able to
give evidence to that effect and who you described as a
linchpin of this whole campaign scandal is Mr. Huang, and he
has told us explicitly that the President didn't know about it.
So I would hope that the chairman will now tell us that he's
going to investigate the charges by Mr. Cloeren who is an
active Republican who gave a conduit contribution he says at
the request of Mr. DeLay.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cummings. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. Burton. You keep talking about Mr. Cloeren, have been
for some time. His allegations were investigated fully by your
Justice Department, and they found that Mr. Cloeren's
investigations were baseless, his allegations were baseless.
Now, Mr. Cloeren was convicted of other crimes. He was
convicted--he was convicted of other crimes, and it sounds like
you're accusing Mrs. Reno's Justice Department of doing
something wrong. The whip of the House, Mr.DeLay, has been
exonerated in effect by the Justice Department.
Now, for you who have complained about us wasting a ton of
time at this committee to want to go back and investigate
something that has been fully investigated by the Justice
Department seems ludicrous. I mean, Mr. Cloeren was convicted
himself. The Justice Department found no credence in what he
said and they dropped that investigation.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. That's an absolutely false statement that the
chairman has made. There has not been a clearance of Mr. DeLay
by the Justice Department. It is just absolutely incorrect. And
isn't it pretty ironic that Mr. Burton would say we're not
going to investigate a matter because the Justice Department--
he thinks--has already disposed of it. What are we doing here
now? We're questioning Mr. Huang for 3 days and spending $7
million in the last Congress on this investigation when the
Justice Department has already investigated it and penalized
Mr. Huang.
It seems to me that you can't make these false statements,
false accusations and figure it will never catch up with you.
Except it looks like Mr. Burton is succeeding somewhat,
although I don't think it has much credibility, because he's
always got another charge, always another accusation, and then
nothing substantiates his allegation. And that is a flat-out
false statement about the DeLay-Cloeren business.
Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Cummings. Reclaiming my time, I think when we sit in
this room, Mr. Huang--there are only a few people here as
compared to some of our hearings, but the things that are
stated here are certainly on the record and you are sworn. The
things that you say can have a direct bearing on a lot of
people's lives, including your own, and so I've been following
the hearings. I had an opportunity to read the FBI 302s and
just have a few questions, because I think in taking--in light
of what I just said, I just want to make sure we are all clear
because what happens is that you start, you have a question
here, a question there, and it gets muddled. And sometimes we
need to stop and pause to be clear, and so I would just ask you
a few questions.
Your FBI interviews indicate that you and Mr. Riady
discussed soliciting contributions from the Lippo executives
who had substantial means and could afford to make political
contributions; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Cummings. Now, by discussing who could give
contributions, it seems that you and Mr. Riady were trying to
make sure that you comply with the law in this regard; is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. That was an effort, yes.
Mr. Cummings. You didn't believe that the plan to raise
political contributions from Lippo executives, who were
citizens or green card holders and who had means, was illegal?
Did you believe that was illegal?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Similarly, you did not believe that
soliciting these people to make contributions was illegal; is
that right?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Now, when you had these discussions with Mr.
Riady, you did not discuss with him the reimbursement of these
Lippo executives for their contributions, did you?
Did you understand the question?
Mr. Huang. I understand. We did not explicit that
information, no.
Mr. Cummings. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Mr. Huang. We did not explicit mention about reimbursement,
no.
Mr. Cummings. So you did have a discussion, but you did not
explicitly talk about reimbursement; is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Huang. I--basically I sensed that all the people
probably will be taken care of.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the
gentleman from Maryland be given 5 additional minutes.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Now, as to the $50,000 Hip Hing contribution, was it you or
was it Mr. Riady who decided to make this contribution? Who
made that decision?
Mr. Huang. Congressman Cummings, I did.
Mr. Cummings. You made that decision?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. When you decided to do that, did you think
that it was legal to do it?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. What did you base that on?
Mr. Huang. This is sub of either the U.S. corporation--at
least the sub of--the U.S. corporation is a sub, or the foreign
entity has to generate U.S. revenue.
Mr. Cummings. So you felt comfortable that you were doing
something legal?
Mr. Huang. At that time, yes.
Mr. Cummings. In one of your interview memos, I saw that
you said that you first talked to Mr. Riady about the $50,000
contribution only after the fact, after you had made it; is
that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Cummings. During that discussion, it was Mr. Riady who
asked you if it was OK or legal for Hip Hing to make the
contribution?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. And as I understand it, you told Mr. Riady
that the contribution was legal because Hip Hing had revenues
in the United States. That is what you told him and I guess
based upon what you--a question that you answered a little bit
earlier in this series of questions, is that accurate?
Mr. Huang. That is accurate.
Mr. Cummings. At that time, that's what you truly believed?
Mr. Huang. That's what I truly believed, yes.
Mr. Cummings. Had you talked to a lawyer about it at all?
Mr. Huang. I did not, no.
Mr. Cummings. So you believe that U.S. subsidiaries of
foreign companies could legally make political contributions if
they had revenues in the United States?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Huang, it seems that the reason Mr. Riady
asked you whether it was OK for Hip Hing to make the
contribution, just like when he discussed whether citizens and
green card holders could contribute, was that he wanted to make
sure that the law was followed and complied with. Do you
believe that?
Mr. Huang. I do.
Mr. Cummings. Why do you say that?
Mr. Huang. You just want to make sure that the things was
do right.
Mr. Cummings. Now, as I understand it, going back to this
$1 million contribution, Mr. Riady said that he wanted to raise
the funds.
I'm sorry. If you wanted to followup on that question, you
are certainly welcome. Did you want to followup on the
question?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Now back to the $1 million contribution. As I
understand it, Mr. Riady said he wanted to raise--he wanted to
raise the funds and not give the funds; is that true?
Mr. Huang. I wasn't sure exactly words, but to me at that
time it was probably not that much difference anyway.
Mr. Cummings. So----
Mr. Huang. He had the means to give $1 million himself.
Mr. Cummings. Did he have the means to raise it?
Mr. Huang. To raise or give himself.
Mr. Cummings. So you're not sure what he meant? Is that
what you're saying when you first had your discussion with him
about that?
Mr. Huang. It did not really make that much difference to
me, but the $1 million is the key.
Mr. Cummings. After Mr. Riady told you that he told
Governor Clinton that he would try to raise $1 million, you
then talked to Mr. Riady about who could contribute to the
campaign? Did you have a discussion?
Mr. Huang. We did.
Mr. Cummings. You did?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Cummings. About who could contribute?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Riady discussed only U.S. citizens or
green card holders could make legal contributions; is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. We identified the people with those kind of--in
that category.
Mr. Cummings. That fell into that category?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. So you felt you all were doing something
legal; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. I will yield to Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I thank you for yielding.
I just think some things ought to be straightened out on
the record. We checked about this Cloeren-DeLay matter. The
chairman is absolutely incorrect, as I pointed out, because we
requested 302s' which are the reports of the FBI investigators,
and they've told us it's an active investigation. It has not
been concluded. There has been no letter to Mr. DeLay clearing
him.
Second, I want to put in the record a statement of the
cases prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Federal Election Commission. The chairman said Democrats have
never been fined, everybody is going soft on these Democrats.
Sun-Diamond, fined $1.5 million; Nicholas Rizzo, $1.499
million; the Gephardt for President Committee had an $80,000
fine; Jesse Jackson's campaign in 1988, $150,000 fine;
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was fined $75,000.
Statements are made. There's just absolutely no basis for
them, even the statement that was made about whether the time
was there. On the timer it was incorrect.
I know people may be watching this. It's just like you can
say whatever you want, but no one ever catches up.
Mr. Burton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. I don't have the time, but I would certainly
urge the gentleman to yield.
Mr. Cummings. I yield.
Mr. Burton. How much were those fines you were talking
about?
Mr. Waxman. $1.5 million, $1.499 million.
Mr. Burton. What were the dates on them?
Mr. Waxman. There's a 1993, a 1997.
Mr. Burton. May I see them.
Mr. Waxman. Certainly you're welcome to see it. I would
like to have unanimous consent to put it all in the record.
Mr. Burton. Without objection. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.338
Mr. Burton. The fines that we see here are nowhere near the
$6, $8, $5 million ones; they're much smaller. But I will
accede to the gentleman's comments that there were some fines
there that I was unaware of. But the fact is the vast majority
of the fines and the huge amounts that have been levied have
been levied against the Republicans.
Mr. Waxman. You should have investigated why those fines
were levied because there might have been problems there that
were worthy of a legitimate campaign investigation.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
This is the first time I've spoken today, and I want to
state that I'm not going to ask for additional 5 minutes, but
I'm going to take my time as it comes. I'm not going to ask Mr.
Waxman to yield to me. I asked him once today, and he said no.
And when I asked you to yield me time, he objected.
I just want to say I think Mr. Cummings asked more
questions in his one visit than Mr. Waxman has in his 2 days.
And for us to have the incredible amount of dialog about how
much time it is taking to ask you questions, Mr. Huang, when we
haven't even had the opportunity basically to ask questions
because Mr. Waxman wants to talk about anything but you, and
I'm just going to read the letter that was supposed to start
the spirit of these hearings.
And so, Mr. Huang, if you have to be here tomorrow, you
have not me to blame. But in the letter that Mr. Waxman sent to
this committee in denying us an opportunity to basically ask
you questions privately so we wouldn't have to ask so many
questions publicly, I will read you the full letter that we
got.
Thank you for your recent letter regarding immunity for
John Huang. I am glad we were able to reach an agreement on
this matter and I'm looking forward to his testimony.
As you know, in the past, many members of our committee
have expressed concerns about the practice of extensive
questioning of witnesses in closed session. I share that
concern and continue to believe that the committee and the
American people will best be served by having Mr. Huang appear
at a public hearing with no restrictions on the amount of
questioning he would face.
So I will strongly take exception to Mr. Waxman complaining
to any question I ask and however long and if he gets tired at
2 or 3 today and wants to leave, he may leave. I'm staying.
Then he said, ``I appreciate you sharing a new proposal for
dealing with Mr. Huang's testimony with me, but believe we
should proceed as originally agreed and hold a public hearing
with Mr. Huang.''
Mr. Huang, I am sorry to say this, but I'm going to say it
since he wants to rehabilitate you before I think you deserve
to be. You are a convicted felon; is that not true?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. You have acknowledged to this committee that in
one way or the other you have been involved with almost $1
million of illegal contributions with Mr. Riady; is that not
true?
Mr. Huang. That is true.
Mr. Shays. OK. You are here only because you were given
immunity; is that not true?
Mr. Huang. That is true.
Mr. Shays. You had an opportunity to come before this
committee many years earlier and set the record straight; is
that not true?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. So the fact that you're here today is basically
a decision you made by deciding not to come earlier; is that
not correct?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. Now, you know, I left last night having a lot of
compassion for you. I think you're a good man. But I do think
good men sometimes do illegal things. And the purpose of these
questions is to find out what you did and what you didn't do.
Now, I didn't make these accusations. Mr. Burton didn't
make these accusations. And in fact I gave you yesterday a copy
from the Cox report. I don't want to blind-side you. I want you
to deal with it, and I would think you'd want to because it's
really scary stuff dealing with you. And I was touched by your
comments about your children and the concept that you could in
fact have done something contrary to your own country's best
interests and that potentially you could be involved with
espionage. Pretty frightening stuff and something that,
frankly, I don't have a sense that you are, except we have a
report.
Now, on this committee are Mr. Cox, a Republican; Norm
Dicks, a Democrat; Porter Goss, a Republican; Doug Bereuter, a
Republican; Mr. Hansen, a Republican; John Spratt, a Democrat;
Curt Weldon, a Republican; Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat;
Robert ``Bobby'' Scott, a Democrat. They came out with a
unanimous report and this unanimous report mentioned you. And
it mentioned some very serious accusations about you, and I--
frankly if they were said about me, I would be horrified.
Now, it basically says, Huang maintained contact with
representatives of Lippo Group while he was at the Department
of Commerce. During the 18 months that he was at Commerce,
Huang called Lippo bank 232 times in addition to 29 calls or
faxes to Lippo headquarters in Indonesia.
Huang also contacted Lippo consultant Maeley Tom on 61
occasions during the same period.
Huang's record shows 72 calls to Lippo joint venture
partner C. Joseph Giroir. During his tenure at the Commerce
Department, Huang used a visitor's office across the street at
the Washington, DC, branch of Stevens, Inc., an Arkansas based
brokerage firm with significant business ties to the Lippo
Group. Stevens employees indicated that these visits were short
in duration. Huang used these offices two, three times a week,
most weeks making telephone calls and regularly receiving faxes
and packages addressed to him.
Commerce Department approval--excuse me. No one at the
Commerce Department, including Huang's secretary, knew of this
additional office. Huang met with the PRC Embassy officials in
Washington, DC, at least nine times--at least nine occasions.
Six of these meetings were at the PRC Embassy, People's
Republic of China. When informed of these contacts Jeffrey
Garten, the Department of Justice Under Secretary for Trade
Administration, was taken aback to learn that Huang ever dealt
with anyone at the PRC Embassy. The proposal of these--the
purpose of these contacts is unknown.
My time is up. I don't choose the additional 5 minutes.
I'll come back when my time is allowed.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. Waxman. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman, Mr. Huang, be able to respond to those statements.
Mr. Shays. I'll go through. He'll have time. I'm going to
have 5 minutes. I'm not going to ask you for 5 minutes and be
at your mercy.
Mr. Burton. Mr. LaTourette.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to say
sadly I have to return to Ohio pretty directly. I am on very
strict orders to pick up two Britney Spears Barbies and
something called Wrestle Mania 2000.
I was going to say--before this recent brouhaha, I was
going to commend all of our colleagues for the last 2\1/2\
days. I've been on this committee since I was elected in 1994,
and from my perspective--and maybe I'm just a dope, but from my
perspective, I thought this was one of the best hearings we've
ever had in this committee.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank Mr.
Waxman for the courtesy he's extended to me and the Members on
this side until, again, this recent brouhaha.
I also want to make an observation about the staff, and
this is the best prepared I've ever been for a hearing and the
materials that the staff on the Republican side have prepared
for this hearing are exceptional. And I hope you give them all
raises and Christmas off and everything else.
I'm sure--I've seen Mr. Waxman's staff run to him with
notes and things too. I'm sure they've done an excellent job
too.
During the break, I was talking to some of the staff and
some of your staff didn't get to go home for Thanksgiving
because they were preparing for this hearing. I want to commend
them publicly for the materials they put together because I
think it's swell.
Mr. Huang, it's a long time since anybody talked to you,
and this will be the last opportunity I have to chat with you.
Mr. Huang. Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. I want to tell you last night I couldn't
sleep so I watched the replay of the hearing yesterday. That is
one of the sad things about being in Congress. You like to
watch C-SPAN more than most people. A couple of things occurred
to me. It helped to refresh my memory of what happened at
yesterday's hearing. I think--I'm not going to make a wild
accusation but I come away from this hearing with a pretty
clear indication that in the years 1992 and 1993 you were in
essence a bag man for the Riady family to make illegal
contributions to primarily Democratic campaigns. I know Mr.
Waxman brought up the fact that you contributed to a couple of
Republican Senators. Basically that's what you did. And you are
asking us to believe that even though you weren't caught yet,
even though you weren't prosecuted yet, in the 1996 cycle, the
same kind of conduct was going on and I'll take you at your
word that you were no longer knowingly engaged in the conduit
contributions. I think the evidence before the committee is in
1996 maybe Charlie Trie took your place as the bag man for the
Riady family to give illegal contributions to Democratic
candidates both nationally and locally.
The one comment I would say to the distinguished ranking
member, I think it's disgusting that either Republican or
Democrat State parties would receive illegal campaign
contributions. I don't know how it is in California. In Ohio we
have county commissioners. I think you have county supervisors
maybe. But we had a race in my home county. It was decided by
80 votes and to think that Pauline Kanchanalak selected the
county commissioner of the town where I live is disgusting to
me. I would think it would bother Mr. Waxman if an illegal
Republican contribution picked his county supervisor. I think
that's disgusting and I think we have to do something to change
it.
I want to go through some matters after this scandal broke
and talk to you about some entries in your diary and then, as I
said, I'll be done and I thank you and your lawyers for the
courtesies you've extended to me. If you could go to exhibit
525, it is a page from your diary from early October 1996 and
it is after the news stories about your fundraising had begun.
On the left side of the page your notes say the way I'm able to
decipher them, ``principal not to talk, President, First Lady,
Vice President, call these people.'' Do you see that on the
exhibit, sir? Do you find that on the exhibit?
[Exhibit 525 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.339
Mr. Huang. I do find it, Congressman.
Mr. LaTourette. This is your diary and that's your
handwriting and you wrote that sometime in 1996, right?
Mr. Huang. It was my writing, yes.
Mr. LaTourette. Could you tell us, what does that mean?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I don't at this moment.
Mr. LaTourette. I want to make--does it mean, however--I
understand you said you don't know what it means. When I saw
it, to me it sounded like somebody told you not to talk or not
to answer questions in response to inquiries on this particular
matter, the fundraising scandal. Does it mean that or you just
don't know?
Mr. Huang. It well could be that way. The reason is because
the media has been calling me, I recall, so I was not supposed
to talk to media directly. That might be the case.
Mr. LaTourette. Would that have been at the advice of your
lawyers or at the advice of someone else?
Mr. Huang. The advice of just basically DNC's policy, the
person handling all the communications. I was not the person to
do that.
Mr. LaTourette. I'm wondering if I could ask unanimous
consent for 5 more minutes, if anyone has a problem with that?
Is that OK with you, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Burton. I'm next. What I would be happy to do is to
yield to you my time.
Mr. Waxman. I have no objection to giving the gentleman 5
minutes.
Mr. Burton. We're going to stay with the 5-minute rule from
now on. I yield you my time, 5 minutes for right now.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you. I have two other exhibits I
want to talk to you about. 532 is a page from your diary dated
October 21, 1996, and it indicates that you received a call
from an individual by the name of Ernie Green. Do you have any
recollection today why Ernie Green contacted you by telephone
on October 21?
[Exhibit 532 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.340
Mr. Huang. Is this on the left-hand side, sir or right-hand
side? We found it. Basically that was a message, I think.
Mr. LaTourette. Maybe. I'm asking you did Ernie Green call
you on October 21 and did you know why and specifically----
Mr. Huang. The note indicating I took the voice message. I
just took it by time, who call me, say 6:22, 7:22 who called,
what's the words. Basically the message, not necessarily a
conversation I had with him.
Mr. LaTourette. The last document I want to ask you about
is exhibit 537 and it's a travel reimbursement that you
submitted to the Democratic National Committee. And it has some
words on it that intrigued me again. It says that you traveled
between October 11th and October 15, 1996. Under purpose, the
purpose of the travel it says stayed away from D.C. That's an
interesting purpose. Were you directed by the Democratic
National Committee to stay away from the District of Columbia
in October 1996?
[Exhibit 537 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.341
Mr. Huang. Congressman, perhaps that was the situation, was
to stay away from DC, because a lot of media is coming over. I
don't specifically recall right now I returned home back to
L.A. to do what and to get material. I don't know what kind of
material I was getting.
Mr. LaTourette. That's the second notation. Again this is a
form that you would have submitted to the Democratic National
Committee to be reimbursed for an E ticket to go to Los Angeles
and the stated purpose that you put, you didn't say you were
traveling to raise money, visit friends, do party building
activities. You wrote that the purpose of this trip was to stay
away from the District of Columbia and apparently folks at the
Democratic--did you get reimbursed for this? Did they pay you
for the E ticket that you took out to Los Angeles?
Mr. Huang. The answer probably is no because I still have a
lot of expenses being unpaid by DNC.
Mr. LaTourette. But the fact of the matter is that you felt
it was appropriate to request reimbursement when the stated
purpose of a trip to Los Angeles was to stay out of Dodge,
basically stay out of the District of Columbia after a series
of stories had broken questioning your involvement of
fundraising for the 1996 Presidential race. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Huang. That is a fair statement.
Mr. LaTourette. Last thing and I truly promise I'll be
done. You took a trip to Taiwan in 1996, did you not?
Mr. Huang. Yes, during the--I believe May 1996.
Mr. LaTourette. And in particular, if you want to look it
up, it's exhibit 436, it indicates you were traveling between
May 17th and 23, 1996. Did you ask permission from the
Democratic National Committee before you traveled to Taiwan?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. LaTourette. Did you indicate what the purpose of
traveling to Taiwan on Democratic National Committee business
was?
Mr. Huang. Potential looking for--potential the donors.
Mr. LaTourette. You went to a foreign country to look for
donors to the Democratic National Committee?
Mr. Huang. Let me explain to that.
Mr. LaTourette. I'd like to know.
Mr. Huang. There are a lot of people having various
residencies although they have a legal status versus
citizenships or green card holder. They're traveling back and
forth. Their business over there, their business over here more
or less is to see what is possibility on that. Now, this is
basically spur out on the information that at that time the
Republican side Mr. Barbour indicating he made trips over to
Asia and some people mentioned to me he might have been
receiving some contributions for the trips to raise a few
hundred thousand dollars. So I was just making an attempt
scouting around at that time.
Mr. LaTourette. Are you saying someone mentioned to you
that Haley Barbour might have gone over to Taiwan and was
raising money so you thought you could go over to Taiwan and
see if you could do the same thing for the Democrats.
Mr. Huang. It was not Taiwan. He was making trips to Asia.
There were a lot of Democrats living abroad or Republicans
living abroad, things of that nature.
Mr. LaTourette. I understand that. I think the only comment
I would make because we are talking about Pauline Kanchanalak
before. You thought in 1992 she could contribute and was a
citizen but she wasn't. She wasn't. Her contributions were
illegal. I'm just wondering about the propriety of going over
to a foreign country. I mean, would you ask these people? I
mean, OK, Mr. Jones, I'm meeting you in Taiwan. Do you have a
green card? Are you temporarily----
Mr. Huang. I would do that, yes. Those things I would do.
Mr. LaTourette. I want to believe you but I doubt it.
Mr. Huang. I also knew some of the people were U.S.
citizens. Congressman, later on there was a fundraising event
related to that fact, sir.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LaTourette. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I'd be pleased to yield time to Mr. LaTourette
if he has any other issues he wants to pursue.
Mr. LaTourette. I'm done and I appreciate your courtesy.
Mr. Burton. It's your time, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I want to say to Mr. LaTourette, I want to
express to him my appreciation for his professionalism and the
way he's handled these hearings and since he's indicated to us
he has to leave, I want to wish him a Merry Christmas.
I want to just go back to these inflammatory allegations of
espionage relating to Mr. Huang. Yesterday I played a videotape
of Representative Solomon, who on national television stated
that there were electronic intercepts showing that Mr. Huang
passed classified information to Lippo. I then introduced the
FBI 302s, which are the FBI interviews, with Mr. Solomon where
he admitted that this sensational allegation was based on a
piece of unsubstantiated gossip that he had heard from a
stranger at a cocktail party. Some of my colleagues then
suggested that even though Representative Solomon's accusation
was baseless, there may still be grounds for suspecting that
Mr. Huang was indeed a spy. The chairman indicated his belief
that closed door hearings might turn up grounds for suspecting
Mr. Huang engaged in espionage. And I gather, according to Mr.
Shays, if we asked these questions of Mr. Huang in secret so
the public couldn't see what was going on in this inquisition,
that we could get statements from Mr. Huang that he wouldn't
give in public. I find that hard to believe. I think the public
ought to see what an American citizen such as Mr. Huang is
being subjected to for 3 days.
The record demonstrates, however, that these allegations
that Mr. Huang committed espionage have been investigated. They
have been investigated and they have been determined to be
groundless. In its plea bargain agreement with Mr. Huang, the
Justice Department stated, ``that it is not currently aware of
evidence which would support any charges of violations of the
national security or espionage statutes.'' David Vicinanzo,
head of the campaign financing task force, reaffirmed in a May
1999 letter to Mr. Huang's attorney ``the lack of evidence that
Mr. Huang has engaged in other illegal conduct.''
Treason is an incredibly serious charge and I'd like to
politely suggest to my colleagues that unless and until we find
evidence of espionage that is a little stronger than cocktail
party gossip, that we ought not to be throwing them out there
in the public domain. We ought to be treading carefully. Mr.
Huang has suffered through enough, it seems to me, from
unsubstantiated and sensational accusations.
Mr. Huang, Mr. Shays made a whole big speech. He talked
about this Cox report which I think you were questioned
extensively about yesterday. You weren't even given a chance to
make any comments. Do you want to say anything more to these
people that are throwing these charges that maybe there is
still some possibility that you've been engaged in espionage?
And while you're talking to your attorneys, let me point out
that what I just read was the conclusion of the Justice
Department of the Government of the United States. They have
all the facts. They've had all the evidence. They've been able
to talk to all the relevant people and they've reached this
conclusion that there's just no evidence to make this kind of
accusation against Mr. Huang.
It seems to me at some point the press ought to report that
fact and that Members ought to finally accept it until they
know something more to raise it again. Mr. Huang, do you want
to say anything?
Mr. Huang. First of all, let me say I'd like to thank
Congressman Shays yesterday that passed along this copy to me.
This is the first time I've had an opportunity to read that.
Certainly I don't understand what Mr. Shays actually making an
allegation against me yet, but certainly I'm here trying to
help out clear it up. In the past apparently through my
attorney and also reading certain things the law enforcement
that made the investigation basically they find out--didn't
find anything on me on that basis. But I'd like to--I didn't
even ask my attorneys' consent. I'd really like to take an
opportunity to say a few things on a general term basis. I am
an immigrant like any other immigrant coming to this country to
either suffer from political pressures from the overseas or the
home country or they are seeking for a better economy
opportunities here. Back to 1969 I came over here for graduate
schools. At lowest point of time I only have about $20 in my
pocket and I really appreciate the opportunity that this
country has afforded me like many other immigrants in my
category to be able to make something and have a family, a
decent profession. Given the nature I understand about human
being, we all want to be grateful trying to reciprocate certain
things for whatever we got. So deep down in our heart we all
want to have opportunity to reciprocate either to society to
the degree of our ability. So we have large opportunities,
large ability, we want to do more, the less we do less. It
varies from people to people. So the last thing we want to hurt
the country who offered the opportunity to us, will grant us
the opportunity for us to prosper.
I believe that's the same intention I have. As I grow,
being prosper, I try to give a little more back. That was my
full intention. So I just want to make the statement I really
did not have any intention to be disloyal to somebody's been
nice to me. I always want to reciprocate. I might have made
mistakes along the way but that was never my intention.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Huang, Jerry Solomon isn't a
member of this committee and he's no longer a Member of
Congress and I am very uncomfortable with any of the
allegations he made, especially given how they were made. As
one Member of Congress, just as one Member of Congress, I
really feel for you and as a Member of this institution, I
would apologize to you for what Mr. Solomon said if it was
based on the accusations that were made. But I wouldn't even
think of asking questions based on what Mr. Solomon suggested.
I want to ask questions but evidently my colleague on the other
side of the aisle wants to give you that impression, and it's
not and I thank you for pointing out that I did give you the
report the day before. The Cox report was bipartisan. It wasn't
partisan. In fact, they left things out of the report if they
couldn't make it bipartisan. So everything in here was agreed
to by my party and Mr. Waxman's party and these are honorable
people on both sides.
Now, I will say to you that I went up to look at anything
else that might include you and I want to say to you there's
not much more there than is here so in that part of it, I don't
even want to give you the impression that I know something
there that doesn't exist here, to be fair to you. But even here
it's pretty significant and I think there can be answers to
everyone and so I don't make the assumption because I ask these
questions you're going to somehow be proven to have been a spy
or in fact even been proven to have foolishly given information
you shouldn't have.
There may be some gray areas that you and I will have some
disagreement on, but first I want to understand that you did
work for the Riadys before you worked as--for the Commerce
Department and you worked for them after you worked for the
DNC--excuse me, you received some payments after you worked for
the DNC but you have maintained a contact with the Riadys that
starts in 1985 and continues to this day. You are friends. They
are friends to you.
This is true, is it not?
Mr. Huang. Basically it's true but the contacts in the last
few years are very, very sparse, but however there was
contacts, as Mr. Chairman asked me yesterday.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Now, is there anything that you want
to respond to based on what I read to start?
Mr. Huang. Is it possible, Congressman Shays, yesterday
Chairman Burton gave a copy of the various faxes, phone calls
that I made in Steven's office, whether that can be put on the
screen or something like that. Is it possible?
Mr. Burton. Do we have copies of the faxes and the list of
things? There we have it right there.
Mr. Shays. It's not really going to help you much.
Mr. Burton. Take a copy down to him, please.
Mr. Huang. First of all, I can explain this fax first if I
may. Looking at the fax it's very interesting on 10, 18, there
are probably 18 other faxes showing on this sheet here and I
sort of believe that was a bad transmission. It was relayed as
only one. Couldn't get it through, getting, get it through,
couldn't get it through, again, again, again, again. There was
a similar situation it looks to me like October 5 there was
about five of them also sent out on a similar pattern so that
would not be treated, in my personal opinion should not be
treated as how many transmission you send. It would be counted
on how many faxes was sent on that basis. That was trying to
explain.
Now, my best recollection, those faxes sent over to Hong
Kong, to Indonesia was not really my--was not mine. I will not
deny the fact I used the office making phone calls to Lippo
Bank, California, in Los Angeles. That one I definitely say yes
on that. But certainly I don't recall I made--my understanding
of the faxes is to Lippo Bank or not but certainly in more
specific about those to Hong Kong, Indonesia, most likely is
not related to me.
Mr. Shays. I'll come back to you.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Let me ask you, going
back for a moment to the $50,000 Hip Hing contribution, when
you decided to make the Hip Hing $50,000 contribution, you
thought that was legal?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. What did you base that on?
Mr. Huang. As I reported to you, Congressman, earlier, No.
1 is U.S. entity, although it's a sub of the foreign entity,
but the U.S. entity has a U.S. revenue that led me to make
decision Hip Hing could make contribution.
Mr. Cummings. Now, did you ever have a conversation with
Mr. Riady where you discussed ways to violate campaign laws?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, it was not in the terms that you
raise, but we did talk about how to raise money, identify the
people who are eligible, green card holder of citizenship among
the executives, and also talked about being reimbursed later on
by myself, myself as a contribution, and also I had occasion to
obtain some bank accounts, at least one from the executives.
Mr. Cummings. I am going to go back to one thing just very
quickly. When you were discussing the $1 million commitment,
the $1 million commitment now for contributions, did you ever
discuss with Mr. Riady that the reimbursement for political
contributions might be illegal?
Mr. Huang. The reimbursement issue was never explicitly
discussed. As I reported to you earlier in your earlier
questions, I sort of sensed that whoever made it probably would
be taken care of.
Mr. Cummings. Is that what you told the FBI?
Mr. Huang. I believe I did.
Mr. Cummings. I was very moved by the comments that you
made a little bit earlier about how you felt about this country
and not wanting to do anything to hurt it. I notice that in the
report, in the Cox report, it talks about how you did not want
your clearance status increased. Was there a specific reason
for that? In other words, your secret clearance, things
classified so you could see certain types of classified
information, you didn't seem to be too anxious to have it
increased. Was there any reason for that?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, as of this day, I don't even know
what level is clearance. To be very truthful, I didn't know. In
order to do my job, whether I had a clearance or not, it's not
really that important to me. I was working for the Assistant
Secretary in my job. I think it was basically through his
efforts trying to get me the clearance. It really did not
matter to me at all.
Mr. Cummings. Looking back on your experience at Commerce
and what you have been through so far, how do you feel today?
Mr. Huang. When I was in Commerce?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Huang. I really underestimated the culture of this
town. It is very political and very territorial, so it was
constantly a battle trying to gain either more territory or
gain more visibility maybe, responsibility toward that part.
I really have misgivings about a lot of political
appointees, because their staying in a job was only a short-
term basis. Maybe coming to work in Washington, DC, they are
trying to gain as much as they can in a short period of time
and they went on for the next level of career. So apparently
the responsibility or the title which translated into the
territory later on might be very, very important to some of
these people. So without any doubt, during my tenure in the
Commerce Department, and I got caught in between those kinds of
conflicts.
For instance, my Assistant Secretary would not refuse to
attend somebody's briefing, somebody's meeting, but I was
assistant to my Assistant Secretary, but my unit has to be
represented. So most of the time I got that job. So whatever
briefing, some of the articles talking about--I attended so
many briefings or meetings relating to China or other places,
that was through that kind of format. Because somebody had to
be there to represent. Otherwise, nobody went over from my
unit, then our unit would be criticized on that.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman's time has expired. I will now
take my time.
Hip Hing Holdings contributed $50,000 in August 1992. The
contribution was reimbursed by Lippo. Was that reimbursement
legal?
Mr. Huang. It was not.
Mr. Burton. It was not legal. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Huang. At that time, I was not.
Mr. Burton. You were not aware of that?
Mr. Huang. No, I was not--remember, Mr. Chairman, there was
an exhibit showing me--there was a reimbursement request with
my name on it, John Huang, and then another person's name. My
name was there. I take responsibility on that, although the
request for reimbursement----
Mr. Burton. It was corporate money coming from the Lippo
Group in Indonesia to reimburse the Hip Hing Holdings?
Mr. Huang. For various expenses.
Mr. Burton. I have the wire that you sent to Mrs. Ong Bwee
Eng for the money.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. All right. I just wanted to make sure that that
was clear, that it was illegal. It did come from Indonesia. It
was reimbursed to Hip Hing, which didn't have a great deal of
money at that time as I understand it.
Mr. Huang. Hip Hing was not--it was a relatively slow loan,
yes.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, I yield to you.
Mr. Shays. I thank you.
Mr. Huang, we left with you having a number of phone calls
to the Lippo Bank. We have down 232 while you were at Commerce.
I'm unclear as to why you would be in contact with the Lippo
Bank.
Mr. Huang. First of all, Congressman Shays, I'm not sure I
really had a contact with the Lippo Bank 232 times.
Mr. Shays. We will stipulate that, but it was a large
number of times. But you're not agreeing necessarily that it
was all 232.
Mr. Huang. I'm trying to explain to you how the number is
coming up. Actually, in an ordinary situation, if I am going to
call Congressman Shays, I guarantee you I would not get you the
first time. Probably the call is going to come back to me, may
not get to me, which likely happened in ordinary courses.
That's why I'm saying the real conversation may not be that
much.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
Mr. Huang. Now, I do not remember specifically each
conversation, but I will give you roughly the categories what
those conversations fall into, and I'm going to report to you
on that basis.
As you know very well, I left Lippo on July 14 or 15, that
weekend, on Friday. I immediately came on board on the 18th,
that Monday. As Mr. Chairman was mentioning yesterday, at the
end of June, after the 26th, I traveled overseas, following my
civic duty, and went to Taiwan. Also more importantly, on a
personal basis, I even missed my nephew's wedding 1 day. By the
time I came back, I really did not have the time to inform a
lot of people that I was leaving.
So category No. 1 is a lot of people would send messages to
my old office. There was mail still coming over there. That is
the category on that.
The second thing is included in that category. People say,
there's something coming in. I don't understand, John, how to
handle those things. So that's one category.
The second category would be I have been in that
institution for a few years, so a lot of people were employed
under me prior to that. They are still working over there, even
though I was gone. A few of the people, they met with career
problems because they were dealing with a new management, a
different management. They were asking me what to do. They had
frustration. That involved some career consultation on that
basis. That's one category.
It is interesting, the third category is the clients also
come in. They were dealing with different people, saying we
were doing things differently previously. Now everything is
changing. What should I do? They thought I might be able to
help on that basis. That is one.
The fourth category was a situation, as you know, in
running a financial institution. Today you have a loan
situation, it doesn't guarantee the loan is going to stay
forever good because economic conditions change, that loan
becomes relatively slow being paid, becomes delinquent or
sometimes you cannot even collect it, you want to look for
somebody.
So, basically, the bank was in the Chinese American
community. A lot of them were Chinese. It might have been
coming from Hong Kong or Taiwan. So the new CEO or new loan
officer is going to ask me, do you know this person when you
worked there before? Do you know how to handle this and what
would be the proper way to handle that? If they are slow for 90
days, should we take legal action against them or how do we
handle that? Some were situations like that.
The fifth category is the more personal one. There is a
colleague of mine called Tanyu Yen, Y-e-n, who used to work
with me in Hong Kong in the international department. When I
came over to Lippo Los Angeles, I would sort of pull him in
with me to establish all the rules and procedures of the
international problem for the bank. He and his wife has one
only daughter, has apparently Downs Syndrome status. By having
him and his family come over to work in the United States, we
sort of made a commitment to let him have immigration status in
the United States done.
Because of the Downs Syndrome situation for the daughter,
she had already passed the age of 21--in fact, right now she is
close to 30 something already--at that time, Mr. Yen and Mrs.
Yen were able to get the green card status but the daughter
could not because of the law saying you have not underage
children, already over the time. At that period of time, the
immigration law was in the midst of changing, at least there
was some sentiment to change, because there were so many
immigrants coming into the United States.
They were very, very concerned, especially Mrs. Yen. She
always has a little nervous--nervous breakdown type of
situation, sometimes would be hyped up and very nervous, so
worried about the daughter, in the event she could not get--
although the parents got it already--would be sent back to Hong
Kong.
I was in Hong Kong and also working with various Senators
before. By making the contributions, I know some of the people.
I took on the job and made quite a few phone calls. For
instance, you might find my phone records, Ms. Nancy Chen, who
used to be assistant to Senator Paul Simon, who has
responsibility for immigration.
Mr. Shays. In my next round, I'll ask you about the other
calls. Thank you.
Mr. Huang. Essentially, if I can summarize on that, I would
not rule out a situation. Occasionally, I may call some people
and say how you doing, things like that. Never the case of
saying, today I got a briefing. Here is information on a past
deal. Would you relay this to somebody? It never happened that
way.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield my time to
Mr. Shays, but before he starts with his questions, could we
give Mr. Huang and his lawyers a break?
Mr. Burton. I think it is close to lunchtime. Let's just
break here for about 30 minutes, and that will give you time to
grab a sandwich or something if you so choose. And we will be
back here just about 5 after 12.
The committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. The committee will reconvene.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman passes.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Huang, I'm going to have a number of
questions. I'm just going to kind of go through questions
relating to your experience at Commerce. I don't know if they
will require long responses. I will come back later to some of
the security issues, so you will get a chance to kind of
respond to everything that was in the report. But let me do
that.
Except, excuse me, we did need to just conclude the issue
of--you had responded to Lippo, but would you respond to the--
and the 29 calls or faxes, your point to me is that some of
those may have been resubmitted. You're trying to tell us--
you're not trying to tell us, you are telling us that some of
the 29 calls or faxes to Lippo headquarters in Jakarta were
potentially repeats.
Mr. Huang. It could be.
Mr. Shays. You had 61 contacts with a Lippo consultant
Maeley Tom or 72 calls to Lippo joint venture partner Joseph
Giroir. Can you explain your contacts with Maeley Tom and to
Joseph Giroir?
Mr. Huang. Yes. Maeley Tom, basically--she is a community
leader based in California in our Asian American community. I
respect her a lot. A lot of the political sites of wisdom or
community affairs, I resort to her. She and I probably have a
lot of phone calls basically on those subjects alone.
Something again I will reiterate about the number of phone
calls, Congressman Shays, you will understand may not be
exactly equal to the number of actual conversations.
Mr. Shays. I do understand that, and the record notes it.
Let me ask you questions since it relates to your seeking
employment at Commerce and we're going to kind of go through
that.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Shays. Did James Riady urge you to work for the
government?
Mr. Huang. He did not. Virtually that was my initiation and
with the urging of my community. Mr. Riady would not object
that I would go.
Mr. Shays. Could we be a little tighter on this? Could you
think a second before you respond? Because it is our sense that
the task force at Justice had the impression that he was
encouraging you to apply to some government departments. I
don't want to split hairs with you. I'm not saying just
Commerce, but didn't he encourage you to work----
Mr. Huang. In various areas. Various areas would be
interesting.
Again, I plead innocent to government-related jobs, never
having worked in the American government before. You more or
less just pull out the phone book, see what might be the area
you might be able to fit.
Mr. Shays. We've all done that for constituents. So you had
dialog with Mr. Riady about that?
Mr. Huang. Why?
Mr. Shays. No. You did have dialog, conversation with Mr.
Riady.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. Did Mr. James Riady encourage you to look into
any jobs at certain agencies?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. What particular agencies did he encourage you to
look into?
Mr. Huang. If I remember, there are little notes I drafted,
sent it to the State Department, relating to Asian affairs.
Mr. Shays. Did James Riady suggest to you that you work at
the National Security Council?
Mr. Huang. That would be one of a list I was going to
report to you, anyway.
Mr. Shays. At that time did you know what the National
Security Council was?
Mr. Huang. It was not really that clear, but certainly I do
now.
Mr. Shays. Why didn't you ask Riady? Did you ask him what
it was?
Mr. Huang. I did not know exactly what he meant. He had an
idea it was some policy-related stuff, advising the President.
Mr. Shays. Did Riady explain why he thought you were
qualified to work at the National Security Council?
Mr. Huang. He didn't say that, but deep down in my heart,
probably I would not get that kind of job anyway myself.
Mr. Shays. Did Riady also suggest that you should apply to
the Department of State and your answer was yes?
Mr. Huang. That's right. That was one on the list, I
believe.
Mr. Shays. Did he explain why you should look at the
Department of State?
Mr. Huang. Basically because of my background in Asia.
Mr. Shays. Did you keep James Riady updated on the progress
of your appointment process?
Mr. Huang. I could directly answer by saying yes, but it
was not really with frequency. I think the memo indicated----
Mr. Shays. So it wasn't a recurring update, but
periodically you would update him?
Mr. Huang. There was some conversation on that, yes.
Mr. Shays. You stated in your task force interview,
according to our information, that James Riady was a bit naive
about any benefit that he might obtain by your working at the
Department of Commerce.
What benefit did Riady believe that he would get by your
working at the Department of Commerce?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, I think the focus may not even be
narrowed to the Commerce, because our original intention was
not only to go to Commerce or State or NSC.
Mr. Shays. Then we won't limit it to Commerce. Your sense
is that he thought it would be beneficial to him that you work
in government. Explain to me what that would be.
Mr. Huang. I believe what I was saying, the naive portion
is in getting that kind of job.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, can you yield me your time?
Mr. Burton. I will yield you my time.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I will be a little clearer.
He obviously thought it would be of benefit, and what do
you think he thought the benefit would be?
Mr. Huang. My thinking is that because Lippo's base is in
Asia, because I can get those kind of jobs relating to Asia and
Pacific affairs. So some of the things would be easier, he
might be able to get some information on that.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
Why do you say that he was naive?
Mr. Huang. No. 1, the information from me, it is going to
be naive. I cannot really freely, if I took the job, I could
not get the information.
Mr. Shays. So your sense is he had a sense that you would
be able to be helpful to him in a way that you felt you
couldn't be?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Now, let me inject one more point that probably would be
important. I would have to sense that he would have to tell
people in that part of the world that there is somebody used to
working with Lippo now is in the government. That would make
him look different.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
I would like to have exhibit 153 put up. For the attorneys,
it is exhibit 153.
This is a letter from Maeley Tom to John Emerson who worked
at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel that
recommends you for an appointment.
Now it is going to be not the first page, I'm going to ask
you to turn to page 6. You will see it in the top right corner,
page 6. That's where she talks about you. I will note, while it
is still up there, and this may sound like a cheap shot, but we
all in government have to be concerned about it.
This is a letter from--the State of Connecticut stationery,
State of California. It is the Senate. It's David Roberti who
is President pro tem pore and Maeley Tom is his administrative
director and she is talking blatant politics in her letter,
recommending various people, why they would be good for the
Democratic party and why it would be good to have Asians work.
Not a letter that Republicans wouldn't write and I hope to gosh
they would write, but on the President pro tem stationery.
The first two sentences, ``John Huang, Executive Vice
President of Lippo Bank, is the political power that advises
the Riady family on issues and where to make contributions.
They invested heavily in the Clinton campaign.''
That again isn't a statement that you wouldn't see in some
Republican letters, too, but ``invested heavily in the Clinton
campaign'' is why I want to clean up campaign finance reform.
And then it says, ``John is the Riady family's top priority
for placement because he is like one of their own.'' Do you
think this is an accurate description of you?
[Exhibit 153 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.348
Mr. Huang. I would reluctantly say yes. I would not really
boast myself.
Mr. Shays. You're not boasting. But that's your position
and you are a political power. You do advise them on issues on
where to make contributions, and that last line, ``John is the
Riady family's top priority for placement because he is like
one of their own,'' in other words, you are very close to the
Riady family.
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Shays. Did you know that Ms. Tom was planning on
encouraging your appointment?
Mr. Huang. In a general sense, probably yes, because she
was one of the more senior persons in our community.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Tom is contacting James Riady about your
interest in obtaining an appointment. Was she in contact with
James Riady about your interest in this appointment?
Mr. Huang. I really don't know exactly whether she did or
she did not.
Mr. Shays. But you stated in previous----
Mr. Huang. I believe she probably did, yes.
Mr. Shays. She's pretty close to the Riadys herself,
correct?
Mr. Huang. No, she is not.
Mr. Burton. She doesn't work for the Riadys?
Mr. Huang. She worked for Riady as a consultant at the
Lippo Bank, but it was not very close though.
Mr. Shays. I think it's a good distinction you're making. I
want to make sure I don't put words in your mouth.
She has a working relationship with the Riadys. She was
employed by them through the Lippo Bank. So they know her and
she knows them?
Mr. Huang. Not Lippo Bank, but Lippo Group in the United
States.
Mr. Shays. The Lippo Group in the United States?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. So they would know each other, but they aren't
necessarily, say, as close as you would be with the family?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. But they have this working relationship?
Mr. Huang. Congressman, apparently she misstated my
position. I was not an executive vice president for Lippo Bank.
Mr. Shays. What were you, just for the record?
Mr. Huang. If I remember, based on that date I was the vice
chairman and director of the Lippo Bank.
Mr. Shays. Thank you for clarifying that.
You would be pleased that I am going through many pages of
questions that I'm not asking you, so if you see me doing this,
be grateful.
You got a job working for the Department of Commerce and
you were principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Economic Policy at the International Trade Administration; is
that correct?
Mr. Huang. That was correct.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me, Mr. Shays. Mr. Waxman is not here,
we will go to the next round, and it is your time.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Would you please describe your
responsibilities as the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for International Economic Policy at the International Trade
Administration?
Mr. Huang. To put it very bluntly and directly, whatever
the Assistant Secretary does not want to do. So most of the
work is like organizational, personnel-related, budgetary and
coordination among various units in the International Economic
Policy.
Mr. Shays. How large is IEP at ITA?
Mr. Huang. It was one of the smallest units. I may misquote
the number for you.
Mr. Shays. Give me a range. I have no range. How many
personnel might you be dealing with?
Mr. Huang. Maybe a number like 100, something.
Mr. Shays. That's still a lot of people.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. When you worked in this position, were you ever
told that you were specifically walled off from working on
China issues?
Mr. Huang. I was not. But I learned that later on. In
reality, Congressman Shays, I knew I was not going to work on
the China issues.
Mr. Shays. You learned later on that you weren't to work on
Chinese issues by whom? What did you learn later on? Was it
through contacts or through the media?
Mr. Huang. Through the media, I believe either Mr. Garten's
testimony----
Mr. Shays. He's the Under Secretary of Commerce?
Mr. Huang. Under Secretary.
Mr. Shays. Usually their responsibility is all the
administration of the department and so on. But he seemed
surprised that you were working on Chinese issues?
Mr. Huang. That's what I heard, yes.
Mr. Shays. In terms of policy areas, where do you get--did
you get involved in Indonesia? Did you get involved in Taiwan?
And did you get involved in China? Tell me in each of those
areas, on policy.
Mr. Huang. Basically IEP is involving territorial, which is
in the whole world, divided into probably four or five areas.
So whatever the commercial policies, generally is coming from
the IEP. That's how it is. There is an area called Asia Pacific
area which has its own Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Shays. You worked for the Lippo Group, and I think you
know there were some who were concerned that you had these ties
to a fairly powerful family in Indonesia. Were you walled off
from dealing with Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. I did not have a direct responsibility for those
areas anyway. I tried to stay away from it myself.
Mr. Shays. You made a conscious effort to stay away?
Mr. Huang. I did not think anybody would stop me from doing
that. My concept for that is, if I had any knowledge, I could
be helpful to everybody. Because of my past experience, I would
be glad to help; that was my position. But nobody advised me in
saying, John, don't touch Indonesia, don't touch China.
Mr. Shays. There was no understanding when you worked with
the department that, given your involvement with the Lippo
Group, you needed to stay away from Indonesian issues?
Mr. Huang. At least at that time I did not understand. But
I'm trying to consciously stay away, yes, as much as I could.
Mr. Shays. We need to nail this down a little better. Let
me be clear on the question. I just need to know whether in
your hiring you were told that certain areas were off bounds,
given your relationships with a powerful economic and political
family in Indonesia who also had significant relations to
China.
Mr. Huang. Not necessarily a geographic area, but I did
discuss trying to stay away from the Lippo.
Mr. Shays. Who was that discussion with?
Mr. Huang. I think it was the general counsel of the
Commerce Department, Ginger Lew. She was the person who advised
me that, yes.
Mr. Shays. It was her responsibility to give ethics advice,
and she said not as much Indonesia, but in terms of the Lippo
Group, you needed to stay away from that?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
If I could also expand, Lippo has interest in other areas,
whatever Lippo's involvement was, to try to stay away.
Mr. Shays. Your own calendar indicates that you had had
several meetings with Indonesian officials. I'm not saying the
Lippo Group. Your testimony is that Indonesia was not part of
your responsibility. Was any country part of your
responsibility? Is it your testimony that no country is part of
your responsibility?
Mr. Huang. That's not true. In the beginning it was that,
but later on I was assigned to Taiwan. The reason is because of
my background. I grew up in Taiwan and spent about 20 years
there. I served in the Chinese Air Force in Taiwan as a reserve
officer. The reason I got that area is, China was responsible,
was taken over by another unit, somebody should be spearheading
on Taiwan, so you have two separate teams.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Would you like me to do a little questioning
here for a while?
Mr. Shays. That would be fine.
Mr. Burton. Let me followup, Mr. Huang, on Mr. LaTourette's
questions. You went to Taiwan. Who did you meet with during
that Taiwan trip?
Mr. Huang. Basically private businessmen, in particular the
person called--excuse me. It will come to me in a second. Mr.
Kenneth Hsui.
Mr. Burton. What was the purpose of that meeting?
Mr. Huang. During my role for the Democratic party in
trying to see whether it would be interesting, I understand he
is an American citizen, although he lived in Taiwan; and he and
I knew each other, and I was trying to see whether he would be
interested in making a contribution to the Democratic party.
Mr. Burton. Did you ask him to solicit other contributions?
Mr. Huang. No. The reason is that he himself was very well
off. He would be the only one I needed at that time.
Mr. Burton. How much were you expecting him to give?
Mr. Huang. Approximately half a million dollars.
Mr. Burton. Half a million dollars?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. Can you broaden your answer there to tell us,
you were in Taiwan for some time. I have been over there myself
many times, and there is a whole bunch of people that you meet
with.
Were there any other people that you met with that were
interested in contributing and did you mention it to anybody
else? And who all did you meet with? I know you probably won't
recall all of them but you know the significant ones.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, during that period of time, you
know President Lee was first being elected as the President of
Taiwan, and there was an inauguration event over there. A lot
of people were coming from overseas there. A lot of people
coming from Taiwan were there, also. For instance----
Mr. Burton. You were interested in raising money for the
Democrat party and so you talked to this one gentleman and were
hoping that he would give a half a million dollars and you're
saying he was a U.S. citizen so he would have been legally
entitled to contribute?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Is he the only person you talked to about
raising money over there?
Mr. Huang. No. No, I was more or less exploring the
opportunities through some friends who might be able to
introduce me to more people.
Mr. Burton. Those people that you talked to over there,
were they American citizens?
Mr. Huang. They were American citizens, yes.
Mr. Burton. Did you talk to anybody that were not American
citizens about contributing?
Mr. Huang. No. If they were not an American, I did not ask
for a contribution or a donation to the party.
Mr. Burton. Did you talk to them in any way about giving
money?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. In late 1996 did you stay in Charlie Trie's
Watergate apartment for a period of time?
Mr. Huang. As I testified yesterday I believe----
Mr. Burton. You did stay in his apartment?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. How long did you stay there?
Mr. Huang. Maybe around a week or two at the most.
Mr. Burton. Do you know why you were staying there?
Mr. Huang. I think the--during that period of time there
was a subpoena being served on me by Judicial Watch in trying
to find out the full situation for the Commerce Department, and
I was really staying around different places.
Mr. Burton. You didn't want to be served with a subpoena?
Mr. Huang. No, I was really wondering why I was being
served with a subpoena at the beginning and why I got involved.
Mr. Burton. You were staying there in order to not be
served?
Mr. Huang. I was not trying to avoid being served. Actually
my counsel, legal counsel had already received it, was doing
that for me. But basically the media was hounding me. If I
continued staying at my father-in-law's place in Silver Spring,
people were going to continue to harass that place. Basically I
was avoiding that part, not on the legal requirements.
Mr. Burton. You weren't trying to hide out so you wouldn't
get served?
Mr. Huang. No, sir, I was not.
Mr. Burton. Did you stay with any other friends or
acquaintances during that period, during the finance scandal
when it first became public?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I also stayed with my brother-in-law for a
few days.
Mr. Burton. That was for the same reason, that you didn't
want----
Mr. Huang. That was the same reason and also my father's
friends, in I think Potomac or Rockville, MD.
Mr. Burton. You were moving around to different locations?
Mr. Huang. A few days here, a few days there. I regret I
did that but I really had no choice at that time. I did not
want to have my family and relatives being harassed by the
media. I did not really try to go around to avoid a subpoena,
no.
Mr. Burton. It was because of the media and not because you
didn't want to be served?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. In late October and early November, there is a
large volume of telephone contact between you and Charlie Trie.
At this point Trie had not been identified as a part of the
campaign fundraising scandal. For example, on October 28, Trie
called you five times. On the 29th, Trie called you twice. On
the 30th, Trie called you once. On the 31st, he called you five
times. On November 9, he called you. On December 24th he called
you three times. Do you recall what you were talking to Mr.
Trie about?
Mr. Huang. Was that a call to my home in Los Angeles? I
just want to be specific on that, sir.
Mr. Burton. I'm not sure whether they were to your home but
they were to you, wherever you were.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to yield you my time if
Mr. Waxman is passing.
Mr. Burton. They were different phone numbers, I have been
told by my staff.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I had that many
conversations with him. Even though I had some conversations
with him.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall any of those conversations?
Mr. Huang. It would not be any significant. Probably
emphasizing my manners.
Mr. Burton. That seems strange to me, Mr. Huang, because he
called you 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 17 times in that timeframe; 17
times. There must have been some reason for him to call you,
and you don't recall at all?
Mr. Huang. I really don't know. I can't give you any answer
for that.
Mr. Burton. What were you and Charlie Trie--what would you
talk about? What were you talking about? Did you talk about
friends or relatives? Campaign fundraising, what, when you did
talk to him?
Mr. Huang. I really need to look at those lists, maybe I
can give you a better answer for that.
Mr. Burton. I'm not even talking about those calls. When
you did talk to Mr. Trie, you were not a close personal friend.
You were an associate as far as raising campaign funds, were
you not?
Mr. Huang. That's correct. Also he subscribed to my idea,
trying to work on something for the Asian American community as
well. We had similar goals in helping Asia Pacific Americans.
Mr. Burton. Were you in telephone contact with anyone from
the Lippo Group during that period of time when these 17 phone
calls took place?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, it is possible. I don't recall at
this time.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall that, either? You don't recall
any of these 17 phone calls, and you don't recall whether or
not you talked about the Lippo Group.
Mr. Huang. At this moment, no.
Mr. Burton. Let me go on to the next question. We'll come
back to that. Did you ever discuss with Charlie Trie whether
you were going to mention his name to the media or to
investigators? Did you ever talk to him about or did he ever
ask you about, are you going to talk to the media about me or
are you going to talk to the investigators about me?
Mr. Huang. I don't think so, no. To mention about Mr.
Trie's name.
Mr. Burton. Did you ever talk about, did Charlie say, hey,
John, don't mention me, or are you going to mention me to the
media?
Mr. Huang. That answer is no.
Mr. Burton. You never talked to him about that.
Mr. Huang. At that time, no.
Mr. Burton. Well, at any time.
Mr. Huang. No, not that I recall, no.
Mr. Burton. Not that you recall?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Did you discuss any contributions that Charlie
Trie had made?
Mr. Huang. At any time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Burton. We're talking about after the campaign finance
scandal started.
Mr. Huang. I do remember there was one occasion he talked
to me, more or less in a general sense trying to clarify the
campaign contributions, the rule situation. More specifically,
if I remember correctly, he said is the money coming from him
go to a third party and then being given, was that OK or not.
Mr. Burton. That's the only time that you can recall?
Mr. Huang. That time, yes.
Mr. Burton. Let me go back to the phone calls. On October
10, you talked to Mr. Trie for 13 minutes. On October 10th, you
talked to him again for 10 minutes. On October 28, you talked
to him for 11 minutes twice. On October 29 you talked to him
for 19 minutes. On October 30, you talked to him for 7 minutes.
On October 31, you talked to him for 11 minutes, 15 minutes,
both times. On October 31, you talked to him for 7 minutes and
5 minutes. And on November 22, you talked to him for 9 minutes.
And you don't remember any of those calls? These weren't just
little bitty calls. They were pretty lengthy.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I did say I don't recall what I
was talking to him. I did not say I did not talk to him on
that. First of all, some of the conversation probably, I can
respond to you. I was receiving the Judicial Watch subpoena.
The media was trying to hound me. Maybe there was some
conversation talking to him, can I stay there, when am I coming
there, can he pick me up from certain places and come to his
place. Actually he did take me from a certain area to a certain
area. He was very helpful to me on that part. Within that
timeframe, I'm pretty sure certain conversations that related
to that direction.
Mr. Burton. They are pretty lengthy phone conversations not
to be more recalled. Let me ask you this. Did you ever talk to
Charlie Trie about whether or not he should leave the country?
Mr. Huang. That, I did not.
Mr. Burton. You did not talk to him about that, in any of
these phone calls?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Since there is no one here, I will yield myself
5 more minutes. Since the meeting began and we started asking
you questions, we were told that you weren't very close to
Charlie Trie. I mean, if he was chauffeuring you around and you
were on the phone with him this much, it sounds like you were
pretty close, and you said he was very helpful to you and you
appreciated that. What do you mean by you weren't very close to
him and you weren't his friend?
Mr. Huang. Relatively speaking compared to some of the
friends. I'm not saying he was not my friend. He was my friend.
I believe he would consider me as his friend, since 1994, June
1994. But I knew him a little better because in 1996, my career
with the DNC. I knew him much better that way, a little closer.
Mr. Burton. When you would call him and talk to him for 15
minutes and 15 more minutes, you can't recall what you talked
to him about then but when he picked you up and drove you
around to these different places, like your brother-in-law's,
his apartment, your father-in-law's, whatever it was, what did
you guys talk about? If you can give me a rough idea. How much
time did you spend together?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, if I can best recollect on this,
the topic of conversation all centered, the event happened on
me at that time.
Mr. Burton. Let me go on to the Hsi Lai Temple. Did you see
Don Fowler at the temple on the morning of the event?
Mr. Huang. Yes, he was there.
Mr. Burton. He was the head of the DNC at the time?
Mr. Huang. At Hsi Lai Temple, yes.
Mr. Burton. Did he express any concerns to you about the
location of the event?
Mr. Huang. He did not.
Mr. Burton. He didn't say that he was concerned about it?
Mr. Huang. Not that I remember on that.
Mr. Burton. Please give me a general description of the
event. What did it look like, how did it take place? When did
Vice President Gore arrive? What did he do, what did he say and
that sort of thing?
Mr. Huang. I will try my best. Hopefully I don't omit a key
part to you. The temple is quite large, as you might have known
already. There were a lot of followers in that temple. There
were welcoming teams right outside the front gate of the
temple. A high school band was there also in welcoming the Vice
President's entourage at that time. Once he was escorted in,
they would go to a small room first, like a holding room, and
would follow inside the courtyard, doing a hosting, a welcoming
session. Then he was more or less touring the whole compound.
The compound looks like at least a few basketball courtyards on
that.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall the remarks, what kind of remarks
he gave, what he said?
Mr. Huang. During that tour and welcoming session, he did
not really make any comments. More or less people were
welcoming him. He was going through the temple to pay respects
to the temple.
Mr. Burton. Did the meal take place right after the tour
and then before he spoke?
Mr. Huang. The lunch? The lunch was afterwards, yes. The
luncheon place, which is in the underground of the main temple.
Mr. Burton. After the meal in the temple dining hall, there
were a number of people who said a few words, right?
Mr. Huang. Are you talking about at the meal?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Did Congressman Matsui speak at the event?
Mr. Huang. He did.
Mr. Burton. Did he make any mention of how much money was
going to be raised or would be raised at the event?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall him mentioning that, sir.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall that?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall that.
Mr. Burton. Did he make any statement to the effect that
they had checked with the lawyers and that it was OK to have
the event at the temple?
Mr. Huang. I certainly don't remember he said something
like that.
Mr. Burton. Are you aware that several of the attendees at
the event said that one of the speakers made comments to the
effect, a number of people who were there said that one of the
speakers said it was OK to have it there and that a lot of
money had been raised. You don't recall anybody saying that?
Mr. Huang. Certainly I don't recall anybody saying that.
Mr. Burton. If someone said that, would they be incorrect
or you just don't recall?
Mr. Huang. I didn't say they were. I just don't recall
that, sir.
Mr. Burton. Did the Hsi Lai Temple pay for all the costs of
the event?
Mr. Huang. My best recollection is they were paying for all
the costs for the event. But they were supposed to submit a
cost breakdown. But somehow that thing did not come through in
time.
Mr. Burton. They in effect did pay for all of it?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Did you arrange for the temple to be paid for
their expenses? Were you trying to arrange for them to be
repaid for the expenses?
Mr. Huang. I cannot remember exactly what I did, but as I
just said, there is communication with them saying come up with
a cost of the event, but that cost somehow was never--never
came through to us.
Mr. Burton. I see my time is expired. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I will pass on this round of
questions.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman passes.
Let me read this here.
At the conclusion of the event on April 29, how much money
had they raised?
Mr. Huang. On that particular day, I do not really know.
Mr. Burton. According to our records, it was around
$45,000.
Mr. Huang. It was a small amount, yes.
Mr. Burton. After the event, did you talk to Richard
Sullivan about how much the event had raised?
Mr. Huang. I did not remember I talked to him for the exact
amount that had been raised.
Mr. Burton. You didn't talk to him about how much money had
been raised?
Mr. Huang. However, he did expect me to conclude that and
bring some money back.
Mr. Burton. What did Mr. Sullivan say?
Mr. Huang. To try to wrap it up, he needed me to go back,
bring some money back. There was no specific amount at that
time.
Mr. Burton. But he said he wanted more money than that?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not even mention to him about $45,000
yet at that moment, I don't believe.
Mr. Burton. Did you talk to anybody about how much had been
raised?
Mr. Huang. Not to anybody in the DNC, no.
Mr. Burton. Anybody at all? I mean, did you talk to anybody
besides people at the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I, sir, don't recall. However, Mr. Chairman,
there is a target goal for the fundraising for Vice President
Gore's visit in southern California, L.A.
Mr. Burton. What was the target goal?
Mr. Huang. Somewhere around $200,000, $250,000.
Mr. Burton. Did Sullivan tell you he was disappointed with
the amount that you had raised at that event?
Mr. Huang. Certainly he did not tell me in person. If I
remember he made--I said, that's all I raised. He said, that's
OK, you know.
Mr. Burton. He did not tell you that he was disappointed?
Mr. Huang. Not that I recall he ever said that, sir, in
that language.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Sullivan gave us a deposition, and he
says--did he tell you that he was disappointed? You just don't
recall that?
Mr. Huang. I just don't recall that, sir.
Mr. Burton. That's strange. Because, I mean, you were in
charge of the event, and he was one of the key people at the
finance department there. If he said he was disappointed, he
wouldn't want to lose face, wouldn't you say something to him?
You just don't remember.
Mr. Huang. I still don't remember that, yeah.
Mr. Burton. Did Sullivan tell you that he had expected more
money from the event considering the trouble that you had had
in arranging it at the temple?
Mr. Huang. No, as I indicated, Mr. Chairman, there's target
goals set it up earlier about $200,000, $250,000.
Mr. Burton. Did he tell you that he wanted to make the
DNC's end-of-the-month fundraising numbers look good and he
wanted more money out of the event? And did he tell you that he
expected more money from the event?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I sir, don't recall. I would assume I myself was
not quite happy with the amount being raised.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Sullivan said once again that he did tell
you that. In his deposition he told us that. And he also said
that in April he wanted to hit the ball out of the ballpark, so
to speak, by raising a lot of money. Did Sullivan ask you if
you had any contributions that had not yet come in that were
outstanding and did he ask you to raise more? Did he say, is
there more money coming in or----
Mr. Huang. I believe I already raised--testified I would
raise more money anyway.
Mr. Burton. Did you do that at the temple? Did you tell him
that at the temple?
Mr. Huang. Not from the temple, no.
Mr. Burton. So you didn't say anything to him at the temple
about you would raise more money because it didn't reach what
you wanted.
Mr. Huang. Not that I recall. Mr. Sullivan was not there,
by the way.
Mr. Burton. Did you have a telephone conversation with him?
Mr. Huang. I had a telephone conversation. That's
afterwards, though.
Mr. Burton. Was that from the temple?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe so. It probably could have been
from my home.
Mr. Burton. As I understand it, according to Mr. Sullivan's
testimony right after the event there was a telephone call and
you two talked. You don't recall that?
Mr. Huang. I do recall I talked to him, but I cannot place
the time right at this moment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall talking to him about the
amount of money or the disappointment or any of that?
Mr. Huang. Not in the exactly words you're saying, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Did Sullivan ask you to get some California
money in and, if so, what did that mean to you? In other words,
did he say get some money in from California? And, if he did,
what did that mean to you?
Mr. Huang. I don't know whether he did it or not, but what
he means is try to bring as much money as possible back.
Mr. Burton. Did he mean from Lippo connections in
California or Asian Americans from California or do you know
what he meant?
Mr. Huang. Whatever the event I--transpired at that time,
you know, whatever you can collect from the group over there.
Mr. Burton. How did your discussion with Mr. Sullivan end
on the telephone? Did you promise him on the telephone you
would raise more money?
Mr. Huang. I did say I'll bring a good sum of money back
this time.
Mr. Burton. Well, if you said that, why wouldn't you
remember that he was disappointed in the amount of money that
was raised?
Mr. Huang. No, I just did not say--I didn't say that way,
Mr. Chairman. I did not remember exactly what he was saying
that way. But I do know all--for all intent and purpose we want
to raise as much money as possible.
Mr. Burton. OK. You'll have to excuse me. We have--I have
to take about a 3-minute break here. I have to make an
emergency phone call.
Would you care to take the Chair?
Mr. Shays. I would be happy to take the Chair.
Mr. Burton. I'll let Mr. Shays take the Chair.
Mr. Shays. Just give me the gavel.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, it's your round.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman. I have a couple.
Mr. Shays. It is Mr. Waxman's time. I would be happy to
give him time.
Mr. Burton. I thought he had passed, but Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. At the previous round. I won't take much time.
I'll let you get back to your questions. I want to clean up a
few things.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Do you want to hit the clock?
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, on this Hsi Lai Temple event, did
you look at it in terms of what's called a maintenance event?
Have you ever heard that term, maintenance event? Community
event to----
Mr. Huang. The community event, yes.
Mr. Waxman. By a community event--or I have even heard this
term maintenance event. It's an event not to raise money but to
develop good will and reach out to the community, maybe in the
hopes later of raising money from members there by establishing
some positive contacts. Is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Huang. That's accurate, yes.
Mr. Waxman. The other thing I wanted to mention, these
conversations you had with Mr. Trie and Mr. Sullivan, those
were over 3 years ago, weren't they?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Waxman. You were being asked to remember details of
those conversations. Mr. Trie was not a social friend of yours,
as I believe you testified, is that right?
Mr. Huang. However, he was--that time in 1996, you know, I
was in D.C. working for the DNC. Certainly I have some more
contact with him occasionally, many, many years prior.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much.
I just wanted to get those clarifications in there. Yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
On September 26, 1994, you were working for the Commerce
Department; and you were scheduled to meet with Miss Kristoff.
Records indicate that you entered the White House compound at
5:42. Does Kristoff refer to Sandy Kristoff at the NSC?
Let me--maybe what we do is put up exhibit 174, which is
just the White House visits. This would be 1 of the 43 times
I'm assuming that you while employed with the Department of
Commerce you met with the--in the White House. And it's on page
4 I think we want to put up. Could you get that for me. The
question is, who is Kristoff?
[Exhibit 174 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.359
Mr. Huang. That Kristoff could be Sandy Kristoff.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now tell me, did you meet with Sandy
Kristoff on or about September 26, 1994?
Mr. Huang. I'm quite surprised that name was there. I'm
trying to trace my memory. I certainly don't recall I met with
her personally on that occasion. However, Congressman Shays----
Mr. Shays. Let me just say that we can turn the chart over
to the next page 5, and you are marked down at 2:00 and 5:00,
but it looks like you didn't actually get there. But I would
like to know if you did or not, whether the reports are not
accurate or not.
Mr. Huang. Before I answer this question, I'm trying to
make a further explanations on that. There might be an
interdepartment meeting with the White House during that period
of time. The reason, if my name was mentioned over there, was
because the person was in charge of the Asian Pacific affairs
in IEP, namely Nancy Linn Patton, who is a director also,
Deputy Assistant Secretary. She might not be able to go there.
Mr. Shays. What we have is we have three meetings, two of
which are not marked down as having attended. But the one on
September 26th, you're marked down as attending. So I'm
assuming you were there.
Mr. Huang. I was there. I was trying to explain to you
probably it related to the interdepartment meeting. I was late
also one occasion.
Mr. Shays. OK. OK. But, yeah, you were there. I just want
to establish that. You're answering a question I haven't asked
yet. You'll get a chance.
What was the purpose of your meeting now?
Mr. Huang. Again, it was interdepartment meeting. I could
not specifically remember what was it about now.
Mr. Shays. Did you discuss the United States-Thai Business
Council with Miss Kristoff?
Mr. Huang. Definitely not, no.
Mr. Shays. Now, did you represent on what basis you were
having--that you were there? Was it clear as to why you were
there?
Mr. Huang. Congressman Shays, the only thing--the only time
I have very strong impression is that one time is rainy day in
late afternoon I was there very late. That's related to the
interdepartmental meeting. People was already at the meeting. I
came in very late. Probably the meeting was over. I really did
not have any recollection have any more than one occasion met
with Ms. Sandy Kristoff except--except in the State Department.
Mr. Shays. And when was that? Before or after?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't specify. The reason I'm trying to say
that is, at that time, the Assistant Secretary for the Asian
Pacific Affairs for the State Department was--who was it?
Sorry. He has regular meeting for interdepartment agencies. Any
department has Asian Pacific Affairs units will have a
routinely meeting with him.
Mr. Shays. Did you tell Pauline Kanchanalak--let me ask
you--she was organizing the United States-Thai Business Council
meeting. There was some meeting that was going to take place.
You want to talk about that at all?
Mr. Huang. It was taking place in the White House I think.
Mr. Shays. Now, Miss Kanchanalak was calling you at the
Department of Commerce, but I want to focus the timeframe on
September 1994. Around that time she was working on
establishing the United States-Thai Business Council, is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Did she discuss with you her plan to hold an
inaugural meeting with the United States-Thai Business Council
on October 6, 1994?
Mr. Huang. I believe all about that time, that period of
time.
Mr. Shays. But she talked to you about it.
Mr. Huang. She did.
Mr. Shays. Was she planning to have the Prime Minister of
Thailand attend the inaugural meeting?
Mr. Huang. She did indicate that.
Mr. Shays. Was she also planning to have the President of
the United States attend the meeting?
Mr. Huang. She would like to have, yes.
Mr. Shays. Did she express to you any problems she was
having in organizing the meeting?
Mr. Huang. She couldn't get things done.
Mr. Shays. Pardon me?
Mr. Huang. She could not get that done, at least at that
period of time.
Mr. Shays. Get what done?
Mr. Huang. Get this meeting accomplished.
Mr. Shays. OK. My time has run out.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Would you like some more time right
now? I would be glad to yield to you 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I want you to be more specific as to what type of problems
she had.
Mr. Huang. She had some difficulty in getting things done.
In other words, there's apparently political battles over
there. I can only speak on the outside. I cannot really get
into the detail for that.
Mr. Shays. Yeah.
Mr. Huang. I understood the--Sandy Kristoff was the
opponent, would not agree to have such an arrangement.
Mr. Shays. Arrangement meaning the President.
Mr. Huang. That's right. To have in the White House.
Mr. Shays. Did she ask your help?
Mr. Huang. She did.
Mr. Shays. What did she ask you to do?
Mr. Huang. She expressed, you know, the dismay that this
could not be done, you know. She asked me whether--anything I
could do on that basis.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Huang. But I did not really promise her and say I will
do one, two, three, four. I did not. But I believe I--
subsequently, I have a memo to Deputy Undersecretary Rothkopf.
Mr. Shays. So you did do something, and you expressed it in
a memo.
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Shays. Why don't we look at that? That's exhibit 192.
Now, Mr. Rothkopf is the--was Deputy Undersecretary when
you were there. He was your superior. That's correct?
[Exhibit 192 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.360
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Had you spoken with Mr. Rothkopf about the
United States-Thai Business Council prior to writing this
memorandum?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe I spoke to him directly. I just
have the memo to send it to him.
Mr. Shays. Did Mr. Rothkopf express any concerns about this
proposed United States-Thai Business Council event?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe that I have a direct
conversation on--face to face on these issues. I thought I
would just send a memo. That was it.
Mr. Shays. In the first paragraph of your memorandum to Ms.
Rothkopf you suggest that you and Mr. Rothkopf contact Sandy
Kristoff of NSC to find out what is going on before we do
anything else. What did you mean by ``find out what is going
on?''
Mr. Huang. As I indicated to you, Congressman, earlier,
apparently there was some battle going on as to this proposed
meeting, whether it could take place or not. Now, when I say
we, doesn't mean Mr. Rothkopf and myself. Because Mr. Rothkopf
is in a higher level than I do. I did not have any direct
contact with Ms. Kristoff in any level. And Mr. Rothkopf has.
We meaning probably from the Department of Commerce point of
view or ITA's point of view.
Mr. Shays. In this memo, you expressed numerous concerns
and troubles with hosting the launch to the United States-Thai
Business Council. First, you stated a matter of this sort
presents risks and opportunities. What were the risks and what
were the opportunities?
Mr. Huang. OK. Again, I want to thank you, Congressman
Shays, to point out this thing in the memo. I have not read
this, seen this.
Mr. Shays. I am happy to have you read it and take your
time.
Mr. Huang. The risks in my mind--at that particular moment,
the Prime Minister from Thailand was coming over. And also to
find out this thing was not done it may endanger some of the
business opportunity or future relationship between United
States and Thailand. Now, there was if this can be done then it
could be bring up more opportunity for both countries. I guess
that that was basically what I meant.
Mr. Shays. You also stated, we at the DOC, including the
Secretary, can look good and gain benefits if we could get this
matter squared away. But we may not want to risk relationship
with Sandy slash NSC especially if she, Sandy, strongly objects
doing the launch for this Council in the White House. How did
you know that Sandy Kristoff would object to doing the
inaugural meeting? Who spoke to her about it? Did Pauline
Kanchanalak speak to her?
Mr. Huang. This I learned from Ms. Kanchanalak.
Mr. Shays. So you're getting this from Ms. Kanchanalak?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. OK. What were the NSC objections?
Mr. Huang. I learned again indirectly here.
Mr. Shays. Her, from Ms. Kanchanalak.
Mr. Huang. The basic objection is coming from Mr. Driscoll.
Mr. Driscoll is executive director for U.S. ASEAN Council. Now
here, as you know very well, Thailand is one of a member of
ASEAN nations. So here is another person who coming out to set
up United States-Thai Business Council. Apparently it's going
to draw more members away. Maybe that was the politics behind
that.
Mr. Shays. Did you mean that the Commerce Department was a
neutral party?
Mr. Huang. We were not involved for these direct contact.
Mr. Shays. Who were the parties involved?
Mr. Huang. I believe it was NSC. Or Sandy Kristoff
directly, yeah.
Mr. Shays. You also stated, ``Quite a few members of this
proposed council from Arkansas may want to utilize their
contacts to get this matter squared away directly from the top
even if they offend Sandy and the NSC.''
What did you mean by getting this matter squared away
directly from the top?
Mr. Huang. The best I learned is that when the United
States-Thai Business Council have some members, members coming
from Arkansas, what I was trying to say--these people also was
friends with Pauline Kanchanalak--maybe Pauline would be able
to ask these people, go directly to the President to get that,
that things done.
Mr. Shays. Who has time now, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman. He's not here. Would you care to go
forward?
Mr. Shays. A few more.
Mr. Burton. We'll yield to the gentleman. It's your time.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
``Squared away at the top,'' does not mean the President of
the United States?
Mr. Huang. It could be directly with the President.
Mr. Shays. Did you tell--did someone tell you that the
United States-Thai Business Council members were planning on
contacting Clinton, and did you speak with any of the members?
Mr. Huang. I did not speak to any of the members, no.
Mr. Shays. Let me just conclude by saying, just this area,
you also stated, ``My personal observation is that President
Clinton will be very upset if he finds out what's going on
behind the scene.''
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry, I need to correct the statement to
say would I contact any member on that. Pauline definitely was
the member. Excluding her, I did not speak to anyone else.
Mr. Shays. Now, Pauline was the individual who gave
$268,000 that was from foreign sources that was basically
declared illegal?
Mr. Huang. That was the same person, yes.
Mr. Shays. Were you acting on her behalf because of the
$268,000?
Mr. Huang. I didn't believe at that time she was giving
that much. I did not, even though she gave that kind of money.
I thought you mentioned the figure; it was a much later date
when I was at DNC.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Happy to have that clarified.
Just to conclude here, how did you know the President might
be upset? Or why did you think he might be?
Mr. Huang. Just my personal judgment on that, because the
turf battle underneath. And just in case it would ruin the
relationship on the top, if that happen, I would assume the
President might be upset. Still, I did not talk to President on
this matter.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Burton. If you don't mind, I'll use the rest of your
time; then I'll use mine.
I want to go back to these phone calls that you made. We've
talked about them a number of times. These are calls to Lippo
organizations either in Indonesia or Los Angeles. On the 17th--
or July 19th, you made two calls; the 27th, one; the 28th, one;
August 8th, two; August 30th, one; October 4th, one; October
5th, two; October 6th, you made five; the 11th, one; 12th, one.
And then on the 18th you made 19 calls or 19 faxes, rather;
19 times you faxed to Lippo Pacific. These are from the Stevens
Co. across the street. But if you look at all these faxes,
there were never over four or five sent except on 1 day,
October 18th.
Do you attach any significance to that?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Burton. That was all the way to Lippo Pacific.
Mr. Huang. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that
was sent by me, No. 1. No. 2----
Mr. Burton. But you did go across the street to the Stevens
office on a regular basis to make phone calls and things like
that?
Mr. Huang. Yeah, I do not deny that. Yes.
Mr. Burton. But you don't believe these faxes are yours.
Mr. Huang. By the way, the second answer is--let me finish,
Mr. Chairman.
I believe there was attempt to sending a fax did not go
through, it just constantly resend and resend and resend.
Mr. Burton. Nineteen times?
Mr. Huang. Probably that was it. My personal experience in
the past, the line to Indonesia may not be there as easily
getting through.
Mr. Burton. I know. That's why we go from July all the way
through May of the next year. So for 10 months the most times
they ever tried to fax something over there was five times;
most of the time it was two or one. In fact, there were only
two occasions when they tried five times.
But this 1 day there were 19, and you don't recall anything
about that?
Mr. Huang. No. Not on this one, no.
Mr. Burton. OK. Let me go back to the temple.
Now, at the end of your conversation on the phone with Mr.
Sullivan, you said you would raise more money.
Mr. Huang. I try to bring more money, yes.
Mr. Burton. Yeah. What did you do after your conversation
with Mr. Sullivan? Did you speak to Maria Hsia?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Burton. What did you tell her?
Mr. Huang. Basically I said I only get this much money, and
then also Vice President were here in the event. I really need
to bring back some money to Washington, DC, on this trip back.
Mr. Burton. How much money did you tell her you needed to
get?
Mr. Huang. I needed to get about $100,000. At least this
trip bring back $100,000.
Mr. Burton. You raised $45,000, so you needed $55,000 more.
Mr. Huang. In my mind was that--was that--my setting was
that.
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Burton. According to the testimony from the monks who
have been immunized and the nuns at the Buddhist temple, the
day after the event Maria Hsia called Man Ho and told her that
you needed $55,000 and needed it before you left for Washington
that evening. Is that what you told Maria Hsia?
Mr. Huang. That's her exact language, but the concept is
the same, yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if Maria Hsia told this to Hsing
Yun?
Mr. Huang. That I don't know. I left it to her.
Mr. Burton. According to the testimony of the immunized
monks and nuns from the temple, Man Ho then met with Yi Chu,
the bookkeeper for the temple, and told her that they needed to
make $55,000 in contributions very quickly. Yi Chu then asked
the first 11 monks that she saw to write a $5,000 contribution
to the DNC. All 11 of these monks were reimbursed for their
contributions by the temple.
Did you have any knowledge that Maria Hsia had asked the
monks to make $55,000 in contributions by the time that you
came to the temple on that evening?
Mr. Huang. I did not, sir.
Mr. Burton. She didn't mention anything to you about that?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Did she give you the checks?
Mr. Huang. She did.
Mr. Burton. Didn't you ask her where those checks came
from?
Mr. Huang. I did not. I thanked her.
Mr. Burton. She gave you $55,000 in $5,000 checks and you
didn't ask her a thing?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. It's my turn now, so I yield myself 5 minutes.
Go ahead.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, the step-by-step situation, I went
to the temple on the way to airport. And Maria Hsia was there,
she hand me an envelope indicating there was about 100,000
there. And I thank her for it.
Mr. Burton. I know. The night before or right after the
temple event, you got $45,000. You were concerned about that.
You talked to Mr. Sullivan. And you told him you would try to
get more money.
You then talked to Maria Hsia and said, hey, we're $55,000
short, we ought to get $100,000 from this event. I'm not
putting words in your mouth, but that's the gist of what you
said. You leave.
The next day she talks to the head of the monastery and
says we've got to get $55,000 more. She's a member of the
temple. She gets 11 monks or nuns to write checks for $5,000
each, and they're reimbursed by the temple. You come back on
your way to the airport to get the $100,000 which is in an
envelope, and you don't even ask her where the extra $55,000
came from?
I mean, she got that in just a matter of hours. Weren't you
even curious?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not. Because she was the main person
that maintain contact on the other side. And I just mentioned
to her I would like to have a chance to bring back $100,000
this trip with me in Washington, DC.
I did not really ask her. I thank her for it. That's it.
Mr. Burton. So you walked into the temple the day before it
was $45,000, she gives you an envelope says here's $100,000 and
you just say thanks.
Mr. Huang. That is correct. I even thank--later on Man Ho
came out; I said thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. Why did you say thank you to Man Ho?
Mr. Huang. For all the events this time she will put out,
because she was handling general affairs.
Mr. Burton. She was the one that was in charge of the
finances for the temple, wasn't she?
Mr. Huang. That I did not--didn't know. I do know she was
in charge of the general affairs to arranging everything.
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh.
See, Man Ho met with Yi Chu, who was the bookkeeper, and
asked her to get the $55,000 out through the monks. And so you
said you thanked Man Ho for her help. But you didn't thank her
for the $55,000.
Mr. Huang. No. She came out; as a courtesy I say, thank
you. I just say that.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't know the money came from the
temple?
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. What time did you arrive at the temple on the
evening of April 30th? Do you know what time it was? You said
you were on the way to the airport.
Mr. Huang. I normally take the red eye back, so must be
around 7, 8, around that time, sir.
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh. And the only two you met with were
Maria Hsia and Man Ho? Did you meet with any of the monks?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't quite recall it was additional
persons in that room or not. There might be a person was there
reading newspaper, I don't know who that person was.
Mr. Burton. You didn't see other monks or nuns?
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. So the only two that you recall are Man Ho and
Maria Hsia?
Mr. Huang. Right. In sequence, Maria came out first and
then Man Ho later.
Mr. Burton. Did someone give you the 11 checks that had
been written--well, I've already asked you that and you said
that was already in the envelope with the other, all the
$100,000 was in one envelope.
Mr. Huang. That's all combined.
Mr. Burton. You didn't open the envelope or look in it at
all?
Mr. Huang. No, I just had to dash to the airport.
Mr. Burton. Ten of the 11 checks are exhibits 403 to 412.
Did you know that these checks were--you did not know, you
said, that they were written by monks or nuns?
[Exhibits 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, and
412 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.370
Mr. Huang. I did not.
Mr. Burton. And you never questioned where she got the
extra $55,000 in a few short hours.
Mr. Huang. I did not question that either, no.
Mr. Burton. You didn't have any questions in your mind
about where the money came from, you just took it and left.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. You didn't question where the extra $55,000
came from.
Mr. Huang. No, I did not, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. Well, obviously this event you know has
received a lot of public scrutiny. But now that you're
cooperating, it's worth reviewing some of the public statements
that you've made about the event. Right after news of this
event became public, Maria Hsia's then-lawyer, Peter Kelly,
stated that this event was a Huang show, and that all that
Maria Hsia did was make a few phone calls.
Is that right? He said it was your event and all Maria Hsia
did was just make a few phone calls, but it was Huang's show.
Mr. Huang. I was with the DNC, you know. I certainly work
with Maria Hsia in getting things done. I did not have any
direct contact with the temple. I'm not even a Buddhist
follower.
Mr. Burton. So that statement would not be true, then? It
was totally your event?
Mr. Huang. I was part of a coordination on the DNC side.
The other side basically all through----
Mr. Burton. But she's the one that did all the fundraising?
Mr. Huang. No, no, I didn't say that she did the
fundraising. I also did some too myself.
Mr. Burton. For the event?
Mr. Huang. For the event.
Mr. Burton. For people other than members who were the
temple?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. All right. Another Vice President Gore aide is
cited in the press as saying that the event was intended to
raise the Vice President's profile in the Asian American
community and not to raise money. Was that true? I mean, was
this specifically supposed to be to raise his profile with
Asian Americans or was it to raise money?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I really need to spend a little time to explain
to you, Mr. Chairman and also members of this committee, about
these things. As I alluded yesterday, there was supposed to be
two separate functions. One is really a fundraising at the
Harbor Village Hotel in Monterey Park, originally set for that.
And basically on the Hsi Lai Temple was really geared to the
community function so people will come over--Vice President
will come over to the largest Buddhist temple in the West
Coast, and in fact the head of the temple, you know, whom he
met prior in prior years. So basically that was supposed to be
in the Hsi Lai Temple a community type of event. But due to the
scheduling issues and also the distance between the Monterey
Park and the Hacienda Heights, the schedule just basically
would not allow to have a Vice President going from one place
to the other. So the event of fundraising event was totally
basically canceled in the Monterey Park, that restaurant. But
however the motion in try to raising money started going. So
some people were being contacted, so some people might be
interested in coming in and knew about Vice President coming in
over there. So in light of that situation, we were sort of more
or less put both things together on that.
So the whole thing, the community event was carried on as
original planned as well, and people were welcoming the Vice
President coming in. Afterwards then the luncheon will be
follow on that.
Mr. Burton. So you just added them together at the temple.
Mr. Huang. All together in temple. You know to fit into
that schedule. Now, during that luncheon event, I didn't
believe anybody was speaking, say we're going to raise the
money to do that. I didn't believe I collect any checks or
anybody's sitting in the front collect the money. In terms of
these participants quite a lot of people are just there as
honored guests coming over. Without any doubt some people had
made a commitment prior to that switching of the places. They
were coming in, they were making certain kind of commitments.
So some of the money might have been collected ahead of time,
but some of the money probably being collected afterwards. So
that's how they came about for this events, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I will come back to this in my next round
because I want to ask you a couple questions about it.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, I asked you about--this seems like
yesterday but it might have even been the day before--with
regard to the Hsi Lai Temple. Vice President Gore has claimed
that he didn't know this was a fundraising event. And in fact,
as I understand it his speech was not a request for money but
more of a generic speech about everybody being able to
participate in government. You now know and had a chance to
look at everything about the Hsi Lai Temple--things you knew
about then, things you know about now. Do you have any
information that would say that Vice President Gore did
anything wrong?
Mr. Huang. From my point of view, Asian American was very
grateful, a person with that kind of status the first time
coming over to our community, in particular coming to a
religious group which is not a majority. Basically this country
is a Christian basically. In fact, Mr. Waxman, I was asked by
Vice President's staff members to the question is what Vice
President should speak about during the luncheon. And I said
well, maybe your Vice President was a major in religion in
Harvard University, he will be very qualified to talk about
religious tolerance and things in that direction. I believe
most of the speech he was talking about is inclusiveness and
the participation, about religious tolerance, things in that
nature.
Mr. Waxman. The other part of my question to you is not
just what he had to say, but now that you know everything that
he did--he said he was there, he didn't know it was a
fundraiser, he gave a speech to reach out to the Asian American
community--do you think that Vice President Gore did anything
wrong?
Mr. Huang. No, I didn't. Absolutely not, no.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, do you want to go now or would you--
--
Mr. Shays. Do you want to finish?
Mr. Burton. If you wouldn't mind I would like to while I
still have got this fresh in my mind.
If you received checks in advance and I believe you did,
and this was the only event, how could it not be called a
fundraiser? Didn't you get checks in advance?
Mr. Huang. I did receive checks in advance.
Mr. Burton. So you knew that it was a fundraiser because
you already had checks in your hand.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. As I report to you, Mr. Chairman, I had the plan
as a fundraiser in the restaurant earlier. That motion was
going. So any checks I had received--I didn't remember how many
of them, very probably few. I did receive the checks.
Mr. Burton. You knew the two were going to be consolidated
into one event because of the timeframe so you knew there was
going to be a fundraiser at the temple, is that not correct? I
mean you've already said you knew they were going to be
combined into one event.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, the original plan
fundraising event was canceled. And I didn't recall anybody at
that luncheon as raising money and collecting money. I do know
with such opportunity later on I would be able to inspire more
people to give me more money.
Mr. Burton. Did any of the people that gave you money get
special seating at the event? Did they sit up front?
Mr. Huang. Some of the people willing to making a more
commitment, yes, they were.
Mr. Burton. So this definitely was known as a fundraiser
because you were giving them preferential seating; you did not
give the checks back so you knew this was what was going on.
Now, the--after the meal in the temple dining hall I'm
going back to that, there were some statements made by some
people that there was actual discussion by some of the speakers
about raising money. And we've got people who said, testified
to that event, that, you know, there were there that said yeah
we heard people say yeah we want to raise some money for the
Vice President. You don't recall that?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, you were saying right after that
luncheon?
Mr. Burton. That's what it says, yes.
Mr. Huang. OK. The reason for that is my dash off to the
airport to go to San Jose right away.
Mr. Burton. You know, I know you know you're under oath and
everything. But you said that this was not really a fundraiser.
You did say that they were combined and then you said that
these people got special treatment by sitting up in front where
the Vice President was going to be. I mean you knew this was
going to be a fundraiser at the temple.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I know your characterization about
the event but I repeat I did plan the fundraising in different
places. Some people did give money but people were invited for
that event. But I did not really collect the money in that
event.
Mr. Burton. But they did get special seating and
everything. OK. I see my time has expired. Let me take 5
minutes since I'm next on the list. Mr. Waxman is not here.
Then I'll yield to my colleague because I have to rush out and
make a phone call and I'll be right back.
Another Vice President Gore aide is cited in the press as
saying that the event was intended to raise the Vice
President's profile in the American community. I think I
already asked that question. But was that the purpose at the
temple originally just to raise his profile with the Asian
American community?
Mr. Huang. That's one of the purposes.
Mr. Burton. What was the other purpose?
Mr. Huang. As I indicate to you earlier, Mr. Chairman, this
is the first time a very high ranking government official is
Vice President coming to our community. And also can inspire a
lot of religious following in the Buddhist sect, you know, to
recognize the fact that somebody is really paying attention to
us. Certainly that will raise the profile of Mr. Gore.
Mr. Burton. In an interview the Vice President said, ``I
did not know that the money was being contributed at the time.
The people with me did not know. Obviously something, someone
did not handle it right.'' Now, is that true? Did none of the
people that were accompanying the President like Don Fowler or
David Strauss, did--or yourself, I mean, did any of them know
that money was being collected?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. To answer your question it's not true. I believe
Mr. Fowler knows about that. And also Mr. Strauss probably knew
about that as well.
Mr. Burton. So they knew it was a fundraiser, you knew it
was a fundraiser, Maria Hsia knew it was a fundraiser, Don
Fowler knew it was a fundraiser, but the Vice President who was
with all of you did not know it was a fundraiser.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I can only state that Mr. Fowler
knows about it, knew about it and Mr. Strauss knew about it. I
really can't say anything further about what more than that.
Mr. Burton. When you talked to the Justice Department did
they ask you if any of the contributors got special treatment
at the temple? Did they ask you if they got special seating,
did the Justice Department ask you that?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I do remember I went over the
seating charts with the Justice Department for the detail.
Mr. Burton. Did they ask you if the people who contributed
got special seating?
Mr. Huang. I think they asked everyone I could identify.
Mr. Burton. But did they ask you if people who contributed
got special seating?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Some yes, but some of the people did not even
contribute was also there.
Mr. Burton. But the Justice Department did ask you if the
people----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Burton. But the Justice Department did ask you if there
was special seating for the contributors?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, might not be exactly words that
you're saying but I was asked who are these people, why they
were sitting there.
Mr. Burton. What did you tell them? What did you tell the
Justice Department?
Mr. Huang. Whatever the truth was is--for instance some of
the guests--all the guests is not necessarily sitting on the
table were designated by me.
Mr. Burton. What I want to ask you is this: When the
Justice Department asked you who these people were there and
why they were there, did you say these people in the front row
or these people were contributors, did you tell them that? What
did you tell the Justice Department?
Mr. Huang. Not all of them. Some of them were.
Mr. Burton. Did you tell the Justice Department that?
Mr. Huang. I believe I did.
Mr. Burton. You did tell the Justice Department that?
Mr. Huang. I believe I did.
Mr. Burton. That some of the people listed when they asked
you about it were----
Mr. Huang. Contributors or potential contributors.
Mr. Burton. If I might ask one followup question real
quickly.
Was that in the 302's? We'll check that out. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, you've been asked this over and over
again. There was a fundraising event that was canceled and then
there was the community event at the temple. And as much as the
chairman would like to make you say it was a fundraising event,
it's your testimony that it wasn't a fundraising event. He may
not believe you, but it just seems to me to ask the question
over and over again to try to make you say something that you
don't want to say, is going too far. It's asking the question
over and over and over again.
Now, I don't know what to make of the fact that if people
were going to contribute to go to a fundraiser that was
canceled but they contributed for that fundraiser when they
went to the community event--why they shouldn't be given any
kind of prominent attention. Were people given prominent
attention as you indicated who didn't give any money?
Mr. Huang. I don't think Mr. Knabe, Don Knabe the
supervisor, gave any money. He was a very prominent figure
sitting on the head table as well.
Mr. Waxman. He also happens to be a Republican as best I
know.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Waxman. So I don't see what the--what we're getting
into by having the chairman ask you this question over and over
again. It seems to me almost to the point of--certainly
redundancy but almost harassment. Your testimony is that there
was a community event at the Hsi Lai Temple and there was
another fundraising event but the fundraising event was
canceled, is that an accurate statement?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Waxman, through all these exercises we just
did a little bit earlier, to be fair, I would not deny there
was some checks being collected, you know, through such a
process there. I mean through this event I'm talking about
afterwards or before event we certainly did not collect any
money right at that site.
Mr. Waxman. By the way, the chairman asked you about the
questions from the Justice Department. These were FBI
inquiries, weren't they?
Mr. Huang. Yes. Largely related to that, yeah.
Mr. Waxman. Because as I understand that you were
interviewed by the FBI about all these questions and the
chairman asked you were you asked by the Justice Department
whether some of the contributors were at the head table, that
question would have come from the FBI agents that interviewed
you, wouldn't it?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Not necessarily though.
Mr. Waxman. Because you were interviewed by both FBI and
Justice.
Mr. Huang. That's correct, yes. Simultaneously.
Mr. Waxman. Simultaneously. So different people at the
questioning would be FBI and others were Justice and they would
take turns asking you questions or they were all asking you
questions at the same time.
Mr. Huang. I think mostly they were coming from the FBI
though.
Mr. Waxman. It was one meeting.
Mr. Huang. That's correct, all sitting at one table.
Mr. Waxman. And different people there were asking
questions.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Waxman. And you didn't ask now that question is from
the man from the Justice Department or that question is from
the employee of the FBI.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Waxman. You responded to the question.
Mr. Huang. That's right, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Well, I just wanted to clarify that point. I
have some time left over. I would be pleased to yield to Mr.
Shays. He's here to pursue questions and he can add it on to
his round.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. Thank the gentleman. Actually I'll
take my own time. I appreciate that. But I'll take my own 5
minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Then I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. It's just that this way I control the
time and I appreciate that. And it relates to this issue. I
don't think the chairman was badgering you at all. I think he
was trying to understand something. I learned something new
that I didn't know before and I'm happy he asked the question.
What I learned was that some money was collected before and
some money was collected after. I also learned that you told
Mr. Gore's people, the people that were with him, that there
was going to be a certain area in which financial contributors
or potential financial contributors were going to sit. Isn't
that true?
Mr. Huang. That's true.
Mr. Shays. OK. So you weren't badgered, you told us
something that I didn't know and I don't think the committee
knew and maybe the public didn't know. See, I have two ways to
view Mr. Gore's issue. I can view him that he is extrodinarily
incompetent and so are his people to have him go to an event
that's a major fundraising event and he didn't know it, or that
he knew it and found himself in a very awkward situation, maybe
he wasn't happy about it at the end but it was in fact an
event.
It's kind of like when Mr. Gore made calls from public
buildings and he said well there's no controlling authority. It
was an embarrassing event. He knew it shouldn't have happened.
And by saying no controlling authority he was probably implying
it was soft money, therefore it might be legal because soft
money is not called campaign money. But then the DNC and others
rerouted the funds to hard money contributions that then did
make it illegal.
Now, there was an article in the New York Times of June
12th and the article, what I want to read to you says,
And White House aides are now upset that the reimbursement
scheme will be a central point of the prolonged criminal
investigation and prevent Mr. Gore from putting the episode
behind him. Officials at the Democrat National Committee said
this week that they also felt betrayed by Mr. Huang's varying
accounts of the event, especially after questions were first
raised about its propriety last fall. He kept insisting it was
just community outreach and that he had never ever billed it as
a fundraiser, said one Democrat official who insisted on
anonymity. And of course, that is far from the truth. We just
feel completely mislead by him.
Evidently Republicans aren't allowed to criticize you but
Democrats are. Was this a fair criticism of you?
Mr. Huang. The answer is no.
Mr. Shays. Right. Because in fact if you had mislead them
you would have been breaking the law and you would have been
disagreeing with the very thing that you told us you hadn't.
You had stopped breaking the law after 1994. So I'm going to--
as you know my distinguished ranking member is willing to give
you the credibility to say you're under oath and you're telling
us the truth. And you've told us the truth. They were informed.
They knew it.
Mr. Huang. [Witness nodded.]
Mr. Shays. So the only thing we have going now is you
didn't directly tell the President, Vice President, directly,
is that true? You didn't speak to the Vice President?
Mr. Huang. Absolutely not.
Mr. Shays. So you didn't tell the Vice President but you
told his people. Is that true?
Mr. Huang. Or his people knew about it, yes. The same,
yeah.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Shays. Happy to yield.
Mr. Waxman. The point that I think you're missing is Mr.
Huang said the event was not a fundraising event. And I wanted
to point that out to you. So I yield back.
Mr. Shays. Is that what you said, it is not a fundraiser?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Shays. Mr. Huang, I just want to say to you, I don't
want to put words in your mouth. I don't want Mr. Waxman to put
the words in your mouth. But I am going to demand that we be
precise in this in every instance.
Mr. Huang. I will try to say--thank you very much, Mr.
Shays. At the time because I planned a fundraiser, the
fundraising event was canceled. The place was canceled. So
trying to--the event over there in my mind was not really a
fundraiser. We did not really collect the money, did not even
have people stay in the front to collect the money. However,
with all these months, years going on, I was not really, you
know, sure, you know, that----
Mr. Shays. I'm uneasy by your response. I feel uneasy about
your response. I feel you have given us two answers.
I would ask the chairman, my time has run out. Could I have
a little more time to pursue this?
Mr. Burton. Am I next?
Mr. Shays. Yes. When that's over with.
Mr. Burton. I will yield to Mr. Shays. You may have my time
when yours is over.
Mr. Huang. You know, it is getting to a legal definition on
that. At the time, it was not really my thinking. Right now,
I'm not really sure how it's being categorized. It has to be
done through legal terms.
Mr. Shays. Let's be real clear. I was really eager to go on
to something else, but you testified to the chairman that money
was raised before the event and after the event, correct?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. You also testified to the chairman that you let
people know in the Vice President's entourage that there was a
certain area where contributors were sitting, and both who had
contributed and potential contributors, is that not correct?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. And it would be unfair for anyone in the
President's entourage--Vice President's entourage to
mischaracterize that confusion. You did do that?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Shays. And this in fact was a fundraising event? Money
was raised?
Mr. Huang. Well, I had difficulty, you know, in drawing
lines, Mr. Shays, on that.
Mr. Shays. But it in fact was a fundraising event; is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. There was money, whether before or after it,
being raised, yes.
Mr. Shays. I go to fundraising events. The money comes in
before, it comes in after, but while I'm speaking they don't
hand out the money.
Before you answer, Mr. Huang, I also want to say, your job
at the DNC was fundraising?
Mr. Huang. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Shays. That was your job, and you were doing your job.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Shays. Some are criticizing you, Democrats, for this
confusion. I think you might have been criticized unfairly.
What is your answer?
Mr. Huang. To your earlier questions?
Mr. Shays. Yes. Was this a fundraiser event?
Mr. Huang. I'm not really in a position try to argue with
you, your points, Congressman Shays. I wanted to state there
was some money being collected prior to the event and also the
money being collected after the event, but there's no--based on
my knowledge, there's no money collected at the event. At the
time I think--the whole event, the--mostly happened was in the
front part, a lot of people coming to welcome him. It was in my
view it was a community, basically, event.
Mr. Shays. Is it true that some people came to the event
expecting that they should make a contribution?
Mr. Huang. Yes, yes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
I want to ask you this. Has anyone prior to your testimony
asked you to not characterize this as a campaign event or a
fundraising event?
Mr. Huang. Nobody, nobody.
Mr. Shays. You know what I'm going to do? I have another
line of questioning, but I'll yield back my time on this.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Just to put this whole thing to rest, there was
a fundraising event scheduled. Money was being collected for
that fundraising event. That fundraising event--without a doubt
a fundraising event--it was an event to raise money
exclusively--was canceled. And some of the people who were
going to come to the first event joined with other people in
the Hsi Lai Temple community event. Is that exactly where
things are?
Mr. Huang. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Waxman. So now whether the Hsi Lai event was a
fundraising event seems to me something that Mr. Shays and Mr.
Burton are trying to put into your mouth. If an event is an
event for the purposes of raising money, that's a fundraising
event, as was the event that you were working on that was
canceled. People can go to a community event and when they go
to the community event you as a fundraiser or any of us as
candidates trying to raise money might talk to people before
the event and after the event and urge them to give money. But
it doesn't make it an event, a community event--a community
meeting doesn't become a fundraising event because there may be
fundraising before and after that event.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Waxman. I just want to pin that down, and I hope we've
put this issue to rest. I have no other questions so I'm going
to yield back the balance of my time and maybe we can move on
and get into other areas and complete this very, very lengthy
interrogation of you.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, could you just yield to me for a
second?
Mr. Burton. I would be glad to yield to my colleague.
Mr. Shays. We want to put it to rest. I don't understand
why you said yes. He said it doesn't make it a fundraising
event. Doesn't the fact that you raise money at the event make
it a fundraising event? It may mean that you for some reason
didn't think of it as a fundraising event, but the dang thing
was a fundraising event. He just didn't know--the President is
saying he didn't know it was a fundraising event.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, it's very, very difficult for me to
answer that.
Mr. Shays. It wasn't difficult for you to answer Mr.
Waxman. You seemed very quick to answer that. That's what
concerned me. If you had hesitated and said, well, Mr. Waxman,
this part is true, this isn't. But you were really willing to
say yes to his entire statement, and that's what concerns me.
It seems like you're--you have conflicting testimony before us.
Mr. Huang. As the time goes on, you thinking back on the
thing. I wasn't sure about my state of mind at that particular
time. That's what I want--really want to stay.
Mr. Shays. We weren't talking about your state of mind. He
was talking about whether it was a fundraising event or not. It
turned out it was. The question is, did he know it or not? Then
Mr. Burton gave every indication that you should have known
because you had people sitting at the event who had contributed
for this event and others who were going to contribute because
of the event. That's about as big an example of a fundraiser
you can get.
Mr. Huang. Congressman Shays, I can understand the
different perspective people view this as a fundraiser or not
fundraiser event on that. In my mind at that time basically it
was a community event because Mr. Gore was so much welcomed by
the community people and going in.
Mr. Shays. I have this time, and I'll just say to you it is
true you testified that you let the White House know you wanted
a section of people to sit who were contributors and potential
contributors to this event.
Mr. Huang. That is correct, absolutely right, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Burton. I don't want to prolong this. I think the
record will speak for itself. But I want to make sure that we
nail one point down and that is that the people with Vice
President Gore clearly knew that money was being contributed.
Mr. Fowler did, you said. Mr. Strauss did, you said. You did,
and Maria Hsia did. And you stated that very clearly, and I
just wanted to make sure that's clearly stated for the record.
Mr. Huang. I believe they knew the money had been
contributed prior to the event, and I also knew the money being
collected after the event. That's the statement I want to
address to Mr. Chairman on that.
Mr. Burton. Now, during the Senate hearings on this matter
there was testimony that a number of the temple nuns and monks
destroyed and altered records once news stories about the event
became public. Do you have any knowledge of this beyond the
press reports? Did you--anybody talk to you about them
destroying documents?
Mr. Huang. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Had nothing to do----
Mr. Huang. Nothing to do with this.
Mr. Burton. Didn't know anything about it?
Mr. Huang. I did not know anything about it, sir.
Mr. Burton. Did you ever talk to Maria Hsia about that,
about those documents being destroyed or should she talk to the
people at the temple about having them destroyed?
Mr. Huang. No, not on that subject, no.
Mr. Burton. Were you ever in contact with Maria Hsia or
staff on how to respond to press inquiries about the Hsi Lai
Temple event?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. Were you ever in contact with Maria Hsia's
staff or anyone from the Hsi Lai Temple about destroying or
altering evidence? I think you already answered that. You said
no.
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. On June 10, 1996, there was a fundraiser at the
home of Lew Wasserman in California. Did you help organize that
event?
Mr. Huang. June 10, 1996.
Mr. Burton. Yes. It was at Lew Wasserman's home.
Mr. Huang. I do know Mr. Wasserman, but I don't remember I
ever set foot in that one.
Mr. Burton. So you don't recall soliciting any money for
that event?
Mr. Huang. Let me see. I just need to have a little more
information to make sure.
Mr. Burton. Why don't you look at exhibit 439?
[Exhibit 439 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.378
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 439.
Mr. Huang. Thank you for allowing me to read the things.
I did not plan that event. It was not hosted by me. I
believe I was there.
Mr. Burton. You were there?
Mr. Huang. I was there, yes.
Mr. Burton. Did you solicit any money for that event?
Mr. Huang. I think there might be some checks being
contributed to there. I think Congressman LaTourette or
Congressman Souder was talking about a number of the several
checks I had control in my hand. Some--part--might have a part
of those money going to DNC.
Mr. Burton. Did you solicit that money or were you just the
recipient of it? Did you just receive it?
Mr. Huang. No, the checks basically was in my control.
Whoever went to that event, I just, you know, executed and give
the money to the DNC.
Mr. Burton. But did you solicit the money? Did you ask for
the money?
Mr. Huang. From other people?
Mr. Burton. Uh-huh. Did you ask people to contribute to the
event?
Mr. Huang. Except that particular item, no.
Mr. Burton. You and the Riadys were there; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Why were the Riadys at that event in the United
States and did they travel to the event with Xiaoming Dai?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. They came by themselves?
Mr. Huang. They came by themselves, I believe.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 440, which is right next to that, is a
commit list for the June 10 event. On page 2 of the exhibit,
you're listed as pledging $10,000 for the event. Is that
accurate? And if so, did you pledge to raise that or did you
just contribute it yourself?
[Exhibit 440 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.383
Mr. Huang. I was not contributing myself. I just used the
money that I had control--remember the checks I told you, used
that as a contribution.
Mr. Burton. I see.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman passes.
Let me go ahead and conclude, and then I'll come back to
you, Mr. Shays.
On page 4 of that exhibit, it lists the Riadys as having
pledged $15,000 for that event. Did the Riadys pledge to give
money to that event?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. They did not pledge to give money to that
event?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Why does it say that?
Mr. Huang. I wouldn't know because the--Mr. Chairman, I
mentioned to you there is a $25,000 check probably was given
for that event. That probably explain to you one is $10,000 the
other is $15,000. Total is $25,000.
Mr. Burton. So $10,000 was coming from you and $15,000--but
where did the $25,000 come from? Who did that come from?
Mr. Huang. From Arief. Remember Arief, Soraya. Remember I
have control of the checks in hand.
Mr. Burton. So you attributed that to you and to the
Riadys.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't give and the Riadys didn't give?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. So it was somebody else's money, but it was
given in their name?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Staff just informed me that the Wiriadinatas'
money was pledged the day before at another event and not for
this event. So where did the $10,000 and $15,000 come from if
it was not from----
Mr. Huang. My recollection is I did not have any other
control of the money except the Soraya and Arief.
Mr. Burton. We'll have to check that because----
Mr. Huang. I'd like to know. I certainly would like to
explain to your question as well and fully. If there is
information I'd be glad to explain this.
Mr. Burton. We'll look it up.
So it's--well, I think----
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Burton. Just 1 second, please.
Here we have an event for Dianne Feinstein for Senator, and
the check from the Wiriadinatas was June 15 for $25,000, and it
shows that money going to the Diane Feinstein event. So the
event at Lew Wasserman which was the next day or--this was--
this check was dated the 5th, and the event was the 9th, so the
next day on the 10th there was another fundraiser at the home
of Mr. Wasserman's. The $25,000 from the Wiriadinatas went to
Diane Feinstein's event. So where did the $10,000 from you and
the $15,000 from the Riadys come from at Wasserman's?
Mr. Huang. My best recollection is I did not give the
money, $10,000 or $15,000. Mr. Riady did not give that money
either. My best recollection there was Wiriadinatas' money,
whether Soraya or Arief's, because both of them were giving the
checks in my control. Could be one from Arief, the other one
coming from Soraya on that basis.
Mr. Burton. So they each gave $25,000, and what you're
saying is it may have been his money that was given at this
other one instead of hers, right?
Mr. Huang. My best recollection, that might have been the
case right now.
Mr. Burton. We'll check that. Why was Riady's name on
anybody's list? Why did you show that the Riadys gave $15,000
because they weren't eligible to give at all? Even if it wasn't
their money, why would you put the money in their name if they
were not eligible?
Mr. Huang. I think the list is indicating is the Riadys
attended. I don't know why you interpreted as that they were
giving the money, though.
Mr. Burton. I'll get back to that later. We're going to
talk this over. I don't want to bother you with it at this
point.
Would you like to take a break for about 10 minutes? Would
you feel that you need that?
Mr. Huang. No, I'm OK, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Anybody else need a break? If not, we'll press
ahead.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I think it's Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, did you want to go ahead? I yield
you the rest of my time, and then you can have yours.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. We're not at the temple now. We're
back at--we're back trying to understand the United States-Thai
Business Council meeting. And Mr. Rothkopf, either in a
deposition or testimony before the Thompson Committee,
testified that neither he nor Under Secretary Garten nor Sandy
Kristoff, who is national Security Council, supported launching
the United States-Thai Business Council from the White House
with the President attending. Yet the event did in fact take
place in the White House and the President did attend; isn't
that correct?
Mr. Huang. My recollection, it probably happened just
briefly, yes.
Mr. Shays. And the President did attend that event?
Mr. Huang. My recollection, yes.
Mr. Shays. Do you attribute the success of that event, in
part, to your efforts?
Mr. Huang. I don't think so.
Mr. Shays. I don't mean it sarcastically; I mean it
sincerely.
Mr. Huang. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Shays. Did you keep Pauline Kanchanalak apprised of
your efforts during that----
Mr. Huang. If I did, the most I just sent a memo to Mr.
Rothkopf. That's all I did.
Mr. Shays. Right. But you were in contact with her. That
part is true?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Shays. Do you know if Ms. Kanchanalak was in contact
with anyone at the DNC regarding this event?
Mr. Huang. She might have, but I don't know who she did.
Mr. Shays. Now, the event took place on October 6. Do you
think it's a coincidence----
Mr. Burton. I yield you my time, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Do you think it's a coincidence that Ms.
Kanchanalak's sister-in-law, Georgie Kronenberg, contributed
$12,500 to the DNC?
Mr. Huang. I would have no knowledge on that.
Mr. Shays. Do you think it would be a coincidence that 14
days later Mrs. Kanchanalak contributed $32,500 to the DNC?
Mr. Huang. Again, I would not know.
Mr. Shays. Are you aware of any government official, beside
yourself, who thought this was a smart thing for the President
to do?
Mr. Huang. I don't know about anybody else beside myself
who wrote the memo.
Mr. Shays. Let me get to questions on security which we
kind of touched on. I'd asked you yesterday and I'm going to
say to you again, I did go to the committee, the Cox committee,
and I didn't find anything that would have been more damning
than their statement; and frankly there wasn't a lot of support
material as it relates to--everything is a coincidence.
It's speculation on what--you had clearance, you were
friends with the Riadys, and you had contacts; that's the
extent of it. We have no damning memos there, nothing that
would--could be used, to my knowledge. I didn't see any
material.
But what was of interest to me was that you had stated that
you really didn't have any interest in having a clearance; is
that correct?
Mr. Huang. The clearance to get my job, that clearance has
to be done, though.
Mr. Shays. You had an interest because you had to do it for
your job. So you got it because that's what the job required
you to have. You needed the clearance to do your job; is that
what your testimony is?
Mr. Huang. That's what I understood, yes.
Mr. Shays. You were given an interim Top Secret and then
you were given a full Top Secret and you did not ask for the
SCI, the compartmentalized aspect of security. It's of interest
to me that you were briefed 37 times by Dickerson, and he
estimates that you saw between 10 and 15 pieces of intelligence
per briefing, or what he refers to as 370 to 500 separate
pieces of intelligence, and we attributed--it's called--the
great bulk of material that you saw was what we call ``field
reporting,'' and I use the words ``raw intelligence,'' and this
type of intelligence is considered extremely sensitive, mostly
because it contains sources and methods.
Now, the feeling I get, to date, is you had these
briefings, but they didn't interest you all that much; is that
correct?
Mr. Huang. I shouldn't say I was not interested in it.
That's part of my job and I have to read them.
Mr. Shays. You got your Top Secret briefing on October 25,
1994. You had been working there for how long by then?
Mr. Huang. October 24, 1994, that would be around 3 months.
Mr. Shays. It was the 25th. But October 1994?
Mr. Huang. About 3 months, sir.
Mr. Shays. You already testified before this committee the
SCI clearance you declined. I speculated that you might have
declined because there might have been further investigation of
your background and you might have been concerned that they
might look at the illegal contributions to the Riadys. Is that
a fact, sir?
Mr. Huang. That is not a fact, no.
Mr. Shays. And you were briefed regularly? About every 2
weeks you received a briefing? That's what it amounted to?
Mr. Huang. Approximately. By--mainly by Mr. Dickerson, I
believe.
Mr. Shays. That's the Office of Intelligence Liaison?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. Did you ever sit down with Charles Meissner or
any of your superiors at ITA and discuss what your intelligence
briefings should cover?
Mr. Huang. Commissioner Shays, basically the way it went
Mr. Meissner would process the clearance for me, and later on
Mr. Dickerson was asking me what area you'll be interested to
know.
Mr. Shays. Wouldn't he have tried to tell you the kind of
areas that you should know, based on your job responsibilities?
Mr. Huang. The areas I'd be interested in, yes. When I say
the areas interested in, Mr. Meissner basically have some
informal, not an assignment of division in certain territory
with--his background basically was in Europe, South America,
and particularly in Japan, and he was working with World Bank
before working on Japan. He used to be a banker and also State
Department official previously.
He thought I have quite a few years in Asia and he and I
will cover Asia so we both will be able to have a--cover most,
if not all, the territory in the world. So the Asia basically,
except probably Japan, was assigned to me.
Mr. Shays. I'll go through these questions when my time
comes back.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Huang, did you have any ulterior motive in
getting a clearance or not getting a clearance?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Waxman. Did you do anything improper with any
information you received as a result of getting it, because you
had a clearance?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Waxman. That's really what we want to know. I asked and
you answered it.
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Waxman. What we're doing now is going through a lot of
elaboration.
Mr. Shays. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the gentleman.
Mr. Waxman. That's the essential question we want to know,
and I've asked it and he's answered it, and everything else
seems to be dancing around that issue.
Mr. Shays. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Waxman. You want me to yield to you? Sure.
Mr. Shays. Are you suggesting I shouldn't be asking these
questions?
Mr. Waxman. I'm not making any suggestion. I wanted to get
this on the record. That's my question of Mr. Huang.
Mr. Shays. If the gentleman will further yield, I know a
person can say yes or no. I just want to know the particulars
to be able to judge the validity of his answer.
He is a convicted felon in front of us. Just because he
said he didn't do something illegal doesn't mean I should say
OK.
I happen to think you're a very good man, but I want to ask
these particular questions, and I thank the gentleman for
letting me make that point.
Mr. Waxman. I want the gentleman from Connecticut to know
I'm not questioning his motives. I wanted to get this question
on the record and answered on the record. That's exactly what
we've done, and I think that's the essential question that we
need to know about, did he get a security clearance because of
some ulterior motive? His answer is no.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Waxman. And did he get some information because of the
clearance that he acted improperly with, and his answer is no.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Waxman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. Let me just followup on that real briefly.
I think all of us have had staff members try to get
clearances, because it's very important that we keep government
secrets and classified information classified; and it takes 3,
4, 5, 6 months. I've had some people go 7 months and longer
because you have--the FBI has to question them. They have to go
out in the hinterlands and ask their neighbors, find out what
their background is, all kinds of things.
Mr. Huang didn't go through any of that. Zippo. And I think
that's why Mr. Shays is asking those questions, why was there
special treatment given for the security clearance for Mr.
Huang? Now, let me go on to this Riady thing real quickly. The
Wiriadinatas who were not well off, at least from the
appearances here in the United States, did have a wealthy
father, at least Ms. Wiriadinata did, Hashim Ning.
He wired illegally $450,000 to them to give to the DNC.
They gave that money through you, Mr. Huang, much of it to the
DNC.
Now, in the DNC records, and I bring your attention--I'd
like to call your attention to--what page is that? Exhibit 440,
it says clearly that Aileen and James Riady pledged $15,000.
Now, this was under your watch and you no longer were, you say,
taking illegal contributions; but it does show that they made
that kind of a pledge, and you're saying that the Wiriadinatas
gave that money and you just divvied it up between the $10,000
that was attributed to you and the $15,000 attributed to them.
The records don't show that. The records show that the
Riadys pledged and gave $15,000. Now, that needs to be
clarified. That needs to be clarified because they were not
legally entitled to give that money.
So the burden of proof is on you to show that they didn't
give that money. You said the money came from the Wiriadinatas,
which is illegal in the first place.
Mr. Huang. Again, the report, Mr. Chairman, was not my
report, No. 1. And then the report, if I can read the report,
it say they did not really give money, nothing being received
by them, though.
Mr. Burton. Yes, that's right. It says it was pledged.
Mr. Huang. There's no money being received. They didn't
contribute money, though.
Mr. Burton. This document is dated June 3 before the event.
We don't have the documents after that. We'll check that.
Let me go on to another subject.
Did you take part in a DNC trip to Asia and Hawaii in
December 1991?
Mr. Huang. I did go to Taiwan and Hong Kong, but I did not
go to Hawaii.
Mr. Burton. Did the Justice Department ask you any
questions about that trip when they interviewed you?
Mr. Huang. We're talking about 1991?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. They did not. Do you know who asked you to
participate in that trip?
Mr. Huang. I believe I was invited by--to come along by
Melinda Yee at that time.
Mr. Burton. She was over at the DNC?
Mr. Huang. She was over at DNC.
Mr. Burton. Do you remember what the purpose of that DNC
trip was to Asia?
Mr. Huang. I think it--Chairman Ron Brown was making a trip
over to Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 11 shows the DNC's budget for the trip.
It says the Lippo Bank is paying for the DNC's hotels, meals,
and transportation in Hong Kong. Did you arrange for the Lippo
Bank to pay for that?
[Exhibit 11 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.384
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, the Lippo Group is not Lippo Bank
by the way.
Mr. Burton. It was the Lippo Group.
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did arrange for that.
Mr. Burton. You arranged for him to pay for that?
Mr. Huang. To take care of the hotel, yeah, and
transportation.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays has the time now. He would like to
take a 10 to 15-minute break, so we'll take a break now and be
back in about 15 minutes.
The Chair stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burton. We'll recall the committee to order. Mr. Shays
and, I'm sure, Mr. Waxman will be back shortly. Let me go ahead
and start.
When you went to Hong Kong, you said you arranged for the
Lippo Bank to pay for the hotels and meals and transportation
for the DNC's group, right?
Mr. Huang. Lippo Group, yes, in 1991.
Mr. Burton. Did you agree to raise money for the DNC while
in Hong Kong?
Mr. Huang. I did not promise that, no.
Mr. Burton. You did not promise that. Were you asked about
it?
Mr. Huang. I would ask my colleague to, you know, invite
some businessmen. I was not asked to--I did not promise that.
Mr. Burton. Did you ask anybody to raise money?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. You didn't ask for any contributions?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit No. 109. That exhibit is a memo from
Melinda Yee to DNC Chairman Ron Brown. Ms. Yee said you offered
to host an event in Hong Kong with a goal of $50,000; is that
correct?
[Exhibit 109 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.385
Mr. Huang. The memo indicated that way. I did not really
offer that $50,000.
Mr. Burton. Why would she say that, I wonder?
Mr. Huang. I don't know.
Mr. Burton. She was an official at the DNC at the time,
wasn't she?
Mr. Huang. I believe she was working on Asian American--
Asian Pacific American affairs for DNC.
Mr. Burton. For the DNC?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. She was involved in fundraising?
Mr. Huang. I'm not sure she was or not. At least on the
political side she was.
Mr. Burton. But that memo to Ron Brown from Melinda Yee
says that you offered to host an event in Hong Kong for
$50,000, and you're saying that's not true?
Mr. Huang. I never promised that.
Mr. Burton. You never promised that. Did you say that you
would consider it? Did you say you would do it?
Mr. Huang. She has proposed that I could do that.
Mr. Burton. What did you say?
Mr. Huang. I said, no, I could not promise you on that, and
I would round up some businessmen to welcome Chairman Brown at
that time to come over and have a lunch and dinner meeting with
the people, having speak at this event. That's all. I could not
promise----
Mr. Burton. Did you say anything like, well, I can't
promise I'll raise $50,000, but I'll get a group of men
together that you can talk to?
Mr. Huang. Something in that line, yes.
Mr. Burton. But the indication was that you might be able
to raise some money from them?
Mr. Huang. I believe that's her interpretation, but deep
down in my mind I was never, never committed.
Mr. Burton. You did not commit, but you did get the people
together?
Mr. Huang. I did arrange it because the chairman of the
Democratic party was there, yes.
Mr. Burton. When you arranged it, did they raise any money
at that event?
Mr. Huang. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. Burton. Not what?
Mr. Huang. Not that I know of. I don't think in Hong Kong
they raised any money.
Mr. Burton. So no money was raised. They got the people
together that you said you would get together and she wanted to
raise $50,000 but to your knowledge no money was raised?
Mr. Huang. I didn't even think there was any words of
raising money in Hong Kong that happened.
Mr. Burton. But you did get them together?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit 13 is an itinerary for the DNC while in
Hong Kong. Did the Lippo Group host a lunch and dinner for the
DNC in Hong Kong?
[Exhibit 13 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.386
Mr. Huang. For lunch and dinner for Chairman Brown in Hong
Kong, yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know why the lunch and dinner by the
Lippo Group have money signs next to them? There's money signs
next to them. What does that mean?
Mr. Huang. I have no idea. That was not my memo at that
time. If you want to ask what I mean, Mr. Chairman, is what I
say.
Mr. Burton. But it did have dollar signs by it, didn't it?
Mr. Huang. It did. It did.
Mr. Burton. I wonder why those were there.
Mr. Burton. Were those lunches and dinners fundraisers?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Even though there were dollar signs beside the
notations?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. How much money did you raise, if any, in Hong
Kong?
Mr. Huang. Zero.
Mr. Burton. Did the Riadys give any money in Hong Kong?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. You're sure about that?
Mr. Huang. I'm very sure about that.
Mr. Burton. You're fairly sure of that.
Mr. Huang. I'm very sure.
Mr. Burton. Oh, you're very sure.
Mr. Huang. I'm very sure on that.
Mr. Burton. Did any Lippo employees or Lippo companies give
any money?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. So there was no money that was given that you
know of?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Did Maria Hsia raise any money while in Taiwan
on that trip?
Mr. Huang. I do not know for sure. At least she was trying
to but I don't know whether she did or not.
Mr. Burton. She was trying to?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. How did you know that?
Mr. Huang. She was getting a lot of businessmen together. I
was with her on the trip. I don't know if she did anything or
not.
Mr. Burton. But you knew she was trying to raise money and
she told you that?
Mr. Huang. I believe she was asked by Melinda to do so.
Mr. Burton. Were any funds--you weren't in Hawaii. You
didn't go to the Hawaii part of that trip?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I did not go to Hawaii, no.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if any money was raised during the
Hawaii part of that trip?
Mr. Huang. From the news account in recent years talking
about that episode, the news accounts indicated it might be
what; $100,000 being raised? That's to what extent I know.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't know at that time?
Mr. Huang. I did not know at that time, no.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman, I think I'll go ahead and yield to
you if you're ready. You want to pass?
Mr. Waxman. I'll pass.
Mr. Burton. We'll go ahead. Did you attend a September 27,
1993, fundraising event with Vice President Gore in Los
Angeles?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. Did you bring the chairman of China Resources
Shen Jueren and his assistant to the Gore dinner?
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. Who is Shen Jueren?
Mr. Huang. He was the chairman of the Chinese resources at
that time in Hong Kong.
Mr. Burton. Is China Resources an equal partner in the Hong
Kong Chinese Bank with the Riady family?
Mr. Huang. I'm not sure exactly percentage ownership when
you say the----
Mr. Burton. Very close though.
Mr. Huang. Very close to 50--I don't know the detail at
that time. Could be even less than that.
Mr. Burton. But they both owned stock and owned part of the
bank?
Mr. Huang. The China Resources had invested in Hong Kong
Chinese Bank, yes.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if he Riadys are still partners
with China Resources?
Mr. Huang. Well, since they have a joint ownership in the
bank, yes, the answer is yes.
Mr. Burton. Were you aware that China Resources has been
identified as an intelligence gathering operation with ties to
the People's Liberation Army?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I was not aware then but in recent
event of going through all these investigations being told by
the authorities.
Mr. Burton. You know that now but you didn't know it then?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. Did you arrange any meetings for Mr. Shen while
he was here in the United States?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. What kind of meetings were those?
Mr. Huang. I think I brought him and his assistant visit
the White House and tour the White House. I believe through Mr.
Mark Grobmyer arranged a meeting for them to meet with Mr. Jack
Quinn. I think he was the chief of staff there and was with the
Vice President.
Mr. Burton. Did you meet with the Vice President?
Mr. Huang. Only in the fundraising event. No, excuse me. I
take it back. During the meeting we had with Mr. Jack Quinn,
apparently there was separate meeting that Mr. Ron Brown and
also Mr. Gore was in another bigger room. They came out just to
shake hand. That was the first encounters.
Mr. Burton. So you met him in the White House with Jack
Quinn and Ron Brown. Did you meet with him later that day?
Mr. Huang. Not in that day. The second encounter will be in
Los Angeles.
Mr. Burton. Well, I guess the records must be incorrect.
They said you met with Vice President Gore twice on September
27. You don't recall that?
Mr. Huang. Not separate occasions. Only in--the Vice
President's office is one room. Jack Quinn. The other is bigger
room. There's only once at that time.
Mr. Burton. Now, you had a fundraiser. I guess there was a
fundraiser that day for the Vice President; is that right?
Mr. Huang. No. Mr. Chairman, let me come back a little bit.
When the 27th--was the 27th the date in Los Angeles?
Mr. Burton. The 27th of September.
Mr. Huang. Was Los Angeles or in Washington, DC?
Mr. Burton. In Los Angeles.
Mr. Huang. Los Angeles two times.
Mr. Burton. You did meet with him twice.
Mr. Huang. But in Washington, DC, only once.
Mr. Burton. How much money did you raise at that event in
Los Angeles?
Mr. Huang. The event was partially participated by my
effort. In aggregate probably around $100,000, $105,000.
Mr. Burton. Were all of these contributions from Lippo
employees or Lippo companies?
Mr. Huang. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Burton. So this was money that came from Lippo
employees that was ultimately reimbursed from the Lippo
companies in Indonesia?
Mr. Huang. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Burton. You told the Justice Department that you were
asked to help in a bigger way for that event; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. As early stage, right.
Mr. Burton. How much more did you raise after being asked
to help in a bigger way?
Mr. Burton. I was first being approached by the
representative of DNC to raise something like $300,000.
Mr. Burton. Did you make any extra contributions so Mr.
Shen and his assistant could attend the event?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Did Mr. Shen or China Resources pay or
reimburse any of these contributions?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. You sure about that?
Mr. Huang. At least not to me, no.
Mr. Burton. You told the Justice Department that you did
not discuss reimbursements for this event with Mr. Riady; is
that correct?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, may I trouble you to repeat it.
Mr. Burton. Sure. You told the Justice Department that you
did not discuss reimbursements for this event with Mr. Riady;
is that right?
Mr. Huang. I did not discuss with Mr. Riady on the
reimbursement for that particular event, no.
Mr. Burton. How did you get the money from the Lippo Group
in Indonesia to come into the country to----
Mr. Huang. Except the routine replenishment request which
we do almost monthly or----
Mr. Burton. So this was just a routine thing that would
come in?
Mr. Huang. Right. Whatever checks we pay went, sent it back
as a report and then money coming in.
Mr. Burton. You didn't have to talk to James or----
Mr. Huang. We did not have to talk to them, no.
Mr. Burton. Just the standard operating procedure.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I'll pass.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Shays, would you like me to continue on
this?
Mr. Shays. Yes, please continue.
Mr. Burton. How do you know that Mr. Shen did not reimburse
or pay for any of the contributions?
Mr. Huang. I said it did not go through me.
Mr. Burton. But he could have through another source but
you're not aware of it?
Mr. Huang. I'm not aware of it, no.
Mr. Burton. Let me make sure--I don't want you to make a
misstatement here. It did not come through you. Do you know of
any other source that money came through?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. Burton. Any source?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Did you serve as the head of a fundraising
committee in Los Angeles in 1993?
Mr. Huang. For that particular event?
Mr. Burton. Yes, for that event.
Mr. Huang. As I said, the DNC's representative earlier
tried to do--asked me to host event to raise $300,000. I could
not quite do that.
Mr. Burton. But you were the head of the event there or you
did not host an event?
Mr. Huang. I was not really the main host of the event.
There were some other mainstream people were host. I just join
in.
Mr. Burton. Can you look at exhibit No. 64. It's a memo
from Vida Benavides to Laura Hartigan at the DNC.
[Exhibit 64 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.387
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.394
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. On page 2 of that memo, if you'll read it, it
says that you originally pledged to raise $200,000 for that
event; is that correct?
Mr. Huang. At least----
Mr. Huang. Maybe that's the amount. I'm not sure about that
amount. I reported to, Mr. Chairman, earlier their
representative did come to me, ask me whether I could raise
$300,000 and I could not really commit that.
Mr. Burton. It says here on page 2 that you pledged to
raise $200,000. Did you say you'd do that?
Mr. Huang. I couldn't really be sure whether I did or did
not to pledge that.
Mr. Burton. Do you recall a second meeting with Darius
Anderson on August 30, 1993.
Mr. Huang. I don't know whether the second meeting but
Darius Anderson was a person initially contacted me.
Mr. Burton. Did you present Mr. Anderson with a list of
demands at that meeting?
Mr. Huang. A list of?
Mr. Burton. Demands, asking him for something?
Mr. Huang. I certainly don't recall that, no.
Mr. Burton. You don't recall?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall I gave him any demand on that.
Mr. Burton. Exhibit No. 65, if you could look at that, is
another memo from Vida Benavides. It says you committed
$100,000 if Vice President Gore met with local business and
political leaders. Is that true? Said if he would meet with
local business and political leaders, that you would raise
$100,000. Is that true?
[Exhibit 65 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.396
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, probably I made a commitment for
that but this is tied in to the evening fundraising event
together, this additional request I want to make on behalf of
the community.
Mr. Burton. So you said I think I can raise $100,000 if
you'll meet with some business and political leaders.
Mr. Huang. That is correct from our community.
Mr. Burton. Did you get a small--did you get a small
reception with the Vice President in addition to that
fundraiser? Did you have a small reception in addition to the
fundraiser?
Mr. Huang. There was not a reception, just a group meeting
in the round table, probably 30 or 35 of Asian Pacific American
community business leaders was having opportunity to meet with
Vice President Gore.
Mr. Burton. Was Mr. Shen a part of that meeting?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. The memo also says you committed to raising
$300,000 to $400,000 more for the DNC if significant
appointments are made. Is that true?
Mr. Huang. I cannot be very specific about a number but the
general direction is I want to get message across from
community point of view cannot really continuously give money
without having anything coming back to the community.
Mr. Burton. Well, that's pretty important. It sounds like
there's a quid pro quo where you're saying look, if you'll give
some appointments to some people and maybe you had some
specific people in mind in the Asian American community, we'll
raise $300,000 to $400,000. Is that about what it was?
Mr. Huang. No, my--the concept basically is Asian community
has been let down for so many years, just being constantly
being tapped on the money. The community, political people,
they have little concern about--one hand of the people, the
business side continues giving money. Then political side will
complain saying the issue is never addressed.
Mr. Burton. You were not getting anything for the hard
working money you were giving as a community.
Mr. Huang. From community point of view, as a whole.
Mr. Burton. The schedule says I'm next so I guess I'll go
ahead.
Were you talking about a possible appointment for yourself
there?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. But you were later appointed to the Department
of Commerce.
Mr. Huang. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Burton. The memo says since John Huang himself is up
for an appointment, his early commitment of $200,000 would be
perceived as a buyoff. Did you tell the DNC that?
Mr. Huang. Definitely not.
Mr. Burton. But it does say that in the memo? You have the
memo there in front of you?
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Burton. So they may have thought if the money was
given, it might look like you were trying to buy a position?
Mr. Huang. If what the memo says that way, they are totally
misunderstood my intention.
Mr. Burton. I see. The memo also says these fundraisers
would look foolish if they themselves commit to give without a
guarantee of a possible appointment. Let me go through that
again. The memo also says these fundraisers would look foolish
if they themselves commit to give money without a guarantee of
a possible appointment. Did you say anything like that to the
DNC?
Mr. Huang. As I said already, something has to come to the
community I believe I said along the line but I don't know
exactly words what it says here.
Mr. Burton. That was their interpretation evidently.
Exhibit No. 67 if you could look at that. Do you have that in
front of you, sir?
[Exhibit 67 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.397
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. It's a letter from March Fong Eu to you, John
Huang. This letter is dated 4 days before the September 27
fundraiser and it says, ``White House sources have confirmed
that I will be nominated as United States Ambassador to
Micronesia.'' Was this a type of action that you were expecting
from the administration?
Mr. Huang. I was hoping to at least something in that
nature, yes.
Mr. Burton. So that is accurate?
Mr. Huang. In terms of getting appointment for Asian
American community people, that was accurate.
Mr. Burton. It's a letter from March Fong Eu to you saying
this letter--it says the White House sources have confirmed I
will be nominated. Ms. Eu will be nominated as Ambassador to
Micronesia. That's essentially the kind of thing you were
talking about. I'm sorry.
Mr. Huang. Seems to be good news to me, yes.
Mr. Burton. On the top of the letter it reads copy to JTR.
Is that James Riady?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. That is correct?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Was James Riady getting his friends appointed
to the administration in positions, was he involved in that in
any way?
Mr. Huang. My best recollection is probably Ambassador
March Fong Eu was trying to lobby everybody possible to get
things done. I would not be surprised that Mr. Riady was
contacted as well.
Mr. Burton. Now, James Riady met with then Governor of
Arkansas in the back of the limousine in California when he
pledged to give $1 million. We don't know what the conversation
was but did you ever hear anything like that he was asking to
get more appointments for people in the Asian American
community appointed to positions if he was elected President?
Mr. Huang. During 1992, sir?
Mr. Burton. Yes.
Mr. Huang. I did not, no.
I did not.
Mr. Burton. You don't know whether that was brought up or
not?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't.
Mr. Burton. Was James Riady in any way involved in the two
events with Vice President Gore on September 27?
Mr. Huang. He was not. I was.
Mr. Burton. You were involved in those?
Mr. Huang. I was involved, yes.
Mr. Burton. Let me come back to one other issue real quick.
As I understood just a minute ago, you said that March Fong Eu
kind of lobbied Riady for an appointment. You think he may have
lobbied----
Mr. Huang. He was trying to get everybody in the community,
for instance, writing letters, making calls for that process.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if James Riady did write a letter
to the President trying to get him appointed?
Mr. Huang. I would not know, sir. I would not know.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if he talked to the President or
the Vice President or anybody about getting Ms. Eu appointed?
Mr. Huang. The reason I hesitate, I'm trying to search my
long memory, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not quite certain whether he did direct me to Mr.
Clinton or not, but I do know he did not talk to Mr. Gore.
Mr. Burton. He did not talk to Mr. Gore.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Burton. But he may have talked to the President?
Mr. Huang. I'm saying it is possible he talked to Mr.
Clinton but I'm more sure he might have talked to Mr. Clinton's
staff member, if he talked to anybody.
Mr. Burton. Are you talking about Mr. Riady now?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady, yes.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Riady at that time had been out of the
country for 3 years. He wasn't a permanent resident, didn't
even have a green card. But he may have talked to one of the
assistants to the President. Do you have any idea who that
assistant might have been?
Mr. Huang. First of all, Mr. Riady did not really be out
for 3 years. He was continually in and out, in and out for the
latter part of 1992, beginning of 1993.
Mr. Burton. I know we're splitting hairs here. He had a
home in California but he was living, as you said before,
almost entirely in Indonesia. Anyhow, go ahead.
Mr. Huang. The reason why I'm hesitating was I believe I
learned that Dr. March Fong Eu has asked probably Mr. James
Riady to help out, like she would try to ask a lot of other
people, including myself, to do that. I don't know where I get
the information, Mr. Chairman, and I learned that Dr. March
Fong Eu indicated she has talked to James Riady to solicit his
help as well.
Mr. Burton. I will come back to this in a minute. Mr.
Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, maybe we can avoid having to come
back to it. As I understand the testimony, and I want to have
it clarified, you don't know whether March Fong Eu talked to
Mr. Riady; you are speculating that she might have because she
talked to a lot of other people?
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Waxman. You don't know whether she talked to him and
you don't know whether Mr. Riady actually talked to Mr. Clinton
or Mr. Clinton's staff person about her appointment; is that
accurate?
Mr. Huang. That's basically a fair statement on that. I
don't know for sure. But as I reported to Mr. Chairman earlier,
from Dr. March Fong Eu, she indicated she has contacted Mr.
Riady whether he might be able to help.
Mr. Waxman. But to your knowledge--all you can do is
testify about your knowledge--you don't know whether she talked
to Mr. Riady or Mr. Riady talked to President Clinton or one of
his staff?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, basically.
Mr. Waxman. I have known March Fong Eu for many, many years
and I know that she was talking to a lot of people about her
interest in that appointment which she eventually got. So I
wouldn't be surprised if she talked to you or other people as
well. But I don't know, and so I could not tell you that she
did or didn't, and I gather what you're saying is you can't
tell us whether she did or didn't.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Waxman. But we both know her well enough to speculate
that she probably did because she was pretty thorough.
Mr. Huang. That's right.
Mr. Waxman. I yield back.
Mr. Burton. If my colleague will bear with me, I just have
a couple of more.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to let you do what you
need to and then I will do what I need to.
Mr. Burton. Let me conclude with this. You talked to her
and she talked to you about an appointment, a possible
appointment. You think she talked to a lot of other people and
she indicated that she had talked to Riady as well.
Mr. Huang. I think so, yes.
Mr. Burton. Did anybody, did she or James Riady or anybody
that you know indicate that Mr. Riady contacted anybody at the
White House about her appointment? Anybody?
Mr. Huang. I really can't recall any specifics on that,
sir.
Mr. Burton. You don't know of anybody that Mr. Riady talked
to by Mr. Riady about her appointment?
Mr. Huang. I don't. By the way, Mr. Chairman, this is
really a lower appointment.
Mr. Burton. I understand.
Mr. Huang. From a community point of view. Actually Dr.
March Fong Eu would like to have a much higher regional place.
Mr. Burton. We all would like to have higher appointments.
Let's go back to these events. Was James Riady involved in
getting any of his friends appointments to the administration
that you know of, any appointments whatsoever?
Mr. Huang. If there is any connection with myself and other
persons from the Lippo Group----
Mr. Burton. Or anybody.
Mr. Huang. Possibly there was another person who asked me
to submit certain things to the White House personnel but
nothing ever materialized. If anything ever materialized
related to the Lippo Group, it is myself and also the other
person is called Charles De Queljoe who was appointed to an
advisory committee in the U.S. Trade Representative, one of the
advisory committees. Not on a full-time basis, on a regular
meeting type.
Mr. Burton. Was that along with Charlie Trie? Wasn't
Charlie Trie appointed to that too?
Mr. Huang. No, that's a separate committee, definitely
separate and also at a different time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Could you look at exhibit 68? On page 2, No.
39. It says, James Riady working with John Huang on an Asian
event. If that is not September 27, do you know what Asian
event that refers to?
[Exhibit 68 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.399
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.400
Mr. Huang. There was no Asian events. The only Asian event
around that time would probably be a September 1.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if James Riady was involved in
getting Charlie Trie appointed to the committee he served on?
Mr. Huang. That would be a surprise to me.
Mr. Burton. You don't know about that?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Huang, I'm going to read to you some
statements made in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
campaign fundraising report. These statements are based on
classified, secret information that we cannot talk about here.
However, the information is a distillation or a condensation of
a variety of sources that the committee was authorized to make
public. The report states, ``A single piece of unverified
information shared with the committee indicates that Huang
himself may possibly have had a direct financial relationship
with the PRC Government.''
Is that true? Did you have a direct financial relationship
with the PRC government?
Mr. Huang. Absolutely not.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Huang, you worked for the Riady family for
nearly 10 years, right?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Burton. Even after you stopped working for them, you
have remained in contact with them, correct?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. In fact, over the last several years while you
have not been working, you haven't been working for them, they
gave you close to $40,000, $18,000 one time and $20,000 another
time as a gift?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. So you would consider yourself a close friend
of the Riady family?
Mr. Huang. The friendship remains, yes.
Mr. Burton. The Senate report stated the following relating
to Mr. Riady. The committee has learned from recently acquired
information that James and Mochtar Riady have had a long-term
relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency. The
relationship is based on mutual benefit, with the Riadys
receiving assistance in finding business opportunities in
exchange for large sums of money and other help. Although the
relationship appears based on business interests, the committee
understands that the Chinese intelligence agency seeks to
locate and develop relationships with information collectors,
particularly persons with close connections to the U.S.
Government.
Is that true?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, despite the fact I implicated Mr.
Riady during this process, I personally really have a very high
regards for the Riady family, in particular Mr. Mochtar Riady.
I have no reason to believe they would do things of that
nature, sir.
Mr. Burton. They do have very close ties with many entities
within the Chinese Government.
Mr. Huang. Yes. But for different reasons.
Mr. Burton. Then you would say the findings of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee would be incorrect? I will read
to you again what it says.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, based on my relationship or the
working relationship with the Riady family, and also
understanding the visionary philosophy of Mr. Mochtar Riady,
the family has been so evangelical, I seriously doubt--I don't
have any reason to believe that.
Mr. Burton. Let me end up with this and then I will yield
to my colleagues. Oh, I am next? Then I will go ahead. Here is
a quote that I have used a couple of times in the hearings
already by Senator Lieberman from the Democrat party. It says,
``Nonpublic evidence presented to the committee demonstrates a
continuing business intelligence relationship between the
Riadys and the People's Republic of China Intelligence
Service.''
That is consistent with what they had in their report, but
you still don't believe that is the case?
Mr. Huang. Sir, I don't.
Mr. Burton. Do you have any explanation of where this
information could have come from? For instance, do the Riadys
have business relationships with the Government of the People's
Republic of China? They do have business relationships with the
People's Republic of China, don't they?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't know where the information is coming
from, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. China Resources Holding.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, could you yield to me?
Mr. Burton. Sure I will yield to you.
Mr. Waxman. We did go over all of this within the last
several days. He has been asked and he has answered to his
knowledge about all of these points. I don't know what interest
it serves to go over them all again. You may not agree with his
answers but those are his answers and they are on the record.
We have already put them on the record.
Mr. Burton. There is a reason why we're doing this, Mr.
Waxman, I assure you.
China Resources Holding associated with the Peoples
Liberation Army owns a 50 percent interest in a Hong Kong
Chinese bank with the Riadys. So there is a connection there
financially with government entities. You worked closely with
both the Riadys. Do you have any information that would show
that the Riady family has any relationship with the PRC
intelligence gathering agency?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Burton. In any of the 232 phone call contacts that you
had with the Lippo entities while you were working at the
Department of Commerce, did you ever discuss your work at the
Department of Commerce with them?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe I had 232 phone
calls with the Lippo Group on that, but the number indicated
from the report was, to answer your question, I don't believe I
have anything to do with those things.
Mr. Burton. If it is all right with you, Mr. Shays, I am
going to yield the balance of my time and I will come back to
this later in the day. I have an emergency phone call. I will
yield to you.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. I want to say where I come down on
this issue and I realize we all can disagree. But when I read
the Cox report, it is kind of guilt by association in one
sense. Because whoever does business in China is going to deal
with some government entity, and in order to do business in
China, you have to participate with some business entity in
China which in most cases is governmental. It could be they are
security people, it could be they are military people, because
they all seem to own businesses there. So I am just more
comfortable being on the record by saying that it just suggests
tremendous need for vigilance, but I probably could take almost
any U.S. Government business that does something in China and
then connect them somehow to the military or intelligence.
I am not going to say that as a result of that, it means
that we don't have to be concerned. I just want to say that I
have made a determination that I can't on the face of it feel
comfortable saying because there is this relationship,
therefore, they are somehow tied with the military or the
intelligence.
Mr. Huang. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Shays. But I do want to say, it requires tremendous
vigilance, because the fact is those government--every
business, almost every business has a government relation, and
the government then gets involved in intelligence and military
and so on.
I want to get back to just concluding the issue of your
security clearance, and I am going to introduce it by saying to
you that Ike Skelton, probably one of the most respected, not
probably, one of the most respected Members of Congress on the
Armed Services Committee asked GAO to do a report. It was
entitled Inadequate Personnel Security Investigations Pose
National Security Risk. In this report to Mr. Skelton it says,
at the end of fiscal year 1998, about 2.4 million DOD active
duty military, civilian and contract employees held personnel
security clearances; 96,000 employees held confidential
clearances; 1.8 million held secret clearances; and 524,000
held top secret clearances.
From 1982 through September 1999, 80 Federal employee
contract personnel, 68 of whom were employeed, were convicted
of committing espionage against the United States. The point is
a whole host of people have a security clearance. We have
learned that there are approximately 700,000 people who have
clearance who are past due for review that haven't been looked
at. Over 700,000. In this report, we learned that duty
personnel security investigations are incomplete and not
conducted in a timely manner. As a result, they pose a risk to
national security by making DOD--I'm sorry, the time has ended.
Mr. Waxman, you have the floor.
Mr. Waxman. Go ahead and complete your sentence.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Waxman passes and I'll take the
time.
Mr. Waxman. No, I'm yielding you----
Mr. Shays. No, I don't want to be yielded.
Mr. Waxman. Then I'll just pass.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I mean no disrespect, Mr. Waxman, it
just means that you can reclaim the time if you don't like
something I'm saying.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Shays, it is all yours.
Mr. Shays. You're passing.
Mr. Waxman. I'm giving it all to you.
Mr. Shays. You're passing and I'm claiming the time, my
time. Thank you.
In the 530 cases we reviewed, DOD granted clearance
notwithstanding that 92 percent of the 530 investigations were
deficient in that they did not contain the information in at
least one of the nine investigative areas required by the
Federal standards for granting clearance, which include
confirming that subjects' residency, birth, citizenship and
employment records, check-in records for prior criminal
history, divorce and financial problems, and interviewing
character references. Seventy-seven percent of the
investigations were deficient in meeting Federal standards in
two or more areas and 16 percent of the investigations
identified issues that the Defense Security Service did not
pursue pertaining to individuals' prior criminal history,
alcohol and drug use, financial difficulties and other problems
that could be cause to deny a security clearance.
You were given an interim clearance, and we learned from--
and this isn't a complaint against you, it is a complaint
against the system, but I want to understand why you--I want to
understand your view of your responsibilities. Scott Kaminsky,
a former investigator reviewer at OPM looked at your case,
before the committee. It says Kaminsky told the committee that
when he learned Huang still traveled frequently to Asia and had
a number of contacts there, including at least one bank
account, he made a character level E notation on his reviewer
action sheet for Huang. The E notation signified a potential
security problem and was used to alert Commerce OS officials
who nevertheless failed to act upon it. After the OPM report
was forwarded to Congress, neither Burns nor Busker returned
the file to OPM to request an overseas check. Hence the
overseas check did not happen and Huang was granted a final top
secret clearance on October 25, 1994.
Based on records of your travel overseas, not any potential
national background but your travel overseas, that notation was
not followed through.
I would like to just know some questions in regards to
classification. Without going into any classified information,
would you tell us what types of information you were briefed
on?
Mr. Huang. Congressman Shays, I hope you can appreciate a
lot of these things probably I cannot disclose on that. But the
only general direction basically will be largely public
involving economics or some of the potential business projects
on that basis, sir.
Mr. Shays. What regional areas were you briefed on?
Mr. Huang. Basically I was briefed on Taiwan, the big China
region, which is including Taiwan, Hong Kong and China.
Mr. Shays. It has been suggested in some of the documents I
have looked at that you had a particular interest in China. Can
you explain your particular interest in China?
Mr. Huang. I haven't finished that. Also maybe some of the
material relating to South Korea and also maybe Southeast Asia
on that.
Now I am going to answer the question of particular reasons
on China. It may take a few minutes to do that. Am I OK?
Mr. Shays. You have the time.
Mr. Huang. The knowledge I learned from the schooling and
all the experience is that the whole world is based on the
division of labor concept. In other words, in the free
enterprise system, whoever has ability to do a certain thing
the best should be able to do that, or should be allowed to do
that. It should not be a person, say, like a jack of all
trades. You have got to be a barber, a banker, a doctor or be a
seamstress. If any person starts doing that, nothing is going
to be done right.
So the situation is, you will find out after the Second
World War, maybe around 50 percent of the manufacturing, the
goods certainly around the world were made in the U.S.A. And
nowadays probably it is around 15 percent. That doesn't mean
the United States is going backward, it is just a matter of the
pie is becoming larger. I'm not talking about geographic area
is larger, but the economy, the size is becoming bigger, the
GNP of various countries becomes larger, and the back world
countries become more prosperous and moving forward on that
basis.
Over that process, some of the things, for instance, we did
in the 1960's, in the textile industries, we gradually had to
give it up. So Japan started picking it up. Gradually you find
our steel industry, they are going to pick it up. Then
gradually going downwards, Japan could not hold onto the
textile and steel industries, it has gradually gone to
Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and gradually gone to
Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Burma, all these. Do you
want to switch your light off first?
Mr. Shays. Who has the time? Mr. Burton. He passes. Mr.
Waxman?
Mr. Waxman. Let him finish his sentence.
Mr. Huang. May I?
Mr. Shays. Yes.
Mr. Huang. During this transition, it becomes a challenging
situation for the country or region holding on the top
position. You are facing a country with a top-notch position,
facing are we going to carry off the textile industry and how
are we going to replace that with something better that the
other people did not do in order to maintain No. 1 in the
world. This is my concept behind this thing. However, during
the process in giving up, how do you handle with the people in
those kind of industries, so-called gradually going to sunset
an industry, you cannot have people say, here are the pink
slips, go home and--because you are dealing with a social
issue. Afterwards if they go home, they don't find a job, they
don't get skilled, who is paying for it? The taxpayer is still
going to pay for it. The government is going to give them
unemployment compensation. They are going to fall into the
welfare line. All these things are going to happen.
My concept was Americans should identify a certain industry
we can do best and always trying to do the best so the rest of
the world is always going to come to us. If they want that kind
of thing, they have to buy from us or secure from us or they
have to pay a good, decent price, a value for those things. But
in the meantime, whatever we can produce, invent it, our
ingenuity----
Mr. Shays. Whatever we can produce?
Mr. Huang. Whatever we do best, the product we command at
the top, very soon can be duplicated by the other people.
Mr. Shays. Overseas?
Mr. Huang. Overseas, or the other economies. For instance,
as I have said, the steel industry was No. 1 and gradually
shifting over to the developing country, go to South Korea, go
to Korea, South Korea, in Brazil. Right now Russia and China
are going over there. Now, as you know very well, in light of
that sector, despite we are developing new things, trying to be
No. 1, for instance right now we go to high tech, if we go to
the film industry, not necessarily has to be high tech in the
film industry, nobody is making the best film as we do here in
the United States. If you want to enjoy a movie, they have to
get it from the United States. For those industries being
imitated or duplicated from us, that becomes the biggest threat
to us because they are going to take that business away from
us.
Then how do we handle that, especially on those industries
has a tremendous amount of employment impact to our economy.
For instance, let me mention the automobile industry. I think
virtually it is about 20 percent of our economy, I hope I am
right, is tied in somewhat with the automobile industry.
Assuming this automobile industry being totally shifting over
to a foreign nation, how do we handle the employment situation
here in this country? On one hand, you have capital investment
into this industry already which is set, and then you have a
labor industry. You cannot have the labor and say in order for
all of us to compete with Japan making automobiles, Koreans
making automobiles, you guys have to lower your wages.
Mr. Shays. Tell me what you are attempting to ultimately
answer in my question.
Mr. Huang. What I am trying to say is in order to continue,
maintain this very large sector of the people continuing to
enjoy a high standard of living, the only way is to expand your
market shares overseas. Because your unit cost for your
investment for that kind of industry, by selling more cars
overseas will gradually go down. So people in the United States
can continue to enjoy the continued high wages, high living
standard. So China becomes one of the emerging markets, which
is the Asia Pacific American region. India is another one.
Korea is another one. These are the markets I would be very
interested in seeing what they would do.
Mr. Shays. You were responding to the question, why was
your focus more on China?
Mr. Huang. China is one of the potential largest markets. I
like to see any projects being given by China to somebody, a
joint venture--I like to see there is a chance of giving it to
the Americans.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Waxman, you have the floor.
Mr. Waxman. I'm going to pass, because I want those who are
holding this hearing to complete their interrogation because we
have been here a long time. But I thought that was an excellent
statement of free trade as a way to improve the economy not
only of the United States but other places in the world. I was
going to suggest you should go to the Department of Commerce,
but you have already worked there and it looks like you have a
pretty solid grasp of what you think our international
interests are in terms of trade as it relates to us and other
places in the world as well. I thank you for that response.
I don't want us to get into a philosophical discussion
because this interrogation ought to be about whatever the
Republicans want to ask you, I hope not more than five or six
times--get it pinned down, get your answers, get the record--
and then we should let you go home, because you have been here
an extraordinary, almost 20 hours. I don't think I have ever in
25 years in the U.S. Congress sat through a hearing with one
person being put thorugh so many detailed questions and answers
for this long a period of time. I commend you for your stamina.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Shays. If the gentleman yields back the balance of the
time, I claim 5 minutes. Interrogation is a strong word. I
think we have been very respectful of you. We will be here
tomorrow if we don't finish tonight, so we hope we finish
tonight, but we don't want you to go longer than you want to
and you will need to let us know when that time comes.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, I assume you're acting as the
chairman at the moment. Why don't we narrow the questions down
and get to new areas instead of repeating old areas, rather
than threatening this witness that he is going to be here
tomorrow, because I don't think it would be fair to ask him to
be here tomorrow and have to answer over and over and over
again questions that have already been asked, and questions--
maybe you believe it is respectful, I don't think it has been
disrespectful, but these are certainly questions that I would
call a fishing expedition, over and over and over again.
Mr. Shays. Does the gentleman yield back his time? Can we
start over again?
I will take the time. That is the fact, we will be here and
we will try to be very respectful of your time. I just would
love that we had been able to do this, ask all our questions
after our committee had asked you questions and then we could
have asked more targeted, but that is not the way it is so
we'll just deal with it and we will go on with it.
The question I had is Ronald Reagan would have been proud
of that answer and I mean that sincerely, but it doesn't
explain why you were focused on China when your superiors
didn't believe China was your area of attention.
Mr. Huang. Congressman Shays, as I alluded to here this
morning or yesterday, there are some political turf battles
going on in the Commerce Department. My direct superior was Mr.
Meissner, the Assistant Secretary who has all the
responsibility for the geographic areas for the whole Commerce
Department in the historical sense. But his territory was taken
away. Under his guidance, he is trying very hard to gain those
things back. So he has asked me to look into these areas.
That's what I fulfilled my duty to do that.
Mr. Shays. The sad thing is we have 1.8 million who hold
secret clearance and a half a million who hold top secret
clearance. That is a lot of people. And to justify your
basically getting involved over a turf battle to make sure--it
is not a complaint on you, Mr. Huang, but it sure is a
complaint of the system. I think your answer to the question
what type of information you requested was basically economic.
Once you signed--my understanding is that besides having 34
briefings, that you received cables from 25 to 100 that were
delivered daily to you. Is that correct?
Mr. Huang. Congressman Shays, I think by the notes here, I
received 37 briefings. It is not by my recollection.
Mr. Shays. Thirty-seven. You are right. Thank you.
Mr. Huang. And also from the report indicating I had access
to 25 to 100 classified cables on a daily basis. That doesn't
mean I would go into the 100. I don't know exactly how I did.
Mr. Shays. When you got secret classified documents, did
you sign for them?
Mr. Huang. I did.
Mr. Shays. Where did you keep these documents?
Mr. Huang. If I had to keep it over, then there is a safe
in the office that has a combination. I only had it.
Mr. Shays. Were you the only one with that combination?
Mr. Huang. I was the only one who had a combination. If I
turn it back, I would give it to the Secretary. The Secretary
would handle those things.
Mr. Shays. Did you ever take classified documents out of
the Department of Commerce?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. I don't mean--and I want to be clear on this--I
don't mean because you had some grand design to take them out,
I don't mean because you were a spy. I'm not suggesting that.
I'm just asking if as an employee you ever took these out. I
see your counsel saying no, but I want to know what you know.
Mr. Cobb. Actually I was asking him whether he ever took
them on a trip.
Mr. Huang. I definitely don't recall on that. The only
thing I want to qualify for that it might be one of the very
rare occasions I had to go to the State Department for the
meeting with Secretary Winston Lor--remember I alluded to
earlier, he has an interdepartmental meeting, whoever has
responsibility for Asian American--I might have had a chance to
put it in the special envelope, to carry it with me and then
bring it back. That's about all.
Mr. Shays. And you didn't take it out and you were allowed
to take it out of the Department of Commerce; that was allowed
or not? Were you in that instance doing something you shouldn't
have done?
Mr. Huang. I don't recall exactly what the rule was. I
vaguely remember it might have been a situation, a special
situation. You're testing my memory. I really don't remember.
Mr. Shays. Your testimony, though, under oath is that you
only took one document out and you took it to the State
Department?
Mr. Huang. I might have had one chance in doing that. I
don't know for sure at this moment even. I'm not even sure I
did it even on that one occasion or not.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I have one last area, and I want to make sure that I'm not
being redundant to the chairman, but let me go and ask these
questions and say, I am convinced that the Riadys are your
friends and you are their friends and James Riady, the son of
Mochtar?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. But you were friends with both. And you maintain
that friendship. So I am going to tell you, it is very
plausible to me that you will maintain close relationships
while you were at the Department of Commerce.
My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I would love--it is your
turn now, but if you would yield to me.
Mr. Burton. Are you finished?
Mr. Shays. I would love to ask some more questions just to
finish up. I am getting toward the end.
Mr. Burton. Without objection, go ahead.
Mr. Shays. So I am using your time, Mr. Burton. Thank you.
I would like to know how often you met with the Riadys
during your stint between July 1994 and December 1995,
basically 18 months. These I would think would be fairly
memorable events because they are close friends and kind of
your patrons.
Mr. Huang. The more exact number is the number of times
they visited the United States, Mr. Riady visited the United
States, Washington, normally as a courtesy basically just to
meet with him. It would be safe to say, probably four or five.
Mr. Shays. Four or five only?
Mr. Huang. Approximately like that.
Mr. Shays. It wouldn't be something like 10 or 15? It
wouldn't be that number?
Mr. Huang. In that 18 months' time?
Mr. Shays. Yes. You are more comfortable with that four or
five?
Mr. Huang. It probably would be every time that he was in
the United States, to be safe. So I don't know how many.
Mr. Shays. Your recollection is it was only four or five
times?
Mr. Huang. The number probably would be increased a little
more because we are covering 18 months' time now. The original
four or five times, maybe within a year or so.
Mr. Shays. Did you accompany James Riady to any meetings
during his stay in Washington?
Mr. Huang. Yes, there is one I can distinctly remember.
Mr. Shays. Was it only one?
Mr. Huang. Probably more. I can only remember one
distinctly right now.
Mr. Shays. What was that meeting regarding?
Mr. Huang. The one I distinctly remember is the one we
visited the White House.
Mr. Shays. Which you have talked about. This is the one
where you went to the radio? Another one. I'm sorry. What was
that one, then? Tell me what it was.
Mr. Huang. The one I distinctly remember was in around
September 1995. We visited the White House and had a chance to
meet with Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Shays. In September 1995?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. While you were employed at the Department of
Commerce, did you continue to arrange things for Mr. Riady when
he came to town? Whether or not you met with him, were you a
facilitator for him in any way? Did you call up people? You get
the gist of my question. Did you continue to be--and I'm not
suggesting that that is illegal--I'm just wanting to know what
happened.
Mr. Huang. It may have happened. The most likely, probably,
is if it happened, probably it is a hotel or the limousine
situation.
Mr. Shays, there might be another case I just thought of
involving a radio address situation, I also went with.
Mr. Shays. That was the second time, when you were in the
White House when he was there for the President's address?
Mr. Huang. Right. But I don't know whether it was that or
not. I can't remember.
Mr. Shays. I would like to just conclude by asking, on
September 9, 1994, James Riady entered the White House at 9:38
a.m., and did not leave until 2:30 p.m. He was scheduled to
visit with Mark Middleton. Were you at the White House with Mr.
Riady at all on Friday, September 9, 1994? It was a 4\1/2\ hour
meeting.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, I don't recall. One of the ways to
look at would be my Commerce diary. On the diary, whether I was
there or not.
Mr. Shays. The thing that I feel pretty comfortable having
this conviction is that you had phenomenal relations at the
White House. You were there, I am impressed that you were there
a lot. You had contacts. It would seem to me that it is very
plausible that if Mr. Riady had an opportunity to be at the
White House, one, you would have known about it and two, you
would have probably been helpful, and that is not illegal.
Mr. Huang. I basically agree with that, sir, yes.
Mr. Shays. Given that, can you tell me why Mr. Riady would
be at the White House for 4\1/2\ hours?
Mr. Huang. At this moment, Mr. Shays, I really don't have
any recollection about these events at this time.
Mr. Shays. I may try to refresh your memory later on, but I
would yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. Mr. Waxman is not here. Mr. Shays,
do you want to go ahead?
Let me continue my questioning, then. We are moving along
fairly well, finally. Hopefully we will be able to conclude
today. If not, we will be awfully close. I don't want to
denigrate you, Mr. Huang, but I understand Mr. Waxman, while I
was gone, was saying that you're the kind of person that ought
to be at the Department of Commerce. And this isn't my opinion,
but Jeffrey Garten who was the Under Secretary of Commerce over
there after all this came out, said he wasn't the kind of
person who ought to represent the American government. The only
reason I say that is because of the problems that you have had.
I think it is important that on the record and before this body
that both sides and both opinions be expressed very clearly.
That is why I put that in the record.
Earlier I asked you some questions about Maria Hsia. You
worked with her on fundraising events, isn't that correct?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. I'm going to read you a passage from the Senate
Governmental Affairs report that relates to Ms. Hsia:
``The committee has learned that Maria Hsia has been an
agent of the Chinese Government, that she has acted knowingly
in support of the Chinese Government, and that she has
attempted to conceal her relationship with the Chinese
Government.'' We're talking about the Chinese Government in
Beijing, the PRC. ``The committee has also learned that Maria
Hsia has worked in direct support of a PRC diplomatic post in
the U.S.,'' i.e., she was spying. A diplomatic post here in the
United States and she was working for the PRC.
Did you know that?
Mr. Huang. I don't even believe that.
Mr. Burton. You don't believe that?
Mr. Huang. Right. I have no reason to believe that.
Mr. Burton. They got this from intelligence sources.
Mr. Huang. Based on the dealing, my knowing Maria Hsia, she
might have tried to get the business, but I don't know whether
it is going to go to the intelligence side and acting as a spy
or not.
Mr. Burton. Let me read this one more time: The committee
has learned that Maria Hsia has been an agent of the Chinese
Government, that she acted knowingly in support of the Chinese
Government, that she attempted to conceal her relationship with
the Chinese Government, and the committee has also learned that
Hsia has worked in direct support of a PRC diplomatic post in
the United States.
You didn't know any of this?
Mr. Huang. I don't.
Mr. Burton. And you don't believe it?
Mr. Huang. I don't.
Mr. Burton. Are you aware of any contacts that Maria Hsia
had with officials from the Government of the People's Republic
of China? Are you aware of any contacts she had with them?
Mr. Huang. I don't know openly, but I can imagine the most
things that she made a contact is just for her immigration
business, occasionally had to go to the Chinese consulate. That
is to the extent I know.
Mr. Burton. Based on classified information, this is secret
information, some of it I cannot give out but I will read to
you what the committee said: The committee has received
information that Hsia worked with Ted Sioeng and John Huang to
solicit contributions from Chinese nationals in the United
States and abroad for Democratic causes. Hsia and Huang in
particular worked together to identify non-U.S. citizens
overseas who might contribute money to Democratic causes.
Is that correct?
Mr. Huang. I don't believe it would be non-U.S. citizens.
But if it was a non-U.S. citizen, if there is any money being
raised, probably at least the party has a green card, to the
extent I know, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. I don't know if the committee ever came to that
conclusion. That you and Maria Hsia worked together to identify
non-U.S. citizens overseas who might contribute money to
Democratic causes, you say you----
Mr. Huang. You are saying non-U.S. citizen. I am not
disputing on that part, if they have a green card but is still
a non-U.S. citizen. That is to the extent she might have, she
probably has.
Mr. Burton. Like the Riadys?
Mr. Huang. Not right now.
Mr. Burton. But like the Riadys back then.
Mr. Huang. Before, yes.
Mr. Burton. Let's go on to another subject here.
Did you discuss the February 19 event with Mark Middleton
before it took place? This is February 19, 1996. It was a
breakfast event with the Vice President.
Mr. Huang. Probably I did, yes.
Mr. Burton. You did.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Did Mark Middleton attend the dinner on
February 19, 1996?
Mr. Huang. I didn't think he attended. He probably stayed
in the back probably the most, I can remember now.
Mr. Burton. He stayed in the back?
Mr. Huang. In the dining room.
Mr. Burton. But he didn't go to the dinner himself? He just
watched?
Mr. Huang. He stayed in the back and just watched.
Mr. Burton. I wonder why he didn't attend the dinner. Do
you know?
Mr. Huang. Basically it was an Asia Pacific American as a
focus at that time.
Mr. Burton. He just didn't think he should be involved?
Mr. Huang. I don't know what was the reason, but basically
it was an Asian Pacific American dinner.
Mr. Burton. Middleton did attend the breakfast on February
20 as shown in exhibit 324, if we can put that up. It is a
photograph of him with Vice President Gore. Can you tell why he
attended--do we have that picture?
In any event----
[Exhibit 324 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.401
Mr. Cobb. He has the picture, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huang. I have the picture.
Mr. Burton. Do you know why he did attend that event?
Mr. Huang. I believe one of the participants during the
dinner and breakfast was a lady called Nina Wang.
Mr. Burton. Nita Wang?
Mr. Huang. No, Nina. Nina Wang. I think Congressman
LaTourette yesterday was referring to the head table. That was
one of the persons sitting at the table, Nina Wang. Mr.
Middleton is apparently friends. Maybe he was just being
concerned, trying to be more courteous, to say Nina Wang was
there, he just wanted to tag along. I didn't remember he was
sitting at the table, though.
Mr. Burton. Do you know if he contributed to that event? I
will yield myself 5 more minutes here.
Mr. Huang. To the best of my knowledge, no, he did not.
Mr. Burton. Did he solicit any money for that event?
Mr. Huang. No, he did not.
Mr. Burton. And he did bring a guest?
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Burton. And her name is Nina?
Mr. Huang. Nina Wang.
Mr. Burton. Did you discuss any of the contributions that
were made for that event with Mr. Middleton? Did you talk about
any of the contributions that were given at that event? Did you
talk to Mr. Middleton about them?
Mr. Huang. I don't specifically remember I talked to him
about the money, but he can view the situation over there,
roughly how many people coming in. I'm pretty sure he was aware
how much per ticket.
Mr. Burton. But you didn't go into any detail on that?
Mr. Huang. No detail on that, no.
Mr. Burton. On February 19, 1996, there was an event and
Ernie Green gave $6,000 to this event in a check dated March 8,
1996. This event took place on February 19, 1996 but the check
was dated, postdated to March 8. Trie is listed as the
solicitor on that check. Several days before the $6,000
contribution was made, Green deposited $2,500 and $3,500 cash
into a Riggs Bank account.
Do you know Ernie Green?
Mr. Huang. I met him before, yes.
Mr. Burton. How do you know him?
Mr. Huang. I believe it is through some function through
Charlie Trie.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Green was present at the February 19, 1996
event. Can you tell me why he was there and who invited him?
Mr. Huang. He just came by himself. He came alone. As a
friend of Mr. Trie.
Mr. Burton. Nobody invited him?
Mr. Huang. He knew of the event. I did not really--
basically I did not invite him on that.
Mr. Burton. Do you know who did invite him? Was it Charlie
Trie or Mark Middleton or who?
Mr. Huang. The best I can guess, probably through Charlie
Trie.
Mr. Burton. Charlie Trie.
Exhibit 328, if you could take a look at that, sir. It is
titled Comm 0326. Do you see that?
[Exhibit 328 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.402
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Burton. It is a page from your diary, from shortly
before the February 19 event. You have a reference to Chu-Lei,
Mark Middleton, and Ernie Green and Hong China Limited. What do
those notes refer to?
Mr. Huang. The Hong Kong China Limited related to Nina
Wang. Nina Wang right after the Hong Kong China Limited, there
is a Chinese connector. That is Nina Wang's Chinese name.
Mr. Burton. Were you ever in contact with Green about that
event?
Mr. Huang. I certainly don't recall contacting him about
it. I'm pretty sure he knew about that event because it was the
first Asian Pacific American fundraising event ever.
Mr. Burton. On the bottom left of that page, there is a
reference to another company. Can you read your note and does
it refer to a China Hughes or what does it say?
Mr. Huang. No. Remember you read, Mr. Chairman, read the
Hong Kong China. There is confusion. Could be China Hong Kong,
the name for Ms. Nina Wang's company. In other words, it could
be a mistake, it could be Hong Kong China or China Hong Kong. I
wasn't sure at that time.
Mr. Burton. I see. On March 8, which was several weeks
after the event, Mr. Green wrote a check for $6,000 to the DNC.
It was credited to the February 19 event. Why did Mr. Green
contribute that $6,000?
Mr. Huang. If I remember correctly, at the end of the
event, he told me he was going to give some money since he was
attending.
Mr. Burton. The event cost $12,500, didn't it?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Burton. Why did he only give $6,000?
Mr. Huang. It was not unusual. Some of the people did not
give money at a particular time or give less money. That was
their intention. There is different consideration. Some of the
people might have been giving money way ahead of time;
historically it has been known. I would not really in that
urgency say you come to this event, give me the money. And I
was quite lenient because of that relationship basis. If I knew
some people were going to give more money, I was very much
willing to wait.
Mr. Burton. So you let some people in for less money
because you were trying to raise as much as possible.
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Burton. That's what I thought. Who gave you that check?
Did Charlie Trie give it to you?
Mr. Huang. I thought----
Mr. Burton. Excuse me just 1 minute.
Mr. Huang. I don't recall exactly.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. If you would continue.
Mr. Huang. I have a vague memory it might have been sent in
by mail. Sent in by mail.
Mr. Shays. Would you tell me why this check came in so long
after the event? It was because it was sent in by mail?
Mr. Huang. No, no, no. He was delaying writing checks, I
believe.
Mr. Shays. Did you discuss this contribution with anyone,
whether it was Charlie Trie or Ernie Green?
Does Mr. Waxman want the floor because my time is out?
Thank you.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, let me proceed to answer your
question. As I just reported to Chairman Burton, Mr. Green was
in the event. At the end of the event, he said, I'll give you
some money. I'll send you some money.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Green's bank records indicate that on
February 21st and 23rd, Mr. Green deposited $2,500 and $3,500
respectively in cash into his bank account. Do you have any
knowledge of these cash deposits by Mr. Green?
Mr. Huang. No, I don't.
Mr. Shays. Do you have any knowledge whether Mr. Green was
reimbursed for this contribution by Charlie Trie?
Mr. Huang. I do not know.
Mr. Shays. Why was the $6,000 Green contribution credited
to this event?
Mr. Huang. Because he attended that event. And I got the
check later on.
Mr. Shays. Nina Wang made contributions to this event as
well. Do you know Nina Wang?
Mr. Huang. I didn't think she made a contribution to this
event, sir.
Mr. Shays. Excuse me, I misspoke. She did not make any
contribution for the event due to her immigration status. Let
me further ask, she is not a U.S. citizen?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Nor does she hold a green card? She does not
hold a green card?
Mr. Huang. No. To the best of my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Shays. In one interview, I think with the FBI, you
indicated that you knew that Nina Wang's company had been the
target of a takeover attempt by the Lippo Group. Which company
was this? Did you ever have any dealings with Nina Wang
regarding this takeover?
Mr. Huang. I think it was relating to Hong Kong China or
China Hong Kong, which I always flip up. It may be Hong Kong
China Limited.
Mr. Shays. Did you ever have any dealings with Nina Wang
regarding this takeover?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not.
Mr. Shays. Did you ever discuss Nina Wang with the Riadys
or other Lippo Group personnel?
Mr. Huang. I personally did not discuss on that. I would
not--I take it back. The Lippo Group people might have known
that Nina Wang attended that event.
Mr. Shays. Who, therefore, invited her to the event?
Mr. Huang. I believe she came in because of Mark Middleton.
Mr. Shays. Evidently we have an exhibit that indicates that
Nina Wang was seated at the head table. Do you know why she
would have been? Did Charlie Trie or Mark Middleton request
that she be seated at the head table?
Mr. Huang. I believe that Mark Middleton requested that.
Mr. Shays. Again she did not give any money for this event?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. Did anyone affiliated with Ms. Wang give any
money to this event?
Mr. Huang. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. Shays. Why would Ms. Wang be seated at the head table
if she did not give any money for the event? What made her so
important?
Mr. Huang. No. 1, she is probably the wealthiest persons in
the world, the woman in the world. That I learned. And also the
reason I knew that reputation is because--my knowledge from
previous employment with the Lippo involving the takeover
battle. She did not relinquish. She was very tough lady. She
was giving money to a lot of charitable organization, a lot of
school is what I understood. One of the conservation I believe
she has done something for--just 1 second, Mr. Shays.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I have learned--sorry. I have learned through
Mr. Middleton she probably did already giving some money to
the--Clinton's birthplace, some foundation or library of that
sort. In other words, from her what was quite, quite big.
Mr. Shays. It's our indication that you indicated to the
FBI that you found out after the event that Wang had given
$50,000 to the Clinton Birthplace Foundation. First off, what
is the Clinton Birthplace Foundation?
Mr. Huang. The best I know is it might be doing something
for Clinton's birthplace. They're trying to buildup something
over there.
Mr. Shays. So there's lots of ways for people to contribute
even if they can't contribute to campaigns, it appears. How did
you find out that she had contributed this $50,000?
Mr. Huang. I believe through Mr. Middleton.
Mr. Shays. Did you have any idea at the time of that that
Wang was giving funds to the Birthplace Foundation or any other
group?
Mr. Huang. That I do not know of, sir.
Mr. Shays. Did you ask Trie to take Wang to her hotel after
the event and did you ask Trie to do anything else special for
Wang?
Mr. Huang. I didn't hear the first part.
Mr. Shays. I'm sorry. I'm going too quickly.
Mr. Huang. I'm sorry.
Mr. Shays. No, you do not need to apologize. You've had a
long day.
Did you ask Trie to take Wang to her hotel after the event?
Mr. Huang. I did not do that, no.
Mr. Shays. OK. Did you ask Trie to do anything else for her
if not that?
Mr. Huang. No, not through me, no.
Mr. Shays. Now Miss Wang also attended an event on May 13,
1996. We had just been talking about an event in February 1996.
You--evidently, you had some notes about this May 13th event in
your diary. You kept a diary--just a calendar.
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Shays. Do I start my new time? Yeah, OK.
This is exhibit 417, and it's a listing of the head table
for the May 13th event. It indicates Nina Wang sat at the head
table. Is that accurate as far as you're concerned? This is
exhibit 417.
[Exhibit 417 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.403
Mr. Huang. Yes, I did.
Mr. Shays. Yes, you did what?
Mr. Huang. I did know. She was arranged at the head table.
Mr. Shays. And the question is, did--do you know if Wang
contributed any money to this event?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Shays. Again, if not, why was she at the head table?
Mr. Huang. This time--it's different now. This time was
recommended by Mark Jiminez.
Mr. Shays. Mark who? I'm sorry.
Mr. Huang. Mark Jiminez. J-I-M-E-N-E-Z, something like
that--E-Z, E-Z. I'm sorry. Jiminez.
Mr. Shays. Exhibit 432 is a page from your diary. We call
it a diary, but is that your calendar?
[Exhibit 432 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.404
Mr. Huang. It's sort of notebook because I did not have any
secretary.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Huang. So I was trying to----
Mr. Shays. OK. Fair enough. From your notebook from the
period around May 13th it states, Nina Wang, quote, public and,
quote, 100 Nina, end of quote. Did you solicit Nina Wang to
contribute for this event?
Mr. Huang. No, I did not.
Mr. Shays. Do you know if anyone else asked her to give to
this event?
Mr. Huang. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Shays. Are you aware of any contributions that Wang may
have made to any other entities in order to attend this event?
Mr. Huang. That I don't know either.
Mr. Shays. OK. Now, let me get back to James Riady. I think
I've been--I have been candid with you, and I think you've been
candid with me, but I'm left a little uncomfortable with your
response about the number of times you might have remembered
the Riadys. These are two important players. I do realize this:
If you ask me what I did upteen years ago and over what span--
so I want to take it slow enough. But during the time you were
in Commerce that's what I'm interested in. And it may be that
by the time we're finished with these questions you will have a
number of events with them, and we'll just say they happened.
Or I might draw some other conclusions. But I at least want to
know what the facts are.
My sense is that you really were at the White House with
Mr. Riady, James Riady, more than once or twice during this
period. And this is a longer video than I'm particularly happy
about, but would you put that video in?
[Video played.]
Mr. Shays. This is--the event is September 10th White House
radio address. And if you don't mind I'm going to want you to
identify the people. There are just a few people that I think--
and we can fast forward it after--these are people that you
don't really know right now.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Shays. These are not your guests, correct?
Mr. Huang. No.
Mr. Shays. They're not a lot of American people who get to
participate in this. This is a big deal. Now are these your
guests?
Mr. Huang. That's James and Aileen Riady.
Mr. Shays. And that's his wife.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Shays. Right. Yes.
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. So they're going to talk for awhile. If you
don't mind, we can just speed it up. No, I don't want you to do
it that way. I'm sorry.
They have a conversation. Now--and this is who?
Mr. Huang. That's Mr. Riady's guest.
Mr. Shays. Who is Mr. Riady's guest?
Mr. Huang. I can't spell his name. I believe he was
minister of education of Indonesia.
Mr. Shays. And this looks like his daughter.
Mr. Huang. The family, probably.
Mr. Shays. Yeah, and his wife. And that's James Riady.
Mr. Huang. I remember that the name is Kowodiman or
something.
Mr. Shays. There was a part of me that didn't want to show
it because it's a very touching interaction of family with the
President and that happens all the time. But I thought, you
know, there are not many of my constituents who have this
privilege.
Now this is a gift. What is the gift? It's a knife or some
kind of ceremonial----
Mr. Huang. Something like that, ceremonial style gift.
Mr. Shays. Is that you with your back to us?
Mr. Huang. Yes.
Mr. Shays. OK. You had a suit on. They didn't.
Mr. Huang. Thank you. I shouldn't be, right?
Mr. Shays. Is the sound purposely off? OK. Right. While I
was talking. Thank you. You can put it back on.
In a second we're going to have the next people come up.
I have constituents, if they get to look at the White House
it's exciting. If they get to go in for a visit, it's a thrill.
But they don't get to meet the President and go to the Oval
Office. And this is kind of a special opportunity.
Now we're going to have some people come up, and I would
like you to tell me who the others are.
Mr. Huang. That is the Ambassador.
Mr. Shays. Turn the sound down.
Mr. Huang. That is Ambassador of Indonesia to the United
States and his wife.
Mr. Shays. OK.
Mr. Huang. At that time.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Riady has come with a minister.
Mr. Huang. Ambassador at that time, sorry.
Mr. Shays. Ambassador. And he--also, the gentleman before I
believe was a government official. Who is this again? That is
right now?
Mr. Huang. This is my successor, Lippo successor, Joe
Hanna.
Mr. Shays. So he works for the Riadys.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Shays. And that's Mark Middleton.
Mr. Huang. Yes. Then that's me. I have a coat on. I didn't
have a tie on.
Mr. Shays. He put his arm around you and not Mr. Riady. You
are good friends, and you should be proud of that. You have a
long-term relationship with the President.
Now is there anyone else?
Mr. Huang. To the extent probably that was it, Mr. Shays.
That's probably all the people, yeah.
Mr. Shays. Now, the reason I'm showing this is--the reason
I'm showing this to you is this really should bring back the
recollection of the meeting the day before. Because the day
before Mr. Riady was in the White House at 9:38 a.m., and
didn't leave until 2:30. And whether or not--I want to be very
clear with you, Mr. Huang. I want to be very clear with you on
this point. Whether or not there is a White House document that
says you were there, it is important for you to recall whether
or not you were there. And it is not going to be difficult for
you to remember. Because this is a very memorable event.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Shays, thank you for bringing this tape in.
You know, I'm also getting the age and going around so many
things at a time, some things I remember more, much better than
the other. But this will help me on this.
Mr. Shays. I'm going to concur. I say it for the record. I
pass no judgment. But now, having seen this, can you provide us
any information?
Mr. Huang. I tell you I did not attend the so-called--that
few hours that you talking about the----
Mr. Shays. You weren't in the White House.
Mr. Huang. I was not in the White House.
Mr. Shays. Do you know what they talked about?
Mr. Huang. That I don't know.
Mr. Shays. OK. You didn't talk to Mr. Riady at all about
this event?
Mr. Huang. I should not say I did not talk to Mr. Riady on
that, because you saw my pictures were there, and I was with
him.
Mr. Shays. I mean about the event the day before. It's hard
for me to imagine that as close as you are to the President and
to Mr. Riady that you would not have had some conversation
about that event.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. No, I had a conversation. I was not there during
the day.
Mr. Shays. I am clear on that. You were not there at the
event. I want to know if you talked to Mr. Riady at all about
the event.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Please, go ahead.
Mr. Shays. No, that's fine.
Mr. Huang. Congressman, the best I can recollect, and this
is the time, this few days you were talking about, the $100,000
to Mr. Hubbell. Remember? We're talking about that. This is
probably some people saw that as a help situation, helping him
totally. It's not really a job arrangement. I believe these
things is done through Mr. Hubbell. It's not through me.
Mr. Shays. You think the visit to the White House was
done----
Mr. Huang. The arrangements through Mr. Hubbell. And if
there is any meeting--because I indicated to you earlier I did
not--I was not in the White House. I don't know whether the
White House visit was also arranged by Mr. Hubbell or not,
which I wouldn't be able to speculate on that.
Mr. Shays. But the bottom line is you didn't arrange the
Friday meeting, but somebody did.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. And we know that he went in to see Mark
Middleton. Do you know--did he talk to you at all to tell you
if he met with Bruce Lindsey or do you know if--in fact if he
met with Bruce Lindsey?
Mr. Huang. I really cannot rule out any of your
possibilities, because I don't know.
Mr. Shays. Your testimony is you can't rule it out, but you
don't know.
Mr. Huang. That's correct.
Mr. Shays. That was a memorable event that Sunday which you
mentioned. There was the event before which you now recall and
know that you did not arrange, according to your testimony, nor
did you have much of a dialog with Mr. Riady about it. You
speculate that it might have been involved with the Hubbell--
that Mr. Hubbell may in fact have provided this opportunity.
And it was during the time of the $100,000 payment by Mr. Riady
to Mr. Hubbell. That's a speculation on your part that he
arranged that but you didn't.
Mr. Huang. I didn't. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Shays. It had to be arranged----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I shouldn't use the word speculate. I'm pretty
sure I know that Mr. Hubbell made the arrangement on that.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. How did you know that?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Probably Mr. Riady mentioned about that to me.
Mr. Shays. OK. I yield back the time. Thank you. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the time.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. The gentelman yields back the
balance of his time.
I think what we'll do now is go to the counsel. Each
counsel member has 30 minutes. I'm not sure they're going to
use all of that. They have some questions that they feel need
to be asked that Mr. Shays and I haven't asked or Mr. Waxman.
So we will now yield 30 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Could I ask a question before, Mr. Chairman? I
have no other questions. I just want to ask, in terms of the
process, both sides will ask questions and then will we be
given just a short opportunity to make a comment?
Mr. Burton. Yes. In fact, if Mr. Waxman is here or you or
I, we'll have closing comments. Then we'll be through. I don't
think----
Mr. Shays. I have no other questions to ask. That's
correct.
Mr. Burton. Yield to the minority counsel.
Mr. Schiliro. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, this is just a point of clarification.
Earlier when we talked about Maria Hsia, Mr. Huang was asked a
question about that. The chairman read to you the majority
report. There is also a minority report on Maria Hsia. Just to
make it part of the record we ask unanimous consent----
Mr. Burton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Schiliro [continuing]. Just to read a short excerpt.
Mr. Burton. That's fine.
Mr. Schiliro. The minority report said of Maria Hsia that,
The committee received nonpublic information connecting
some activities she undertook while an immigration consultant
in the State of California in the early to mid-1990's to
Chinese government officials. This information did not involve
her activities with respect to fundraising, and there was no
information presented to the committee during its investigation
that connected Hsia's fundraising activities to the Chinese
government. In an affidavit submitted to the committee, Hsia
strongly objects to this allegation, outlines her ties to
Taiwan and the U.S., and describes her activities while an
immigration consultant in California. In light of the
incomplete investigation of the committee on this issue, the
minority believes that the committee lacks sufficient
information about Hsia to endorse or rebut these serious
allegations. The fact that the majority emphasizes these
allegations throughout its report without putting the
allegations in context or addressing this information is
troubling.
I only put that in the record, Mr. Chairman, because the
witness before had a different view of Maria Hsia. I don't know
if he has any response in light of this information.
Mr. Huang. No, my response to Mr. Chairman stands. At least
still I didn't have any reason to believe she was conducting
that kind of activity as indicated by the report I'm talking
about.
Mr. Schiliro. Thank you. We yield back.
Mr. Burton. The gentleman yields back his time.
The majority counsel now has 30 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Huang, how are you sir?
Mr. Huang. Good afternoon.
Mr. Wilson. It's been a very long day for you. I realize
that. I'll try and be as quick as I can.
Obviously, one of the reasons we have hearings like this is
because we want to learn things. One of the things we are very
interested in was the relationship between Mr. Charlie Trie and
James Riady, and I think before the hearing began we had an
impression that there wasn't much or any of a relationship
between Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady. And I wanted to followup and
ask you a few questions about Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady.
Mr. LaTourette asked you questions, I believe it was the
day before yesterday, and he asked at any time during your
acquaintance with Charlie Trie did you ever discuss with him
any travel that you might have made to Jakarta, and you
answered that he had some business contact in Jakarta.
And Mr. LaTourette then asked was that the subject of
conversations that you and he might have had, and you said he
was talking about business contacts, businessmen he knew in
Indonesia.
And then later on we learned that Mr. Trie actually went
over and had a meeting with Mr. Riady in Jakarta. If you could
please tell us as much as you can about that meeting.
Mr. Huang. I did not know that, the detail of the meeting.
Basically, the best I learn is he visited Mr. Riady. Mr. Riady
had made a comment to me and said, despite the fact that both
were in Little Rock earlier--as you know, Mr. Trie's
background, he owned the restaurants in Little Rock. And Mr.
Riady also runs a daily banking business, the Worthen Bank in
Little Rock. They hardly had a chance to meet, but although
they knew sort of each other they knew the existence of the
persons. He made a comment to me. He said, well, Charlie Trie
is not a bad guy, you know, and--but he indicating certainly in
his words denied a lot of resources, relative speaking,
compared to the Riadys.
Mr. Wilson. Did you have any part in arranging the meeting
between Mr. Trie and Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Wilson. No? Just following up on that one exchange you
had with Mr. LaTourette, Mr. LaTourette said specifically, are
you aware of any relationship between the Trie family and the
Riady family. And your answer to Mr. LaTourette was, no, he
had--to the best of my knowledge, he had no relationship with
the Riady family. And I wanted to followup and ask you whether
you thought that was an accurate characterization.
Mr. Huang. That depends on the period of time. Are you
talking about business relationship? The most closest one we
can talk about is that meeting and also probably something Mr.
Trie might be able to work something in China because he, Mr.
Trie, has some extensive--at least appear to have extensive
relationship or contacts in China. And at that time Lippo also
developing something in China. And in light of overall
situation as I just made a comment that Riady and Trie's
meeting, maybe Trie might be helpful in helping with his
service to the Riady family on Lippo in some projects in China.
In terms of that relationship, that's--at that point, all
words, if talking about the relationship, that's the first time
I knew there was a relationship. Prior to that, I really did
not have any knowledge that they had any relationship.
Mr. Wilson. What I'm trying to get at here is you were
asked if there was any relationship and you said, no, to the
best of my knowledge, he had no relationship with the Riady
family.
After that, we showed you a copy of a receipt from a
limousine ride, and it became clear that--at least you told us
that you had a limousine go to Dulles Airport and pick up Mr.
Riady. And then there was a little bit of skirmishing over
details, and then it became clear that later that night after a
fundraiser Mr. Riady actually stayed and, as did you, with Mr.
Trie in an apartment at Mr. Trie's place. And the concern that
when Mr. LaTourette asked you whether there was any
relationship at all, and your answer was no. I wanted to
followup on that.
Mr. Huang. I like to clarify that. My interpretation is,
family relationship I says no. Now, I took it as that way.
Mr. Wilson. And if you could briefly explain that. Because
I don't understand that, the family relationship.
Mr. Huang. The family relation like a blood tie or brother-
in-law or that kind of situation, sir.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Well, following up on the time that you and
Mr. Riady stayed with Mr. Trie in the apartment, who arranged
that?
Mr. Huang. I did not arrange that. I have learned from Mr.
Riady at that time, Mr. Riady indicating that Mr. Trie invited
him to stay there. He said he decided to stay there instead of
staying at a hotel. He told me that. I did not arrange that,
the arrangement--accommodation arrangement on that, no.
Mr. Wilson. So it's fair to say, then, that Mr. Trie
arranged this independently with Mr. Riady.
Mr. Huang. That's my belief, yes.
Mr. Wilson. And do you know how he did that? Was it a
meeting or a telephone call?
Mr. Huang. That I would not know, sir, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Did you know that before you picked up Mr.
Riady in the limousine? Did you know that Mr. Riady and
yourself would be staying with Mr. Trie at Mr. Trie's
apartment?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. The best of my recollection is Mr. Riady
mentioned to me he also made the hotel reservation but he also
was invited by Mr. Trie and he was indicating he decided to
stay with Mr. Trie.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Now, following up, we had a very brief
discussion about after the campaign finance matters became very
public and you were receiving a great deal of media attention,
you ended up staying at Mr. Trie's apartment for a period of
time. And you indicated it was 1 to 2 weeks that you stayed at
Mr. Trie's apartment. Can you recall with any more specificity
how long you actually stayed at Mr. Trie's apartment?
Mr. Huang. I cannot give you the exact time. I think during
my----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Wilson, I distinctly remember during the,
you know, Judicial Watch, the deposition period of time and I
reported, Mr. Chairman, I was move around from places to
places. And final night I went in to Mr. Trie's apartment in
Watergate. And during that deposition period of time, I was
staying with Mr. Trie's apartment.
Mr. Wilson. How did you arrange that? Did he call you and
make the offer or did you call him and ask him if you could
stay at his apartment?
Mr. Huang. I believe I initiated that. I was wondering if I
could stay there because the Watergate apartment was relatively
secure. You know, media cannot really just knock on your door
and go in to film you. He also recommend--you know that's not--
and maybe it's a mutual situation. But I believe I initiated
that, whether I could stay there, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Have you ever stayed there before, apart from
the time with Mr. Riady?
Mr. Huang. I'm not certain right now. I--definitely I
visited that apartment before. Whether I stay overnight or not,
if--I cannot recall. In the event--I really cannot recall ever
staying there. I did visit that apartment a few times before,
yes.
Mr. Wilson. Now, I would like to move along just a little
bit to another subject. You had mentioned that you heard that
Mr. Trie might be helpful with ventures in China, and I wanted
to know whether you ever communicated that to Mr. Riady.
Mr. Huang. No, that--I learned that in information from Mr.
Riady when he--after the meeting between Mr. Riady and Trie in
Jakarta he briefly he mentioned he might have Mr. Trie to do so
in China, something of that nature. But was not really in the
specific form as I was shown on that translated report
yesterday.
Mr. Wilson. When did Mr. Riady tell you that Mr. Trie might
be helpful in Chinese ventures?
Mr. Huang. I believe it was around that period of time,
September, you know, around September, maybe--in that period of
time, yeah.
Mr. Wilson. Before that, had Mr. Riady ever asked you any
questions about Charlie Trie?
Mr. Huang. I simply did not recall that, as I made a
comment to you earlier, just now. Mr. Riady had made a comment
after the joint meeting in Indonesia. He said he's basically
not really a bad guy on that.
Mr. Wilson. Did--have you ever had any--have you had any,
in the last couple of years, any discussions with Mr. Riady
about Antonio Pan?
Mr. Huang. Not with Mr. Riady on Antonio Pan at all.
Mr. Wilson. Do you know where Mr. Pan is right now?
Mr. Huang. To answer your question, no, I don't know. But I
can tell you what I knew before, what is his background. He
came from----
Mr. Wilson. Just for the last couple of years. I'm not
interested before that.
Mr. Huang. Right. That's what I'm trying to say. He came
from Taiwan. Maybe he set foot in Hong Kong sometimes, could be
in China. But I understand he migrate his family to New
Zealand. So he might have a status in New Zealand. That is the
extent I know. Certainly some time he was traveling to the
United States during that period of time, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Have you had any conversations with Mr. Pan in
the last 2 years?
Mr. Huang. No, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Apart from Mr. Trie and you discussing how Mr.
Trie visited Mr. Riady in Jakarta, do you know--did you
participate in setting up any visits for other government
officials or former government officials with Mr. Riady in
Jakarta?
Mr. Huang. You talking about government official of the
United States?
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Huang. During my DNC time or Commerce time or when?
Prior to that?
Mr. Wilson. We can take both. During the time that you were
at the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Huang. Sir, I don't believe so. In the Commerce
Department I'm trying to stay away anything from the Lippo, so
I wouldn't be able to do that. DNC, I made arrangement not for
official, for the daughter of the Chairman Fowler. She was
traveling over to the--the first time as a student I think from
Hawaii. Being a father was a little concerned, coming to the
foreign land. He came to me. He said, I understand you have
some friends in Indonesia, somebody who can take care of my
daughter. I said, I'll be glad to do that. Which I did. Again,
she is not official, but as a tie with some official, title at
least the chairman of DNC.
Mr. Wilson. But you didn't--as far as you recall--you
didn't set up any other meetings with----
Mr. Huang. I don't--I'm trying to search my memory whether
I did or did not. I want to be very careful on that.
Mr. Wilson. That's understood.
Just moving to something else. We've had a little bit of
difficulty coming to a conclusion as to when Mr. Riady left the
United States. And there have been a few exchanges about this
subject, and you've told us that Mr. Riady traveled--he had a
house in California. He obviously has at least one premises
overseas, at least one house overseas, and it's a little
difficult to come to a full understanding of that. You were
living in California in the early 1990's, correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Riady also had a house in California in
the early 1990's?
Mr. Huang. In Brentwood, yes. Brentwood.
Mr. Wilson. You were working for one of Mr. Riady's
companies in California.
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Wilson. And I know it's been--we're sort of going back
and forth on this, but are you able to pin down with any
specificity when Mr. Riady actually moved away from the United
States and set up his principal residence in Indonesia?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Wilson, the definition of a moving away--
it's very, very difficult for me to do. You know, if it's
talking about a totally moving out and places, the furniture
and everything was packed everything like that, if that's the
definition, probably was not done until fairly, fairly--was not
too long ago from here.
Mr. Wilson. Was his family in the United States in the
early 1990's?
Mr. Huang. Let me put it this way: The family enjoyed the
United States. The kids would love to stay in the United
States. Apparently, there was a business situation. They had to
spend a lot of time over there to develop the business.
Mr. Burton. Excuse me. Let me interrupt. What percentage of
the time did the family spend in the United States?
Mr. Huang. OK. I'll be very honest on that part.
Mr. Burton. I hope so.
Mr. Huang. Around that period of time, approximately--most
about 3 to 4 months a year.
Mr. Burton. So 8 months of the year, the majority of the
time, they were living in Indonesia.
Mr. Huang. Starting from--conservatively saying probably
starting from 1990.
Mr. Burton. 1990. So from 1990 on, the vast majority of his
time was spent in Indonesia.
Mr. Huang. That's fair.
Mr. Burton. That's how you determine a permanent residence.
So his permanent residence then was----
Mr. Huang. Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, maybe you have a different
way of looking.
Mr. Burton. Talking about, you know, here in the United
States we decide I think for the most part people's permanent
residence is where they spend the majority of their time.
You're saying that his family was over there probably three-
fourths of the time.
Mr. Huang. No, what I'm--the two-thirds of time is staying
over there physically. When I say the permanent residence--in
other words, you get green card holder is supposedly you have a
permanent residency. That's why I said the permanent residency.
I'm not saying the definition of the----
Mr. Burton. I know he had a green card, but you said that
he spent 8 months of the year, his family did, over in
Indonesia.
Mr. Huang. That sounds right, and family.
Mr. Burton. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Just to followup on this, because we keep
getting it pinned down to a sort of about 1990, what was
different between 1990 and 1989? I mean, what change did you
notice? Why are you saying 1990 and not 1989 or 1988?
Mr. Huang. The reason I'm saying this way is probably at
the beginning of a period of time, although he still maintain
very heavy travel schedule, but family probably was still
staying here. And Mr. Riady himself just going back and forth
until later date which I was saying, conservatively saying, is
around 1990 of that time.
Mr. Wilson. You're telling us today that the family--there
was a change of the family status in 1990?
Mr. Huang. I believe that's the situation, yes.
Mr. Wilson. Just shifting a little bit to illegal conduct.
We discussed extensively 1992 and 1993 and a number of
contributions that were reimbursed by Lippo organizations, and
you told us very clearly that after that conduct, after the
1993 contributions, you didn't do anything else that you
thought was illegal. Is that correct?
Mr. Huang. With the Lippo?
Mr. Wilson. At all.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. I think, Mr. Wilson, you will recall I said
there is one contribution in 1995, came in--I think yesterday
one of the Congresses mentioned it was about $12,000.
Mr. Wilson. Right. I wanted to sort of hone down on that
subject. After 1993, could you list all the activities that you
were engaged in that you think might have been illegal, if any?
Mr. Huang. OK. 1993, for instance, on the Gore event we're
talking about, Chairman Burton was asking me about the
September event of Gore in southern California. There might be
another event around December. There was some contribution
being made. There were some checks with the Lippo employees. As
Chairman Burton mentioned, he showed me the list yesterday was
that all the list you have, I said there may be a few more
names that's on that. That's what I'm referring to. I did say
the period covers 1992, 1993, 1994. Possibly there is another
check of May 1995.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Then let's try and be very specific. After
1994, did you do anything that you now think was illegal?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Except, Mr. Wilson, with the exception of that
$12,000 check to the best of my knowledge after the 1994 I left
the Lippo, yeah. That would be it.
Mr. Wilson. I guess one reason we're interested is the
underlying facts and the other is in your statement yesterday
you talked about how the Department of Justice thought you had
been candid with them, and we're trying to determine whether
you've been honest with us. And I wanted to ask you about the
contributions that were--about the exchange you had with Mr.
Ickes who was in the White House.
Mr. Huang. Right.
Mr. Wilson. He had asked you to round up $10,000 to $15,000
for a congressional campaign. And you were at the Department of
Commerce, and you told us that you did contact people and that
what you did benefit the Congressman who was asked, you know,
asked to be benefited. And am I right in remembering that you
personally collected $7,000 in checks?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Wilson, I did testify I did collect $7,000
to Mr. Chairman, and to this day I'm not--I'm--I feel very
uncomfortable in collecting in that capacity to collect the
money.
Mr. Wilson. I thought I was right in remembering that you
said you collected $7,000 in checks. And after you collected
the checks you dropped them off personally at the DNC.
Mr. Huang. It was not DNC.
Mr. Wilson. Who did you drop them off with?
Mr. Huang. No, I believe in the address--I thought it was
Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s, one of the offices over there.
Mr. Wilson. That's my error. So you actually collected the
money, after somebody in the White House had asked you to round
up money, and then you took the money to a congressional
campaign office and you gave them the money, is that correct?
Mr. Huang. I drop off with the receptionist in that office,
yes.
Mr. Wilson. And at that time you were working at the
Department of Commerce, correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Do you feel that there is a possible violation
of law in that?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. As I testified yesterday, I did collect the
money. I did not feel comfortable--as of this stage I really
don't know, you know, about legality.
Mr. Wilson. OK. And just one last area in this basic
subject, the Wiriadinata contributions. I think you've said on
the record that the Wiriadinatas came to your attention through
a recommendation of Mr. Riady, is that correct?
Mr. Huang. That is correct.
Mr. Wilson. Now, tell us what you meant by ``came to your
attention?'' Did Mr. Riady call you up and say there are some
people in Arlington or Alexandria or northern Virginia that can
give money?
Mr. Huang. Mr. Riady was also in town when Dr. Nashim Ning
was very sick in the hospital. Remember--I try to explain.
Mr. Wilson. Right. I do remember that. But did Mr. Riady
say to you there are some people that can contribute money and
he told you their names and arranged something with you?
Mr. Huang. Yes. He was saying these people can be very
helpful to you.
Mr. Wilson. What precisely did he tell you?
Mr. Huang. The words I remember is that these people have a
legal status, can give--they are able to give.
Mr. Wilson. Now, one of the most peculiar things about the
$450,000 that Soraya Wiriadinata contributed is the fact--and
we discussed this yesterday, but there's ultimately a question
you've not been asked, the fact that your wife was listed as
the solicitor for the money. And we could look at the exhibits
again, but----
Mr. Huang. No, I remember that.
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. You recall that your wife was----
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. If I remember correctly, the only time that my
wife's name was related to those was--Wiriadinata
contribution--was the first couple checks maybe during that
period of time. The rest of the times since I joined the DNC my
wife's name was no longer there.
Mr. Wilson. But you do recall, and I may be wrong on the
complete number, but on some of the DNC check tracking forms
your wife was listed as the solicitor of contributions from the
Wiriadinatas.
Mr. Huang. I've learned that since I saw the documents,
yes.
Mr. Wilson. Now, you've testified that was not correct, is
that right?
Mr. Huang. That was not correct. My wife did not solicit
those contributions, no.
Mr. Wilson. OK. I guess the simple question is, at that
time you were working at the Department of Commerce, and if the
Wiriadinatas had the money to give and if they were legally
entitled to give money, then why would anybody decide to put
your wife's name on a check tracking form?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. The only thing I know is that I believe that Mr.
Mercer testified that, you know, that my wife's name was there.
Mr. Wilson. Right. But the question was, if everybody
thought that they were entitled to give the money and they had
the money, and--and I am asking for your speculation here, but
if they thought it was their money and they were allowed to
give the money, then why wouldn't somebody just put down an
honest answer on the DNC tracking form?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Mr. Wilson, I don't know what was the nature of
that. I did not fill out the form. You know, I was not at the
DNC. So----
Mr. Wilson. Did you ever have--did you ever have any
conversations with David Mercer about the Wiriadinata
contributions?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. They are in the fundraisers. I introduced them
together, yes.
Mr. Wilson. And, subsequently, has Mr. Mercer ever
discussed this subject with you?
Mr. Huang. That's after when?
Mr. Wilson. After--well, after your wife's name was put on
the check tracking form, did you ever ask him why did you get
my wife involved in this? She didn't do anything. That's not
fair to me.
Mr. Huang. I did not know my wife's name was on the
tracking form until later I learned from all the news accounts.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Just a couple of final questions here.
Did you ever seek any action at the Federal level on issues
regarding the U.S. banking industry? And I'll limit that to
after 1990.
Mr. Huang. After 1990? If possible, can you repeat the
question? You're shifting the subject to the banking side right
now.
Mr. Wilson. That was a very quick----
Mr. Huang. Very quick shift.
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. Quick shift. I'm sorry for the
abrupt nature.
Shifting to banking, you were involved in the banking
industry for a long time. Did you ever seek any type of Federal
action on issues regarding U.S. banking?
Mr. Huang. Could you be a little bit more specific? What do
you mean, the Federal actions mean? For buying or selling or
whatever?
Mr. Wilson. Did you ever seek any legislative change to any
banking provisions after 1990?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. The only thing I can think of is hopefully the
banking legislation will pay attention to one of the issues on
the Community Reinvestment Act, i.e., the CRA. I think that
basically, as I testified, you might have found out I was the
President of the National Association of Chinese American
Bankers. The Chinese American Bankers was totally ignorant by
these issues. I don't know I should go into the detail or not
to you. I think that's one--I spent most of the time on that,
if you're talking about the legislative issues on that.
Mr. Wilson. And does that--did what you were trying to do
have any impact on the Riadys or the Lippo Bank or Worthen bank
or any of the Riady banking interests?
Mr. Huang. I don't know there's any impact.
Let me say this: The Lippo Bank of California or formerly
Bank of Trade was a member of National Association of Chinese
American Bankers. The thing I was doing is more or less for the
overall umbrella for the other member banks.
I was not the only one who was doing that. Whoever was the
member banks, they were trying to do it collectively. And also
teaming up with the--teaming up with the Independent Bankers
Association as well.
Mr. Wilson, as you know, most of the Chinese American
bankers are not large in size. They are relatively small. But
there are roughly 6,000 to 7,000 independent bankers in the
country. They are also facing a similar issue on the CRA. So at
some point there's collective efforts for the National
Association of Chinese American Bankers. Where there was an
Independent Bankers Association in some form we did
independently on our own for the Chinese American bankers.
Mr. Burton. Let me ask counsel, how much more time are you
going to need?
I will ask unanimous consent that we give the counsel 5
more minutes to wrap up. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Wilson. This time I'll tell you I'm going to change
focus fairly quickly here. If somebody could find exhibit 354,
please. I know I'm shifting focus for you, too.
We're going to put up on the projectors, and if you can
look in your books, a wire transfer of $1 million which is
dated September 18, 1996, from a Tahir account in Jakarta to an
account under the name of Tahir Lippo Bank in California.
[Exhibit 354 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.408
Mr. Huang. Sorry. I was distracted. We were looking for the
exhibit.
Mr. Wilson. Exhibit 354.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Wilson. I know it's not a very good copy, but if you
could take a look at that, please. And there's a second page as
well, so it's not just a single-page exhibit.
Mr. Huang. Yes, I have those pages.
Mr. Wilson. Do you have any knowledge of this wire
transfer?
Mr. Huang. September, 1994?
Mr. Wilson. 1996.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Wilson. I guess the simple question is, did you know
about $1 million transfer to the account?
Mr. Huang. No, I do not.
Mr. Wilson. On the exhibit the payable line on the wire
transfer says, ``your good selves.'' Do you have any idea what
this means?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Huang. Which pages is that, Mr. Wilson? There are three
pages.
Mr. Wilson. Yes. It's on page 2 of the exhibit.
Mr. Huang. OK.
Mr. Wilson. And it should be on the middle of the page.
Mr. Wilson. Do you have any idea what this----
Mr. Huang. Just like yourself, I think.
Mr. Wilson. All right. Now, do you know why Mr. Tahir would
transfer $1 million to the United States in September 1996?
Mr. Huang. I don't know.
Mr. Wilson. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Tahir
about political contributions that he was going to give in the
fall of 1996?
Mr. Huang. No. I did not.
Mr. Wilson. Did you discuss with James Riady any political
contributions he was going to give in the fall of 1996?
Mr. Huang. I did not. But the only conversation I had with
Mr. Riady was that Mr. Tahir's daughter has a green card, was
able to give--you know, can invite her for some of the function
and--in fact, in early 1996, she gave, but not related to this
transaction.
Mr. Wilson. So just let me try and get this as accurate as
possible. You had a conversation with Mr. Riady during which
you suggested to Mr. Riady that there was a Tahir child who had
a green card in the United States?
Mr. Huang. I did not suggest it. He mentioned to me.
Mr. Wilson. He mentioned that to you.
Mr. Huang. Right. That's earlier though, early 1996.
Remember I did the fundraising on February 1996? I believe for
that event Mr. Tahir's daughter was--or daughters came over for
that event. So there was contribution of that sort. Now that's
way earlier than September----
Mr. Wilson. Right.
Mr. Huang [continuing]. So I have no knowledge about what's
going on in September with that million dollar stuff.
Mr. Wilson. But just cutting down to the basic line here,
Mr. Riady suggested to you that there was somebody with a green
card in the United States who might be able to give money to
political campaigns.
Mr. Wilson. More specifically, it would be the daughter,
Jane Tahir.
Mr. Wilson. So he specifically said Jane Tahir had a green
card and could give money.
Mr. Huang. That's correct, yes.
Mr. Wilson. OK. Now, if you would look at the--if you would
look at the last page of exhibit 354, please, it's the
signature card for the account receiving the $1 million wire
transfer from Indonesia. Do you recognize either of those
signatures?
Mr. Cobb. The last page of 354?
Mr. Wilson. Correct.
Mr. Huang. Mr. Wilson, I could not be sure about the
signature. There are only about two signatures there. Am I
correct? Are you with me on that?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Correct.
Mr. Huang. I definitely don't recognize the first one, No.
1.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Mr. Huang. The handwriting on No. 2 looks somewhat
familiar. I don't know whether that's Mr. Setiawan or not.
Mr. Wilson. Surprisingly, I was going to suggest whether
that was Mr. Setiawan. Now, you worked with Mr. Setiawan?
Mr. Huang. That's correct. Because the committee also
refreshed my memory yesterday. They showed me one of the Hip
Hing Holdings--the things. So it just sort of reminded me on
that.
Mr. Wilson. So it looks to you, based on what you recollect
and what you saw recently, that that might be Mr. Setiawan's
signature.
Mr. Huang. Possibly, yeah, on that.
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Huang, thank you very much.
Mr. Huang. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Would you like to sum up, Mr. Shays, for we're
about to end our hearing?
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to thank our witness and I want to thank his two
attorneys. They enabled us to ask our questions and I
appreciate that. I appreciate the candor I think we got. I
would say to you, Mr. Huang, you are unfortunately living proof
of the need for campaign finance reform. For you, that proof
came in the form of a felony conviction. For this committee, it
comes as a confirmation of the conduit schemes and influence
peddling that threaten both our political integrity and,
frankly, our national security.
For me, your testimony sheds just a little more light into
the dark corners of the incessant corrupting quest for money
that pervades every event and all other elements of political
campaigns today.
The public record is now more complete. It remains my hope
that record will serve as the basis for holding offenders
accountable and serve as the basis for real campaign finance
reform. And I make these comments because I really believe that
besides holding people accountable, Mr. Chairman, we have got
to reform the system. And I know that you have put forward a
bill on conduit payments that I think we need to move forward.
And I want to say for the record that I know abuses take place
in both parties and local governments and State and Federal,
but I really think the administration brought campaign finance
abuses to a new art form, frankly, and they haven't wanted to
face up to it, but I think Congress needs to step up to the
plate and pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation.
And I thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Let me just end by saying
I want to ask unanimous consent to enter an exhibit analyzing
the list of fines given out by the Justice Department which was
entered into the record previously by Mr. Waxman. Without
objection, so ordered. Just expanding on that.
Let me say I appreciate your patience. And I appreciate Mr.
Keeney and Mr. Cobb being so helpful to you in expediting the
answers to the questions. I do want to say, though, that it's
still very murky. Millions of dollars in campaign contributions
came in from foreign sources. We've gotten some information
from your 3 days of testimony, Mr. Huang, but there's still a
lot of questions unanswered. We will continue to try to get to
the bottom of all this so that 1 day we can make sure that no
foreign contributions, conduit contributions, are allowed, and
that those who do that will be prosecuted to the full extent of
the law.
The campaigns of the United States of America and the
candidates elected in the United States of America should be
elected by the people of this country, and their campaigns
should be funded by the people of this country. Mr. Shays has
one opinion on campaign finance laws. I have a little different
opinion. I believe there should be full disclosure and
hopefully we can get the legislation he just talked about
passed, which will eliminate foreign contributions.
But in any event, we appreciate your being here. I'm sorry
it took 3 years to get you here. I hope we don't have to talk
to you again. I think we've pretty much completed all the
questions we need. But as I said, we will continue to try to
get to the bottom of all the campaign finance scandal. Once
again, thank you.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, before you hit the gavel, could we
just compliment the staff on both sides?
Mr. Burton. Yes. I'm glad you said that. I wish my staff a
very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I know that you've
worked very, very hard and Mr. Shays knows the staff has worked
very, very hard. You didn't go home, some of you, for
Thanksgiving because you were working. And I know the Democrat
side has worked hard as well, so thank you very much. You don't
get a pay raise but you do get my congratulations for a job
well done.
Mr. Shays. I would just like to say I'm very impressed with
the staff quality on both sides. This was excellent
preparation. Thank you.
Mr. Burton. Merry Christmas to all. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.418
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.419
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.420
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.421
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.422
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.423
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.424
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.425
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.426
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.427
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.428
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.429
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.430
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.431
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.432
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.433
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.434
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.435
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.436
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.437
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.438
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.439
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.440
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.441
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.442
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.443
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.444
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.445
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.446
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.447
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.448
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.449
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.450
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.451
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.452
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.453
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.454
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.455
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.456
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.457
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.458
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.459
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.460
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.461
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.462
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.463
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.464
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.465
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.466
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.467
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.468
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.469
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.470
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.471
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.472
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.473
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.474
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.475
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.476
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.477
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.478
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.479
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.480
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.481
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.482
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.483
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.484
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.485
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.486
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.487
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.488
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.489
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.490
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.491
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.492
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.493
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.494
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.495
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.496
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.497
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.498
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.499
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.500
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.501
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.502
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.503
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.504
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.505
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.506
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.507
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.508
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.509
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.510
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.511
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.512
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.513
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.514
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.515
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.516
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.517
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.518
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.519
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.520
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.521
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.522
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.523
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.524
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.525
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.526
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.527
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.528
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.529
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.530
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.531
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.532
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.533
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.534
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.535
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.536
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.537
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.538
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.539
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.540
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.541
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.542
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.543
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.544
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.545
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.546
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.547
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.548
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.549
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.550
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.551
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.552
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.553
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.554
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.555
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.556
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.557
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.558
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.559
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.560
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.561
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.562
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.563
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.564
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.565
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.566
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.567
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.568
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.569
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.570
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.571
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.572
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.573
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.574
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.575
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.576
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.577
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.578
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.579
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.580
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.581
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.582
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.583
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.584
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.585
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.586
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.587
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.588
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.589
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.590
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.591
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.592
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.593
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.594
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.595
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.596
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.597
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.598
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.599
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.600
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.601
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.602
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.603
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.604
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.605
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.606
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.607
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.608
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.609
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.610
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.611
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.612
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.613
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.614
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.615
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.616
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.617
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.618
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.619
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.620
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.621
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.622
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.623
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.624
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.625
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.626
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.627
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.628
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.629
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.630
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.631
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.632
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.633
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.634
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.635
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.636
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.637
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.638
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.639
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.640
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.641
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.642
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.643
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.644
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.645
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.646
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.647
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.648
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.649
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.650
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.651
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.652
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.653
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.654
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.655
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.656
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.657
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.658
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.659
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.660
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.661
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.662
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.663
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.664
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.665
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.666
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.667
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.668
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.669
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.670
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.671
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.672
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.673
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.674
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.675
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.676
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.677
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.678
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.679
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.680
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.681
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.682
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.683
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.684
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.685
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.686
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.687
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.688
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.689
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.690
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.691
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.692
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.693
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.694
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.695
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.696
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.697
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.698
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.699
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.700
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.701
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.702
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.703
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.704
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.705
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.706
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.707
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.708
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.709
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.710
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.711
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.712
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.713
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.714
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.715
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.716
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.717
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.718
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.719
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.720
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.721
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.722
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.723
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.724
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.725
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.726
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.727
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.728
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.729
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.730
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.731
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.732
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.733
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.734
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.735
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.736
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.737
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.738
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.739
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.740
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.741
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.742
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.743
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.744
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.745
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.746
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.747
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.748
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.749
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.750
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.751
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.752
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.753
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.754
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.755
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.756
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.757
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.758
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.759
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.760
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.761
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.762
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.763
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.764
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.765
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.766
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.767
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.768
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.769
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.770
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.771
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.772
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.773
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.774
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.775
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.776
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.777
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.778
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.779
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.780
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.781
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.782
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.783
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.784
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.785
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.786
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.787
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.788
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.789
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.790
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.791
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.792
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.793
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.794
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.795
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.796
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.797
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.798
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.799
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.800
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.801
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.802
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.803
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.804
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.805
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.806
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.807
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.808
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.809
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.810
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.811
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.812
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.813
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.814
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.815
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.816
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.817
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.818
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.819
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.820
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.821
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.822
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.823
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.824
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.825
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.826
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.827
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.828
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.829
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.830
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.831
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.832
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.833
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.834
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.835
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.836
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.837
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.838
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.839
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.840
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.841
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.842
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.843
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.844
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.845
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.846
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.847
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.848
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.849
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.850
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.851
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.852
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.853
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.854
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.855
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.856
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.857
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.858
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.859
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.860
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.861
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.862
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.863
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.864
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.865
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.866
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.867
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.868
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.869
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.870
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.871
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.872
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.873
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.874
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.875
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.876
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.877
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.878
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.879
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.880
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.881
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.882
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.883
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.884
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.885
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.886
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.887
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.888
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.889
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.890
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.891
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.892
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.893
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.894
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.895
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.896
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.897
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.898
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.899
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.900
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.901
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.902
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.903
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.904
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.905
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.906
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.907
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.908
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.909
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.910
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.911
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.912
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.913
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.914
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.915
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.916
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.917
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.918
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.919
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.920
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.921
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.922
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.923
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.924
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.925
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.926
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.927
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.928
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.929
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.930
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.931
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.932
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.933
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.934
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.935
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.936
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.937
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.938
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.939
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.940
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.941
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.942
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.943
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.944
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.945
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.946
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.947
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.948
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.949
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.950
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.951
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.952
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.953
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.954
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.955
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.956
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.957
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.958
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.959
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.960
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.961
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.962
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.963
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.964
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.965
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.966
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.967
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.968
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.969
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.970
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.971
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.972
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.973
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.974
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.975
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.976
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.977
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6496.147