Jack Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. I am trying to say, you won that round. Now I am asking you, which one of these other issues do you want to talk about?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Stupak, I was a salesman, and when you get the order, you get the order. The sale is over with. Go home. I am giving you the order. I am going on to a different issue.

Mr. KINGSTON. No. I think you have already said you have given me an F for grammar, an F for credibility, whatever. I understand that. So do not go back down that trail. I am giving you another two.

Mr. KINGSTON. No. Let me reclaim my time.

Mr. KINGSTON. Still claiming the time, if you do not want to talk about Kent Law and grant him immunity, what about the $3 million that was funneled through John Huang, which the Democratic National Committee had to return? Does it concern you that the Chinese Government may have been trying to influence the election process? Or if you do not want to talk about that, could we talk about why Webb Hubbell got $700,000 in money after he left his job and before he went to prison? Or if you do not want to talk about that, can we talk about Charlie Trie, who is a friend of the President, from Arkansas who funneled $700,000 in contributions to the President's legal defense fund? If you do not want to talk about that, could we talk about Charlie Trie's Macao-based benefactor that wired him $1 million from overseas banks. There is enough here that surely we can talk about one issue besides the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and Republicans who do not say things correctly.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming the time. Listen, my friend from the Upper Peninsula, this is part of the Democratic tactic of delay, of distract. I am saying, hey, do you know what, I only know what I read. My question is, forget the technicalities. Tell me why you do not think it is important for a guy to testify.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim the time here, because we can talk about Kent Law, but I have already said you can have the technicality on that. I am not on the committee. But what I do not quite understand is, do you not have the slightest bit of curiosity as to why the guy who works for the Chinese Communist- owned Red Pagoda cigarette company, why they gave $400,000 to the Democratic National Committee? I yield to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I am not on the committee. I am not on the committee. I am giving my colleagues those two points. The question is, and my colleagues know, the greater issue is not the punctuation of the sentence but it is the answer to the question; and the question is, why will my colleagues not let the guy testify? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I guarantee my colleagues, I am going to give them that point. Now my question is, when the Department of Justice has signed off on immunity, why will not my colleagues let the guy testify? And how could my colleague from Michigan say in good conscience that he is being fair and that he is really nonpartisan, he is really interested in getting at the truth, when he will not let a witness come before the committee?

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, and I want to get to my friend from the Upper Peninsula. But let me say this; my colleague wins on a technicality. Two technical points, two minor technical points; they win. The fact is, I want to know why my colleagues will not give the guy immunity to testify if they are really interested in getting to the truth.

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KINGSTON. Not a single witness has. But let us say my colleague scored.

Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time just to say that the gentleman is correct. What they said, and they said it in writing, is that they have no problem with the committee giving him immunity. So he is correct on a technicality. But again, that is only a technicality. The matter is, what does the witness have to say?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the point and invite the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) to hang around if he wants to, who I happen to think a lot of, incidentally. But Kent La, the man who would be the witness to the Burton committee, which we will vote on tomorrow, and I certainly urge my friend from Wisconsin to reconsider his position, which I would have a hard time believing that it does not have just a little hint of partisanship in it. But I know the gentleman well and I would think more of him than that. So let me just say about Kent La, because apparently my colleagues have not heard of this guy. But he is an associate of Ted Sioeng and he is the United States distributor of Red Pagoda Mountain Cigarettes. He has a major stake in these cigarettes, the best-selling brand of cigarettes in China and the third largest selling cigarette in the world. The company is owned by the Communist Chinese Government; a fact. Ted Sioeng and his associates gave $400,000 to the Democrat National Committee. Of this amount, Kent La, the witness, gave $50,000. Now, every witness that has come before their committee has said, ``You need to interview Kent La.'' But Kent La has invoked the fifth amendment. He is one of the 92 who have fled the country or taken the fifth amendment. But he is saying he will testify if he has immunity. The Democrat Department of Justice gave him immunity. But on the committee, the Democrats are blocking his opportunity to be a witness. Now, inasmuch as this investigation is not about the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) but about campaign financing, why will not my colleagues vote to give the guy immunity?

Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: I think it is important for us to know that justice knows no party. If Republicans have done wrong, let them pay the price. If Democrats have done wrong, let them pay the price. Whether the person is popular or not, let justice be blind, and let us do it in a bipartisan manner. These attacks on the chairman and Members of Congress and the investigators have to stop. Let us all be serious. Billy Graham, Perry Mason or Mickey Mouse, in doing the investigation of the chairman of the committee, they too would be attacked and smeared and denigrated. It is time to stop it, it is time to work together to get this thing over with so that we can go on to the business of the people: balancing the budget, protecting our streets from illegal drugs, reforming health care, preserving and protecting Medicare and Social Security, and doing all of the important things we need to do. Let us get past this investigation and do the work of the great American people.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out also under the Democrats, we had an 8-year investigation of Labor Secretary Ray Donovan and a 7-year investigation of HUD Secretary Samuel Pierce, and on those, I do not think there were any convictions. Starr has not been on the case 4 years, has spent $24 million, and had 14 convictions or guilty pleas. If we could get cooperation in a bipartisan manner, we could probably cut the time and the dollar amount in half.

Mr. KINGSTON. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point that Don Schmaltz who is the independent prosecutor investigating the scandals at the Clinton USDA, 1995, the Justice Department wanted to fire him and call him off the investigation. Today, he has had 4 convictions and brought in $10 million worth of fines. Now, we do not hear anybody saying hey, what a fine job this guy has done. All we hear is Starr is spending too much money. What about Schmaltz?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think that when we have a situation where 92 witnesses have fled the country and we have 4 witnesses who the Justice Department says it is okay to give immunity to, and we have 19 Members of the Democrat committee who will not let these 4 witnesses, 4 very, very key witnesses, who will not let them testify under the guise that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the committee, has done something wrong, it is pretty ridiculous. It is a sad day for partisanship. It is a new low. The gentlemen who were with us earlier tonight are men of integrity. I think of them as I know the gentleman does. And I know that it is true that honest people can have honest disagreements. But it would appear to me that out of 19 Members on the committee, surely one wants to hear why an operative with a Chinese-owned cigarette, Communist- owned cigarette company, why he gave $50,000 to the White House and why that company gave $400,000. I would want to hear what the witness had to say, just for that alone. Mr. Speaker, it is the same pattern over and over again that we keep hearing; well, not this witness, not now. Of course I want to cooperate, but not tonight, not this particular day for whatever reason. We hear so much about the Dan Burton releasing-of-the-tapes that were not altered one bit. The transcripts had mistakes on them, and that was brought forward. Now, where was this righteous indignation when Craig Livingstone and the White House operatives had 900 FBI files of private citizens, none who were in jail, none who were convicted felons like Webb Hubbell, why do we not have the moral outrage about 900 FBI files of private citizens being reviewed over at the White House?

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I think that that is what is very important. I do not believe that the President of the United States is as guilty as some people seem to believe that he is. I really do not. I think he is surrounded by some characters who are very shady, very suspicious and who have broken some laws, and my direct question is, what laws were broken, why were they broken, and did the United States security suffer from it? If the gentleman does not mind, I want to make a point. We hear so much about Ken Starr is on a witch hunt. Let me give you the names and charges and the year that people that he has dealt with have been convicted. David Hale, conspiracy, false statements, 1994; Charles Matthews, bribery, 1994; these are all convicted. Eugene Fitzhugh, bribery, 1994; Robert Palmer, conspiracy, 1994; Webster Hubbell, fraud, 1994; Kneel Ainley, fraud, 1995; Chris Wade, fraud, 1995; Stephen Smith, conspiracy, 1995; Larry Kuka, conspiracy, 1995; James McDougal, fraud, 1996; Susan McDougal, fraud, 1996; William Marks, fraud, 1997; Governor Jim Guy Tucker, fraud, 1996 and 1998; John Haley, fraud, 1998; Webster Hubbell, this is under indictment, tax evasion, 1998; Susan McDougal, obstruction, contempt, 1998. This is finding the head of the snake. Slowly but surely, these people, by a Democrat-appointed special prosecutor, have been convicted. Yet we hear over and over again that this is a witch hunt. I am very concerned about the integrity of the government and the security of the United States when we hear such rhetoric.

Mr. KINGSTON. That Ms. Hubbell feared that she would lose her job at the Department of Interior if Mr. Hubbell took actions against the Clintons. Ms. Hubbell said she feels she is being squeezed by the White House. Webster Hubbell says, ``I will have to roll over one more time for the White House.'' That comes from what, 180 hours worth of tapes. Keep in mind, I will yield back to you, but between the time he resigned from his job and was convicted, Webb Hubbell received $700,000 in payments from friends and associates of the President. $100,000 came from the Riady family associated with the Lippo Group of Indonesia. The payment came within 10 days of a meeting at the White House involving the President, John Huang, James Riady and Webster Hubbell. This is serious stuff. This is not about Dan Burton and his style as chairman and how he may have offended somebody. This is about the security of the United States of America. This is serious stuff.

Mr. KINGSTON

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman would further yield, one of those witnesses is a guy named Kent La, who, as my colleagues probably know, is an associate of Ted Sioeng, who is a business operative with the Red Pagoda Mountain Tobacco Company, which, as my colleagues know, is the third largest selling cigarette in the entire world and it is Communist-owned, and it gave $400,000 to the Democrat National Committee. Do my colleagues not think that it is important to hear from Kent La on why would a Communist-owned cigarette company give $400,000 to the Democrat Committee?

Mr. KINGSTON. I am glad to see that. Would my colleagues urge their Democrat colleagues, the 19 who will not vote for immunity for the key witnesses, in order to get around this partisanship, in order to get on with the investigation, would my colleagues urge their Democrat colleagues to vote for immunity, the ones that the Democrat Department of Justice have given and granted immunity to?

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friends; They all have been kind of bashing the style, not the person, but the style of our friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who we all know to be a man of integrity and of honor. But they mentioned the rules about putting Congress under the same laws as the private sector. Did my colleagues vote for that rule, which was, as my colleagues know, a Republican rule and generally passed on a partisan vote? Did they leave their side of the aisle and vote with the Republicans to make that a reality on the first day of Congress in 1995?