The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING INVOLVING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1990-E1991 on Oct. 28, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING INVOLVING THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION
______
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Friday, October 27, 2000
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, submit the following letter into the Congressional Record, ``Response to Comments by Rep. Curt Weldon Regarding the Government Reform Committee, Minority Staff, report, Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing Involving the Clinton Administration.''
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, October 27, 2000.Hon. Curt Weldon,Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Weldon: On September 28, I spoke on the House floor regarding a series of unsubstantiated allegations by members of Congress that have unfairly smeared the reputations of numerous individuals. I also entered into the Congressional Record facts relevant to many of these sensational allegations.
As you know, one of the allegations I discussed was your claim in a 1998 floor statement that the President could have committed ``treason,'' one of the most serious crimes an American can commit. You responded in a floor statement of October 2, 2000. You claim that I made ``totally false'' statements relating to your ``treason'' remarks.
On September 28, I described your ``treason'' statement as follows:
In May 1998, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) made remarks on the House floor regarding allegations that the political contributions of the chief executive officer of Loral Corporation, Bernard Schwartz, had influenced the President's decision to authorize the transfer of certain technology to China. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) described this issue as a, ``Scandal that is unfolding that I think will dwarf every scandal that we have seen talked about on this floor in the past 6 years.'' And said further, ``This scandal involves potential treason.''
You have not disputed this characterization of your remarks. You also did not dispute my statement that when a member of Congress makes such a sensational allegation, it can have tremendous impact. In your case, your ``treason'' remarks were not only part of the Congressional Record, but were publicized in national media reports.
You have, however, taken issue with two sets of facts that I put into the record on September 28 after describing your
``treason'' remarks. First, I said:
The Department of Justice examined the allegations relating to whether campaign contribution influenced export control decisions and found them to be unfounded. In August 1998, Lee Radek, chief of the department's public integrity section, wrote that ``there is not a scintilla of evidence or information that the President was corruptly influenced by Bernard Schwartz.'' Charles La Bella, then head of the department's campaign finance task force, agreed with Mr. Radek's assessment that ``this was a matter which likely did not merit any investigation.''
You said on October 2 that my statement was wrong, pointing to a passage in a July 16, 1998, memo by Mr. La Bella that discussed two documents potentially relevant to the Loral/Schwartz allegations. My statement, however, quoted two subsequent Department of Justice memos--an August 12, 1998, memo by Mr. La Bella and an August 5, 1998, memo by Mr. Radek.
Further, Mr. La Bella himself said that his July 16 memo took the view that the Loral/Schwartz matter ``likely did not merit any investigation.'' Discussing his July 16 memo (the
``Interim Report'') and Mr. Radek's August 5 memo (the
``Review''), Mr. La Bella stated on August 12, 1998:
The Review shares the view expressed in the Interim Report that this was a matter which likely did not merit any investigation.
In May 2000, Los Angeles Times investigative reporters examined the Justice Department's investigation of the Loral/Schwartz matter. In a May 23, 2000 article entitled Internal Justice Memo Excuses Loral, They wrote:
During a May 2 hearing, [Senator] Specter commented that LaBalla has pushed, in his
But the impression was wrong.
The LaBella report and related documents, which were obtained earlier this year by The Times, tell quite a different story. In fact, by the time LaBella delivered his report to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno in the summer of 1998, the task force had effectively excused Schwartz and Loral from the campaign finance investigation. . . .
``Poor Bernie [Schwartz] got a bad deal,'' one former task force investigator said in an interview. ``There was never a whiff of a scent of a case against him.''
As you can see, therefore, I was entirely accurate in my summary of the Justice Department's investigation. It is your description of the evidence--not mine--that distorts the facts.
You also took issue with the second set of facts I put in the record relating to your ``treason'' remarks. In my September 28 statement, I said:
The House select committee investigated allegations relating to United States technology transfer to China and whether campaign contributions influenced export control decisions. In May 1999, the committee findings were made public. The committee's bipartisan findings also did not substantiate the suggestion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania of treason by the President.
In your October 2 remarks, you asserted, ``Now, in fact, our Cox committee did not even look at this issue.'' This statement is remarkable, particularly since you were a member of the Cox Committee yourself.
As support for your claim, you cited language in the Cox Committee report which notes that the Committee did not end up looking at attempts by the People's Republic of China
(PRC) to influence technology transfers through campaign contributions. Your ``treason'' remarks, however, centered on allegations relating to contributions by Bernard Schwartz, not the PRC. And, indeed, the Committee did examine these allegations.
As the Committee report notes, Mr. Schwartz was one of the individuals interviewed or deposed by the Committee. The Committee also interviewed or deposed Loral Vice President Thomas B. Ross. As noted in a May 24, 1998, New York Times article regarding the Loral/Schwartz allegations, Mr. Ross was the author of a February 13, 1998, letter to national security advisor Sandy Berger that urged a swift decision on the waiver issue. In fact, you drew attention to this very letter by Mr. Ross in your October 2 remarks.
Your assertion that the Cox Committee ``did not even look at this issue'' is therefore simply wrong.
The fact is, the Cox Committee report expressly mentions the Loral/Schwartz allegations, but does not confirm your conclusions in any way. This lack of findings in the report underscores the fact that your ``treason'' remarks remain unsubstantiated even though several investigative bodies have examined the Loral/Schwartz matter.
When a member of Congress makes a wild allegation, the burden should be on that member to support it. It is tremendously unfair--and contrary to our system of justice--to presume that the burden is on the target of the allegation or others to disprove unsubstantiated allegations. In this instance, the facts show that you made an inflammatory statement about the President in 1998 using the word
``treason'' and your statement remains unsubstantiated.
I hope this helps clarify the record.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Member of Congress.
____________________
