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.
“WAS JOHN HUANG DEBRIEFED?” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1451-E1452 on July 17, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WAS JOHN HUANG DEBRIEFED?
______
HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, July 17, 1997
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, our worst fears about the depth and significance of the administration's scandals are being realized.
Is there anyone who still thinks this is just about campaign finance reform? We read in today's Washington Post column of Robert D. Novak the headline ``Was John Huang Debriefed?'' Was he, indeed? I raised this question quite some time ago with Commerce Secretary Daley and was met with the delays and stonewalling that have characterized this administration. What else are we to conclude, but that at the very least when it comes to Mr. Huang and security matters this administration has something to hide.
I place the Novak column in today's Record.
Was John Huang Debriefed?
(By Robert D. Novak)
A previously missing government form that should have indicated whether John Huang was debriefed by a security officer before he left the Commerce Department two years ago turned up last Friday. But the place where the now infamous Democratic fund-raiser was supposed to have signed is blank.
Any government official with top-secret access--Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce Huang included--must attest to the return of all classified information when debriefed as he leaves the government. But Huang's unsigned debriefing document underlines questions about what he did with government secrets and how well they were protected.
Complete answers can come only from investigators with subpoena powers. Contrary to the White House mantra, current Senate hearings concern much more than campaign finance reform--such as Huang's security clearance, dubious on its face. Immediately following CIA briefings, Huang would regularly contact the Chinese Embassy. Yet, even after resigning from the government and going to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), he received another security clearance. The CIA, which had given him documents, was not alerted to Huang's change of status.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the conservative weekly Human Events several weeks ago obtained from the Commerce Department Huang's ``Separation Clearance Certificate,'' noting that his ``effective date of separation'' was Jan. 17, 1995 (though he actually went to the DNC in December). Commerce officials signed the document on Jan. 22, noting Huang's return of government charge cards, his parking permit and his diplomatic passport. ``Security debriefing and credentials'' was noted and signed by a Commerce Department security officer named Robert W. Mack.
At that debriefing, Huang should have signed a Standard Form 312 acknowledging return of classified material. But an official Commerce spokesman told Human Events editor Terrence Jeffrey two weeks ago: ``The recollection of our security personnel is that he [Huang] was debriefed but that a Standard Form 312 has not been located.''
What's more, there are indications it was never given to congressional investigating committees. On July 3, Rep. Jerry Solomon (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Rules Committee, wrote Commerce Secretary William Daley demanding the Form 312 by July 9.
That deadline came and went, but late on Friday, July 11, the piece of paper was dispatched to Solomon. It showed that on July 18, 1994, Huang signed for his security briefing. But Huang never signed the debriefing acknowledgment that ``I have returned all classified information in my custody.''
If security officer Mack signed off for the debriefing, why didn't Huang? ``For reasons that we have not determined,'' Commerce press officer Maria Cardona told me. I called Mack himself, but he said he could not reply. ``When you're as low on the totem pole as I am . .
.'' he said, trailing off.
However, an unsigned Commerce document of Dec. 9, 1996, supplied to Solomon earlier this year, quotes Mack as saying that ``he personally briefed Huang and had him sign a SF-312'' in July 1994 but adds: ``Mack has no recall of the debriefing'' the following January. The memorandum continues that ``he does recall'' a call from a high-ranking official
``to make sure that Huang did not lose his top-secret clearance'' but kept it as a ``consultant.''
``Mack said to the best of his knowledge, Huang never worked as a consultant, but DISCO [Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office] did issue a top-secret clearance to Huang. . . . DISCO has never been notified to cancel the clearance,'' the memo continued. The memo writer said the clearance, issued on Dec. 14, 1995, was still valid on Dec. 9, 1996.
Yet another mysterious document: Commerce security officer Richard Duncan--Mack's colleague--on Feb. 13, 1995, wrote an internal memo listing Huang among other officials as signing SF-312s. Was this an attempt to create a paper trail?
This is the curious conclusion of John Huang's access to secret information. It began with the official request Jan. 31, 1994 that the required background investigation for Huang be waived because of ``the critical need for his expertise .
. . by Secretary [Ron] Brown.'' When Huang resigned a year later, Assistant Secretary Charles Meissner proposed the consultant's role, in order for Huang to retain access to classified documents. Brown and Meissner both perished in the tragic plane crash in Croatia, but their patronage of John Huang remains a fit subject for scrutiny.
____________________
