SENATE Rept. 105-167 - 105th Congress 2d Session - March 10, 1998

              The Hsi Lai Temple Fundraiser and Maria Hsia

    The fundraiser attended by Vice President Gore on April 29, 
1996 at the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California, has 
been the focus of considerable attention and controversy ever 
since reports first surfaced in the national press revealing 
that some of the donations given to the DNC in connection with 
this event were unlawfully reimbursed.1 Over the 
course of its investigation, the Committee has examined the 
various allegations of illegality and impropriety that have 
surfaced in connection with this event. Furthermore, the 
Committee has conducted a broader inquiry into the unlawful 
involvement of the Hsi Lai Temple in the 1995-96 election cycle 
and the complex chain of events that produced this involvement.
    \1\ See, e.g., Phil Kuntz, ``Instant Karma: Cash Gets to Democrats 
Via Buddhist Temple,'' Wall Street Journal, Oct. 17, 1996 (recounting 
allegations by Buddhist nun that DNC donation for Gore event was 
reimbursed). This early coverage prompted the Christian Coalition to 
file a complaint against the DNC with the Federal Election Commission 
in connection with the Hsi Lai Temple fundraiser. See generally Colleen 
Sealander, letter to Master Shing Yun, Oct. 29, 1996 (Ex. 1) 
(forwarding complaint to Temple, with attachments).
    As a result of these inquiries, it has become apparent that 
the DNC's Hsi Lai Temple fundraiser on April 29, 1996 was 
merely one instance--albeit the most significant one--in an 
ongoing campaign of illegal Temple donation-laundering arranged 
by a woman named Maria L. Hsia in support of Democratic 
candidates. Nor was this campaign merely an aberration confined 
to the 1995-96 election cycle. Rather, it had roots stretching 
back to 1988, with the decision of James Riady, John Huang, 
Maria Hsia, and others to organize themselves into a political 
fundraising and lobbying organization in order to advance their 
interests through U.S. politics.
    The Temple-related issue that has hitherto received the 
most attention in the press--Vice President Gore's knowledge 
(or alleged lack thereof) with regard to the status of his 
April 29 luncheon as a DNC fundraiser--is addressed in this 
section. It will be obvious from the evidence recounted herein 
that despite his various denials, the Vice President was well 
aware that the event was one designed to raise money for his 
party. Preoccupied by a narrow debate over the inconsequential 
terminology of ``community outreach,'' ``finance-related 
events,'' ``donor maintenance,'' and ``fundraisers,'' many 
observers have missed the forest for the trees. The real 
significance of the Temple incident lies not in the Vice 
President's lack of candor, but in the ongoing relationship 
this affair illustrates between him--and the Democratic Party--
and a small but influential political clique headed by Riady, 
Huang, and Hsia.
    As will become clear, despite the participation of Temple 
monastics in criminal wrongdoing in connection with the April 
1996 event and in Hsia's broader campaign of Democratic Party 
donation-laundering, the Temple itself seems to have been only 
a secondary actor in this drama. Indeed, Temple officials seem 
to have known little--if anything--about the political 
campaigns they illegally supported at Hsia's 
direction.2 The real significance of the Temple 
incident may therefore be found in what it reveals about the 
activities and agenda of its key decision-makers--Maria Hsia 
and John Huang.
    \2\ Since the Hsi Lai Temple received electronic alarm services 
from a corporation called ``DNC,'' many of the monastics solicited to 
give money to the Democratic National Committee may have mistaken the 
party for the company. Cf., e.g., IBPS check #1278, Jan. 5, 1996 (Ex. 
2) ($50 payment to ``DNC,'' apparently for alarm services).
    Hsia and Huang have both asserted their Fifth Amendment 
privilege against self-incrimination and have refused to 
cooperate with the Committee. Nevertheless, from documentary 
evidence produced pursuant to subpoena and from interviews and 
depositions of persons involved, the Committee has been able to 
develop a detailed understanding both of the events at issue 
and of the role of Hsia and Huang therein.

                             i. maria hsia

    Hsia Ling--better known by the Anglicized version of her 
name, Maria Lynn Hsia--was born in 1951 and first came to the 
United States on a student visa in 1973. After returning 
briefly to her native Taiwan in 1974, she returned to this 
country to become a permanent resident in 1975. Not long after 
her arrival, she began working as a case worker at Popkin & 
Shamir, a personal injury and immigration law firm.3 
She became a U.S. citizen in 1986.4
    \3\ Maria Hsia, hearing transcript from Hsia v. Hom, Ca. Super. 
Ct., No. BC 059523, Aug. 16, 1995, pp. 16-17 (Ex. 3).
    \4\ James Sterngold, ``Political Tangle of Taiwan Immigrant,'' New 
York Times, June 9, 1997.
    Though not a lawyer, Hsia took up several successive 
positions with various immigration law firms, leaving Popkin 
for a firm headed by Patrick Fleming, working as a consultant 
for Damrell, Damrell & Nelson, then joining Howard Hom & 
Associates, and working with Arnold Malter, before going into 
business under her own name as Hsia & Associates in 
1991.5 Throughout this period, the immigration 
services business generally treated Maria Hsia well. In the 
late 1970s and early 1980s, providing immigration services to 
Taiwanese citizens was an ``extremely lucrative'' 
field.6 Hsia, it appears, profited accordingly. Her 
reported income in 1982, for example, was $637,000.7
    \5\ Hsia's involvement with former INS lawyer Howard Hom began in 
the summer of 1979, when they were both enrolled in Cantonese language 
classes at the University of California in Los Angeles. Deposition of 
Howard Hom, Aug. 27, 1997, pp. 8-9. They began living together in 1980, 
and when the Fleming firm split up in 1986, Hom went into business with 
Hsia as they took over most of Fleming's immigration clients. See 
Memorandum of Interview of Howard Hom, Aug. 10, 1997, p.1. This 
personal-cum-business relationship with Howard Hom lasted until late 
1990. Howard Hom deposition, p.9.
    \6\ See Trial Brief of Defendant and Cross-Complainant Howard Hom 
in Hsia v. Hom, Ca Super. Ct., No. BC 059523, p. 6 (Ex. 4) (describing 
immigration law as profitable ``largely due to tremendous uncertainty 
in Taiwan over the future of the island nation'' caused by the U.S. 
government's abrogation of formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan).
    \7\ Ex. 3, p. 69. Her income in 1983 was $449,000. By 1986 it had 
slipped to $362,000. Id. According to press reports, this stream of 
revenue enabled her to purchase a Rolls Royce automobile and a home in 
Beverly Hills. Sterngold, supra note 4.
    Hsia's first contact with political fundraising came in 
early 1982 at a cocktail party she attended with Howard Hom. At 
that reception, they met briefly with March Fong-Eu, an Asian-
American woman who was then California's Secretary of State, 
and Fong-Eu's son, Matthew Fong, who was then his mother's 
campaign manager and subsequently became California's state 
treasurer. At a subsequent meeting, Fong enlisted Hom and Hsia 
to help with fundraising for his mother's re-election. As Hom 
later recalled it, ``Maria offered to take over the fund-
raising activity and, in fact, she explained to Mr. Fong that 
she felt that she and her friends could probably do a better 
fund-raiser than Howard and his lawyer friends . . . . That was 
the genesis of how fund-raising got started with 
    \8\ Hom deposition, pp. 10-12.
    It was her immigration work that helped propel Hsia into 
the political arena. Her interest in political activity was 
heavily mercenary: it provided her with contacts and friends in 
government circles in ways that she believed helped her 
immigration services business in at least two ways.
    First, such contacts might be useful in helping her clients 
with specific immigration matters. When she and Hom ran into 
some difficulty with Immigration and Naturalization Services 
(INS) officials in 1983 over a series of visas they had 
obtained for clients through the U.S. consulate in American 
Samoa, for example, Hsia decided that ``a political approach 
might be useful'' to complement more conventional litigation 
strategies.9 Through her political contacts, she 
persuaded U.S. Senator Alan Cranston and U.S. Representatives 
Mel Levine, Howard Berman, and Harry Reid to write letters to 
the INS on her behalf. Cranston was already a recipient of 
political contributions Hsia had raised through her contacts in 
California's Asian community,10 and after their help 
with this immigration issue Hsia began raising money for 
Levine, Berman, and Reid as well.11 Their queries 
forced the INS to undertake the unusual additional step of 
publishing a report in December 1983 on its handling of these 
particular cases.12 The message was not lost on Hsia 
that political contacts and political fundraising could indeed 
pay her concrete dividends.13
    \9\ Id., p. 18.
    \10\ Maria Hsia's fundraising efforts on Senator Cranston's behalf 
continued, in fact, at least through May 1989. See Handwritten note by 
Hsia's assistant Jeffrey Su listing attendees at Cranston fundraiser on 
May 23, 1989, including Maria Hsia and John Huang (Ex. 5). As a result 
of Hsia's longstanding contacts with Cranston, he invited her to 
address a field hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's 
Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific Affairs (which he chaired) at UCLA in 
February 1989. See Alan Cranston, letter to Maria Hsia, Jan. 23, 1989 
(Ex. 6); see generally Hom deposition, pp. 180-82.
    \11\ Hom deposition, p. 20.
    \12\ Sterngold, supra note 4.
    \13\ See generally Hom deposition, p. 15 (``[E]specially on the 
Federal level, when Maria started to meet Congressmen and Senators, she 
realized that this was helpful to my immigration clients who, because 
of the[ir] contact with the Federal Government, might have some need of 
a letter from a Senator or a Congressman to get a case moving through 
the red tape of the bureaucracy.'').
    Apart from concrete help with specific immigration cases, 
however, Hsia's political activity was useful to her business 
in a second, more general sense: it helped her cultivate an 
image of a ``connected'' political ``player'' who could ``make 
things happen'' for her clients. As Hom put it,

          [I]t was also good in the sense of a public relations 
        image where the Chinese newspapers would say, Here's 
        Howard Hom and Maria Hsia having a reception with the 
        particular Senator or Congressman, the implication 
        obviously being that we were well-connected and that 
        clients should view that, if anything happened to their 
        case, we had this kind of extra protection, so to 
    \14\ Id.

Her political fundraising in California politics, for example--
which had begun with her involvement with Hom in March Fong-
Eu's campaign in 1982--quickly proved useful in this regard. 
With help from fundraising beneficiaries March Fong-Eu and 
California Lieutenant Governor Leo McCarthy, for example, Hsia 
was appointed to several honorary state positions, the prestige 
of which benefitted her immigration work.15
    \15\ See, e.g., Ex. 3, p. 58 (``I was sitting on the California 
Economic [Development] Commission, which gave me a lot of exposure and 
[helped] to draw more [immigrant] investors [under the Immigration Act 
of 1990] to come into this country.'') These state positions included 
seats on the Commission for Economic Development and the California-
Taiwan Sister State Legislative Task Force, and received weighty titles 
as March Fong-Eu's ``Honorary Deputy Secretary of State'' and ``Special 
Assistant for Asian Affairs.'' See Maria Hsia biography, p. 2 (Ex. 7) 
(listing positions); Hom deposition, pp. 12-13; Leo McCarthy, letter to 
Maria Hsia, April 8, 1991 (Ex. 8) (discussing upcoming seminar for 
Commission for Economic Development).
    Hsia's early political activity also had national results. DNC 
Chairman Ronald Brown, who would later supervise Hsia's friend John 
Huang in his Department of Commerce, appointed Hsia to the DNC's 
``National Convention Site Selection Committee.'' Cf. Ronald H. Brown, 
letter to Maria Hsia, June 14, 1990 (Ex. 9).
    As luck would have it, however, the synergy between Hsia's 
political activity and her immigration business did not flow in 
only one direction. Her immigration work may, in fact, have 
introduced her to Indonesia's Lippo Group conglomerate. Having 
been put in contact with the Indonesian section of Lippo Bank 
by one of her clients, she acquired some further clients 
through them.16
    \16\Maria L. Hsia, deposition in Hsia v. Hom, California Superior 
Court, No. BC 059523, May 18, 1994, pp. 29-31 (Ex. 10).
    By the late 1980s, Hsia had begun to attempt on the 
national stage what she had by then accomplished in California: 
building close fundraising and political ties to prominent 
politicians who were in a position to help her and her friends. 
At least initially, however, this project--which was to 
culminate with her efforts to involve the Hsi Lai Temple on 
behalf of national Democratic candidates in the 1996 
elections--could not be accomplished alone. To move more into 
national politics, Hsia required some new friends.
    The involvement of Hsia and the Hsi Lai Temple in donation-
laundering in support of the Clinton/Gore ticket in 1996 was 
the culmination of a relationship between Hsia and Vice 
President Gore that stretches back to 1988--the year that James 
Riady, John Huang, Maria Hsia, Eddy Yang, Howard Hom, Fred 
Hong, and others established the Pacific Leadership Council 
(PLC) as a fundraising and lobbying organization to promote 
their interests in U.S. politics.17
    \17\ As Hom recalled it, the purpose was to build the group into a 
powerful political organization; it was designed to give its charter 
members ``the same kind of clout as, say, other organized groups . . . 
like the Teamsters or the National Rifle Association . . . .'' Hom 
deposition, p. 24.
    From the beginning, it should be noted, the PLC was in 
large part a vehicle for the advancement of Lippo interests. 
James Riady, the son of Mochtar Riady and scion of the family 
dynasty that ran the Lippo Group, was instrumental in the PLC's 
founding and served alongside Hsia and Fred Hong as one of the 
organization's first co-chairs.18 Indeed, James 
Riady was perhaps the single most important figure in the PLC's 
early political activity, hosting its first political 
fundraiser on April 22, 1988,19 using his business 
contacts to facilitate the group's fundraising,20 
and employing his own money and that of Lippo employees to make 
up for unanticipated shortfalls in PLC fundraising 
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id. p. 26; see also Maria Hsia, facsimile transmission to John 
Huang, March 30, 1988 (Ex. 11) (referring to upcoming event at 
``James's house on 4/22/88'').
    \20\ One document recounting contributions made to the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee (apparently in 1988), for example, lists 
13 persons or couples who had contributed between $5,000 and $10,000 to 
that organization. Beside each name is listed the name of the person 
who solicited that contribution. James Riady's name appears next to 11 
of the 13 donations, suggesting that he was responsible for every 
contribution but two (the ones that were made by Hsia and Hom 
themselves). David Lang, memorandum to Mary Leslie, May 4, 1988 (Ex. 
12); see also Hom deposition, p. 28 (explaining that handwritten 
notations next to each name indicate solicitor). Another document 
produced to the Committee, recounting solicitations for new membership 
in the ``Leadership Circle/Business Round Table Circle,'' lists Maria 
Hsia and James Riady as having each solicited $55,000. List of 
Leadership Circle Solicitations, undated (Ex. 13).
    \21\ John Huang, Riady's employee, was particularly active in this 
regard. See Hom deposition, pp. 30-32 (recounting that John Huang 
commonly ``stepped in to fill the slot'' if Hsia or others ``would fall 
short of [their] goal and would have to look for other people to bail 
her out . . . [by] making an extra contribution''); John Huang, note to 
Maria Hsia, Dec. 16, 1989 (Ex. 14) (forwarding blank check drawn on 
account at Lippo bank with handwritten instructions to use it for 
either $500 or $1,000 donation to Fund for a Democratic Majority, 
depending upon whether another contributor met anticipated commitment); 

Jeff Su, letter to ``Pamela,'' April 15, 1991 (Ex. 15) (enclosing Huang 
check to ``Mikulski for Senate'' in order to ``serve as a replacement 
for Phillip So's check''); Maria Hsia, letter to Rick Weiland, April 
28, 1988 (Ex. 16) (forwarding check from Huang which ``represents David 
Yeh and Ossy Tirta's contributions''); Ex. 13 (listing solicitations by 
Riady for ``New Members Leadership Circle/Business Round Table Circle'' 
with handwritten alterations replacing names of Ossy Tirta and David 
Yeh with that of John Huang).
    A ``wish list'' 22 James Riady submitted to Hsia 
in April 1988 summarizing ``issues need[ing] to be followed 
up,'' 23 for example, suggests Riady's role in 
steering the PLC and interest in enlisting it, and through it 
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), as a 
vehicle for the promotion of Lippo interests. This list, 
prefaced by a handwritten memorandum on Bank of Trade/Lippo 
Group 24 stationery, outlined Riady's plans for the 
group's political activity in U.S. politics on a Senator-by-
Senator basis, outlining a specific ``agenda'' for six U.S. 
Senators: Daniel Inouye, Tim Wirth, Kent Conrad, James Exon, 
John Melcher, and Tom Daschle. More broadly, Riady suggested a 
number of ``[o]ther issues'' that the PLC should pursue, among 
    \22\ The term is Howard Hom's. See Hom deposition, p. 36.
    \23\ James Riady, memorandum to Maria Hsia, April 26, 1988, p. 1 
(Ex. 17).
    \24\ The Bank of Trade was a Lippo-owned bank that is now known 
simply as Lippo Bank.
          ``(i) The need for the Senators to impress upon 
        Taiwan to allow Asian-American banks (or at least Bank 
        of Trade) to be allowed to open a branch office in 
        Taiwan in the very near future.
          (ii) Appointments of Asian-Americans to policy making 
        positions in the Federal Government.
          (iii) Visit of US Senators on an ongoing and regular 
        basis to Indonesia, Hong Kong and Taiwan at our 
        invitation or with us as host.
          (iv) Participation of Senators at specific Asian-
        American community activities in California such as the 
        NACAB, The Asia Society, the Indonesian Business 
        Society and other similar bodies.
          (v) Funds of various Federal Government Agencies or 
        government bodies as well as that of DSCC to be 
        deposited at the Asian-American banks in the U.S. 
        Perhaps the DSCC could start by making a deposit at 
        Bank of Trade.
          (vi) Assistance for special, exceptional immigration 
        cases when and if it arises.'' 25
    \25\ Ex. 17, p. 3.
    Riady's role in personally directing such activity, 
however, declined over time as it became difficult for him to 
reconcile the broader responsibilities of helping run his 
family's international business empire with day-to-day 
involvement in U.S. politics. As a consequence, he found it 
necessary to step down as co-chair of the PLC. To ensure that 
Lippo's interests were still advanced by the organization, 
however, Riady delegated his role to Huang, who was at that 
time a top executive with the Lippo-owned Bank of Trade and 
thus Riady's employee. Huang thereafter served as Riady's agent 
``both on the PLC, taking over Riady's position as the 
organization's co-chair, and more generally with regard to U.S. 
political activity.26 As Maria Hsia herself 
27 put it in a facsimile transmission to her PLC co-
chair Fred Hong, ``John Huang . . . is putting D.S.C.C. 
together for James.'' 28
    \26\ See Hom deposition, pp. 24-25.
    \27\ As suggested by Riady's April 1988 ``wish list,'' Hsia was 
apparently also expected to play a role in implementing James Riady's 
agenda. See Ex. 17, p. 1 (noting that with regard to political agenda, 
``it may be best to coordinate through a person--i.e., you.'').
    \28\ Maria Hsia, facsimile transmission to Fred Hong, March 30, 
1988 (Ex. 18).
    The PLC swung its weight in behind Democratic Party 
candidates in several of the major national races of 1988, most 
prominently Michael Dukakis' campaign for President and Leo 
McCarthy's campaign for the U.S. Senate.29 Both of 
these campaigns, however, were conspicuously unsuccessful--
leading the PLC to cast around for a way to rekindle its 
political fortunes. Ultimately, the PLC decided to try to 
revive the organization's political activity by organizing a 
high-profile trip to Asia for a group of U.S. 
Senators.30 Significantly, it was this search for 
new political opportunities in 1988-89 that helped bring Hsia 
and the Riady/Huang group together, simultaneously, both with 
Venerable Master Hsing Yun's Fo Kuang Shan Buddhist order and 
with then-U.S. Senator Al Gore.
    \29\ See generally Hom deposition, pp. 22-25, ``89 for 90,'' Los 
Angeles Times Magazine, Jan. 1, 1989, p. 34 (identifying Hsia as ``at 
the center of a predominantly Asian group of fund-raisers rapidly 
emerging as a major force in the hotly competitive Los Angeles 
political money scene. Last fall, the group raised substantial sums 
for, among others, the Dukakis and McCarthy campaigns. Throughout 1989, 
its' leading delegations of Senators and Congressmen on tours of the 
far east''). Hsia was also a ``regional chair'' for the 1988 Democratic 
Senate Dinner in Los Angeles and--along with Huang, Hom, and Fred Hong, 
among others--co-chaired at least one Dukakis campaign fundraising 
dinner in Los Angeles sponsored by the ``Asian-American Friends of 
Dukakis.'' (The ``general chairman'' for the latter event was the now-
convicted campaign-finance violator Albert Lum.) See 1988 Democratic 
Senate Dinner brochure, p. 1 (Ex. 19); Dukakis dinner program (Ex. 20).
    \30\ As it turned out, this trip would be among the PLC members' 
most important steps toward implementing the U.S. political agenda 
James Riady had spelled out in April 1988, see supra text accompanying 
note 25 (listing agenda item of having Asian-Americans appointed to 
high office), until the success in 1994 of the group's efforts to have 
Huang appointed to a high government position. See Hom deposition, p. 
39; see also Ex. 21 (letters on behalf of John Huang: Howard Hom, 
letter to Doris Matsui, Dec. 14, 1992; Sen. Paul Simon, letter to Susan 
Brophy, Jan. 6, 1993; Sen. Thomas Daschle, letter to Richard Riley, 
Jan. 8, 1993; Mike Wantanabe, letter to Melinda Yee, Jan. 19, 1993; 
Sen. Kent Conrad, letter to Bruce Lindsey, Jan. 21, 1993; Nancy H. Au, 
letter to Melinda Yee, Jan. 26, 1993; Kathleen Brown, letter to Jody 
Franklin, Jan. 28, 1993; Maeley Tom, letter to John Emerson, Feb. 17, 
1993; Leo McCarthy, letter to Bruce Lindsey, Feb. 22, 1993; Leo 
McCarthy, letter to John Emerson, Feb. 22, 1993).
    The connection between Hsia and her fellow PLC members and 
the Fo Kuang Shan Buddhist order 31--the Taiwanese 
parent organization of the International Buddhist Progress 
Society (IBPS) and its Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, 
California--came about through Eddy Yang. Yang, also a founding 
member of the PLC, headed the Sunlight Corporation a furniture 
company and had been for many years an ``advisor'' to the Fo 
Kuang Shan order in Taiwan.32 As Howard Hom 
recalled, Yang stepped in and ``volunteered the temple's 
auspices'' after Hsia had ``problems lining up a corporate 
sponsor that she knew,'' making the temple available to help 
underwrite the cost of the PLC's trip to Asia for Senator Gore 
in early 1989.33
    \31\ This Taiwanese-based sect was founded in 1969 by Li Kuo-Shen, 
who subsequently took the name Hsing Yun (``Stars and Clouds'') as his 
``Dharma name'' upon becoming a monk. By the mid-1990s, the Order had 
developed into a worldwide network having some 130 temples, as many as 
1.5 million adherents, and over $400 million in assets. See Kevin 
Sullivan, ``Monk at Issue is an Icon in Taiwan,'' Washington Post, Oct. 
25, 1996, p. A22; Geoff Spencer, ``Buddhism Blossoms in Australia's 
Industrial Heartland.'' Ap Worldstream, Oct. 8, 1995.
    \32\ See Hom deposition, pp. 49-50.
    \33\ Id.
    Involving the Fo Kuang Shan Order in the PLC's agenda was 
in many ways an inspired choice, as it had acquired a 
reputation for political activity in Taiwan.34 
Master Hsing Yun saw himself as destined to play an important 
role on the world stage as an unofficial advisor to political 
leaders both in Taiwan and elsewhere.35 Not for 
nothing, therefore, was Master Hsing Yun known as ``the 
political monk.'' 36
    \34\ Master Hsing Yun, for example, has since served 1988 on the 
Central Advisory Committee to Taiwan's ruling Kuomintang Party (KMT), 
supported an independent Buddhist candidate (Chen Lu-an) in Taiwan's 
1995-96 presidential election campaigns, and in 1997 accepted an 
appointment to the Taipei government's cabinet-level Overseas Chinese 
Affairs Commission. Debbie Kuo, ``Master Hsing Yun Appointed 
Commissioner of O'Seas Chinese Affairs,'' Central News Agency [Taiwan], 
Feb. 16, 1997; Sullivan, supra note 31, p. A22; Tsong Ching, ``Master 
Hsing Yun and Preceptor of State Yu Lin,'' Pacific Journal, May 3, 1996 
(Ex. 22) (translated by Michael Yan for the Governmental Affairs 
Committee). According to press reports, Hsing Yun's ``pattern of 
influence building'' has given him ties to ``a number of world 
leaders.'' Sullivan, supra  note 31; see also generally Stuart 
Chandler, Establishing Friendly Relations: The Fokuangshan Perspective 
on the Hsi Lai Temple Political Donations Controversy (unpublished 
monograph, June 14, 1997) (Ex. 23, p. 13).
    \35\ Hsing Yun once wrote a novel about a Buddhist monk named Yu 
Lin, who was appointed to political office as ``Preceptor of State'' by 
an emperor of the Ch'ing dynasty. This story, which was made into a 
movie and a television series in Taiwan, outlines Hsing Yun's 
``critique and expectations of a religious-leader-turned-Preceptor-of-
State'' and suggests that he entertains similar ambitions for himself. 
Ching, supra note 34; cf. Fu Chi-ying, Handing Down the Light: The 
Biography of Venerable Master Hsing Yun (Hsi Lai University Press 1996) 
(translated by Amy Lui-Ma) (Ex. 24, p. 106).
    \36\ John Mintz, ``Fund-Raisers Pressured Temple After Gore Visit; 
12 Donors Were Reimbursed,'' Washington Post, June 13, 1997, p. A20 
(recounting that Hsing Yun has called himself ``political monk''); see 
also Ching supra note 34.
    To this end, in expanding his order to the United 
States,37 Hsing Yun apparently hoped to continue 
``spreading the Dharma,'' i.e., increasing popular receptivity 
to Buddhist ideas and culture, through political fundraising in 
U.S. politics.38 As he made clear to the Committee 
when he was interviewed in Taiwan in June 1997,
    \37\ The name of the elaborate temple complex constructed by the 
IBPS to be the headquarters of the Fo Kuang Shan order's North American 
operations illustrates its intended mission of spearheading the order's 
expansion into the United States: Hsi Lai means ``Coming to the West.'' 
Hsing Yun's biographer describes the founding of the temple in Hacienda 
Heights as ``a milestone that mark[ed] the Dharma coming to the Western 
world.'' (Ex. 24, p. 342).
    \38\ See Ex. 23, p. 4 (``As another means to establish Hsi Lai 
Temple as a legitimate, fully accepted member of the [U.S.] community, 
Master Hsing Yun and the temple's various abbots have consistently 
sought to secure `friendly relations' with local and national political 
leaders.''); id., p. 16 (describing order's political involvement in 
Taiwan and noting that ``[i]n light of Master Hsing Yun's willingness, 
even eagerness, to create `friendly relations' with government 
officials, both in Taiwan and abroad, the fact that he invited Gore to 
Fokuangshan in 1989, and subsequently honored him with a banquet as Hsi 
Lai Temple, no longer seems so bizarre.'').

          Speaking of political donations, I feel that, my 
        entire life, I have been a person who enjoys doing good 
        deeds and giving to others. . . . I give people 
        assistance. I am grateful for the economic aid that the 
        United States government gave to the Republic of China 
        thirty or forty years in the past. Having established 
        two-way communication with the United States, I feel 
        that I ought to express my gratitude and repay the 
    \39\ Hsing Yun, ``Statement to Governmental Affairs Committee Fact-
finding Team'' June 17, 1997 (Ex. 25, p. 2). (This document was 
prepared by Hsing Yun for the Committee in advance of his interview on 
June 17, 1997; it does not represent an account of this interview.)

This penchant for political involvement helped make Hsing Yun's 
Fo Kuang Shan order an eager collaborator in Maria Hsia's 
political activity.40 Over the next few years, Hsing 
Yun's organization helped Hsia and her PLC co-founders in three 
principal ways:
    \40\ Ironically, however, according to Howard Hom, Maria Hsia was 
generally contemptuous of persons who became involved in political 
activity through political conviction; she believed that real political 
power flowed from campaign contributions rather than passion and policy 
activism. Hom interview, p. 3.
          (1) The Fo Kuang Shan order helped pay for the PLC's 
        trip to Asia in early 1989 and hosted the PLC 
        delegation at its temple headquarters in Kiaoshung, 
          (2) The order provided Maria Hsia with a lucrative 
        sideline in procuring ``religious worker'' visas and 
        green cards for Temple monastics and devotees coming to 
        the United States under provisions of the 1990 
        immigration act for the passage of which she had 
        successfully lobbied; and
          (3) The order gave Hsia access to a deep reservoir of 
        money for illegally laundered political donations, upon 
        which she would draw heavily in the years to come.
In return, the Fo Kuang Shan order perceived itself as becoming 
increasingly influential within the Democratic Party. By late 
1996, brochures prepared by the Hsi Lai Temple had come to 
describe Hsing Yun as an ``informal liaison to the White House 
on Asian affairs.'' 41
    \41\ Lena H. Sun, ``Gore `Community Outreach' Touched Wallets at 
Temple: April L.A. Event Raised Funds and Questions,'' Washington Post, 
Oct. 25, 1996, p. A1.
    The PLC's trip to Asia in 1989 was organized by John Huang, 
James Riady, and Maria Hsia, with Huang playing the lead role. 
Here again, James Riady's enormous role in the PLC was visible: 
according to a report on the preparations Huang gave to a PLC 
meeting in November 1988, Riady and his employee Huang provided 
$10,000 in seed money to help cover the trip's costs. This 
money was deposited in an account controlled by Huang, Hsia, 
and Fred Hong at Riady's own Bank of Trade.42 
Overall sponsorship of the trip was ostensibly to be provided 
by a ``non profit organization in Indonesia''; this was being 
arranged by James Riady.43
    \42\ Minutes of PLC Meeting, Nov. 10, 1988, p. 1 (Ex. 26).
    \43\ Riady's role as perhaps the single most important figure 
behind the 1989 trip is also suggested by a letter sent in July 1988 by 
Huang's assistant to a member of Senator Kent Conrad's staff as part of 
the PLC's efforts to organize the Asia trip. According to this letter, 
Riady had picked the ``dignitaries, public officials and business 
leaders in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia'' who were to be 
visited by the PLC delegation. Interestingly, this list included a 
number of ``PRC Related Officials,'' including the head of the Xinhua 
News Agency in Hong Kong, described as ``equivalent to PRC 
Ambassador,'' and the head of China Resources, which was called ``PRC's 
key foreign trading company.'' Virginia H. White, letter to Karen 
Frederickson, July 28, 1988 (Ex. 27). (For more about China Resources, 
see the sections of this report dealing with Lippo and with 
intelligence matters.)
    The Fo Kuang Shan order also contributed an additional $4,000 
toward the PLC's expenses through its U.S. subsidiary, the 
International Buddhist Progress Society. See Check #1938 from 
International Buddhist Progress Society for $4,000 to ``Pacific 
Leadership,'' Dec. 28, 1988 (Ex. 28).
    Originally, the plan had been to invite as many as five 
U.S. Senators, accompanied by 15 PLC members, on a trip to 
Taiwan, Indonesia, and Hong Kong.44 All but one of 
the Senators invited to participate, however, turned down the 
Council's invitation.45 But Senator Gore faced re-
election in 1990, and had depleted his campaign funds in his 
failed 1988 presidential bid.46 Having been told by 
Senator Gore that he ``would like to know the Asian community 
better and would like to be closer to them,'' 47 
Maria Hsia explicitly promised Senator Gore her political 
support, as well as that of PLC co-founders such as James Riady 
and John Huang, if he would come join them in Asia. Indeed, 
Hsia advised him bluntly that ``[i]f you decide to join this 
trip, I will persuave [sic] all my colleagues in the future to 
play a leader role in your future presidential race.'' 
48 Gore thereupon accepted, becoming the only 
national-level U.S. politician to join the PLC in Taiwan.
    \44\ Ex. 26, p. 2.
    \45\ Hom deposition, p. 56.
    \46\ See Al Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, May 23, 1989 (Ex. 29).
    \47\ Maria Hsia, letter to Albert Gore, Nov. 22, 1988 (Ex. 30) 
(recounting conversation with Gore during event at home of Pamela 
Harriman). This Harriman event was probably not the same event 
referenced in a document in the handwriting of Jeff Su--Maria Hsia's 
political assistant--representing a fax transmission from Hsia to John 
Huang at Bank of Trade. This document describes a dinner party for 25-
30 guests at Harriman's house costing $3,000 to $5,000 per person with 
proceeds going to Friends of Al Gore. See Maria Hsia, memorandum to 
John Huang (undated) (Ex. 31). According to Howard Hom, Jeff Su only 
began working for Hsia in 1989, suggesting that the Harriman event 
referenced in Hsia's November 22, 1988 letter was a prior fundraiser. 
See Hom deposition, pp. 77-78.
    \48\ Ex. 30. This letter is in the Committee's possession only in 
``draft'' form, but Howard Hom recalls that it was ultimately sent as 
written. See Hom deposition, p. 59.
    Thanks to the partial financial sponsorship provided by 
Hsing Yun, part of the Taiwan leg of the PLC's Asia trip 
consisted of a visit to the Fo Kuang Shan temple in Kiaoshung. 
Attending with a delegation that included James Riady and his 
wife Aileen, John Huang and his wife Jane, Eddy Yang and his 
wife Jenny, Fred Hong, Howard Hom, and Maria Hsia, as well as 
Gore staff members Peter Knight and Leon Fuerth, 49 
Senator Gore toured the Kiaoshung Monastery on January 11, 1989 
and met with Hsing Yun.50
    \49\ Pacific Leadership Council, attendance list for January 1989 
trip (Ex. 32). Knight was then Gore's chief of staff, while Fuerth was 
his foreign policy advisor. (This document was not a final list of 
participants, but Howard Hom recalls it being accurate apart from 
exceptions that are irrelevant for present purposes. See  Hom 
deposition, pp. 61-62.)
    \50\ Indeed, during their meeting, Senator Gore and the Venerable 
Master discussed the Senator's hopes to win the U.S. presidency. 
According to Hsing Yun, when

      Senator Gore visited Fo Kuang Shan . . . I said to him, 
      ``You can become the president of the U.S.'' He was excited 
      upon hearing that and said, ``I will visit you when I 
      become the president.''

Hsing Yun, article in Universal Gates Monthly (May 1996) (Ex. 33, pp. 
183-184) [translated from the Chinese by SA Becky Chan for the 
Governmental Affairs Committee].
    This was the start of an extremely close relationship 
between Hsia and Senator Gore. After the January 1989 trip to 
Taiwan, Hsia became an active fundraiser for the Senator's 
reelection campaign.51 Over the next 22 months, 
until his reelection to the Senate in November 1990, for 
example, Hsia was involved with--with the help of her 
``political assistant'' Jeffrey Su 52--numerous 
fundraising events for the Gore campaign, working in 
conjunction with campaign officials to refer her own friends 
and fundraising colleagues to Gore events in Southern 
California.53 Hsia also helped organize Asian-
Americans and Indo-Americans in Tennessee in support of Senator 
Gore's re-election, forwarding lists of affluent Chinese-
Americans in Tennessee to the Senator's fundraising staff and 
helping publicize Indo-American events among her PLC 
fundraising colleagues.54
    \51\ She and her colleagues also did fundraising for other 
Senators. See, e.g., DSCC Tally Sheet (1989-1990) (ex. 34) (listing 
DSCC recipients including Senators Paul Simon, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, 
and Carl Levin); List of contributors to Sen. Howell Heflin dinner, 
Nov. 27, 1989 (Ex. 35). Gore, however, was the particular object of 
Maria Hsia's attentions.
    \52\ Jeffrey Su was hired by Hsia in early 1989--after her return 
from the trip to Taiwan--to help her run her various political 
activities and particularly to assist her in working for Senator Gore. 
Hom deposition, pp. 75 & 78.
    \53\ See, e.g., Maria Hsia, memorandum to DSCC members, March 20, 
1989 (Ex. 36) (list of upcoming Gore events); Debra Fried, memorandum 
to ``Finance leadership and contacts/Friends of Al Gore,'' July 27, 
1990 (Ex. 37) (forwarding list of upcoming Gore fundraisers on West 
Coast in August 1990); Hari Lal, letter to Debra Fried, Aug. 14, 1990 
(Ex. 38) (discussing Gore visit to Los Angeles); Handwritten memorandum 
on ``Gore Reception 3/21'' chaired by Eddy Yang at home of PLC founding 
member Tina Bow (otherwise undated) (Ex. 39); Jeff Su, fax transmission 
to John Huang, Aug. 6, 1990 (Ex. 40) (discussing ``the Gore reception 
on Thursday''); Jeff Su, fax transmission to Hari Lal, Aug. 15, 1990 
(Ex. 41) (discussing upcoming Gore events).
    \54\ See Ju Hong Taur, letter to Maria Hsia, Feb. 9, 1989 
(translated by SA Becky Chan for the Governmental Affairs Committee) 
(Ex. 42) (forwarding list of Chinese persons for fundraising 
solicitation and political organization); Ex. 43 (Maria Hsia, fax 
transmission to John Huang, March 9, 1990 [RE: Reception for Senator 
Gore by Indo-American community'']; Hari Lal, fax transmission to Maria 
Hsia, Oct. 1, 1990 [advising Hsia of Indo-American plans for Gore 
fundraisers in Tennessee]); see generally Hom deposition, pp. 78-81 
(recounting Hsia's role in organizing Asian-Americans and Indian-
    The PLC organized a fundraiser of its own for Senator 
Gore's campaign on May 21, 1989--a $250-per-person event held 
at the California home of PLC founding member Tina Bow and 
consisting of a ``private reception'' with the Senator for PLC 
members and event sponsors followed by a ``general reception.'' 
55 The event was chaired by Fo Kuangshan advisor 
Eddy Yang, but Hsia was one of its principal organizers, 
designing and mailing the invitations for the affair, helping 
arrange musical entertainment 56 and inviting ``DSCC 
Members and Friends'' to participate, advising them that 
Senator Gore was ``a likely candidate for president in 1992.'' 
    \55\ Maria Hsia, letter to ``DSCC Members and Friends,'' May 5, 
1989 (Ex. 44) (discussing May 21 fundraiser); R.S.V.P. return and from 
Maria Hsia's computer file, May 3, 1989 (Ex. 45) (indicating $250 
solicitation for event ``sponsors'').
    \56\ See Ex. 45 (draft invitations from Maria Hsia's computer file, 
with handwritten edits, and handwritten draft of invitation); Maria 
Hsia, letter to Johan Sendjaja, May 3, 1989 (Ex. 46) (discussing 
arrangements for band and public address system at May 21 Gore 
reception); Handwritten notes from Maria Hsia's file detailing 
preparations for May 21 reception (Ex. 47).
    \57\ Ex. 44.
    Nor were Hsia and her colleagues above using Fo Kuang Shan 
monastics in their fundraising for Senator Gore. Underlining 
the PLC's reciprocal commitments with the Senator, for example, 
Eddy Yang helped arrange for several monks and nuns from the 
Temple to attend the May 21, 1989 Gore fundraiser.\58\ This 
event reportedly raised nearly $20,000 for Senator Gore; he 
accordingly wrote a thank-you letter afterwards to one of the 
monastics saying that he ``deeply appreciates your support and 
the support of your congregation.'' \59\ Senator Gore 
thereafter thanked Hsia for her support, assuring her that this 
assistance was vital because
    \58\ Hom deposition, p. 67 (``[T]he temple sent a team of monks and 
nuns to the event, and as I recall, someone spoke as the representative 
of that [organization], and because of that connection or linkage, Eddy 
Yang was an event chair because of his connection initially with the 
Buddhist temple that helped subsidize the trip to Taiwan.'').
    \59\ William Rempel, Alan Miller & Henry Weinstein, ``Buddhist 
Temple repaid some DNC Donations,'' Los Angeles Times, May 23, 1997, p. 

          my involvement in the Presidential race over the past 
        two years has delayed my efforts to raise money for the 
        1990 campaign and left our coffers empty for the 
        upcoming race. Your contribution at the early stage of 
        this effort has helped to replenish our account and 
        will allow me to build a strong organization. . . .\60\
    \60\ Ex. 29

    In addition to Gore-specific fundraising events, the DSCC's 
political-contribution ``tally'' system proved to be a valuable 
tool for Hsia as she swung her newfound fundraising clout 
behind Senator Gore, representing as it did a convenient way 
around limits on ``hard'' campaign finance contributions.\61\ 
Rather than limit their overall support of a particular 
candidate to the $2,000 level specified for total individual 
``hard'' donations, contributors to the DSCC arranged to 
earmark much larger ``soft'' money contributions for particular 
candidates. As Howard Hom remembered it,
    \61\ By federal law, contributions to individual candidates for 
Congress are limited to $1,000 per contributor for the primary and 
general election campaigns, for a total of $2,000 per contributor.

          The contributor donated under the name of DSCC, and 
        DSCC could do with it as they wished, but as the group 
        found out during the Leo McCarthy campaign for the U.S. 
        Senate in 1988, . . . we could request that all or a 
        portion of any donation be tallied or allocated to use 
        in a particular race. So we could say we want 90 
        percent to go to Al Gore and 10 percent to go to, say, 
        Leo McCarthy.\62\
    \62\ Hom deposition, p. 71; see also id., p. 88 (noting that ``the 
DSCC soft money tally would be separately allocated'' from ``the 
individual contribution to the 2,000-per-year max[imum]'').

In other words, donors would give money to the DSCC itself in 
large, unregulated ``soft'' money contributions, so that the 
DSCC could funnel designated amounts of each personal total to 
designated candidates with exactly the same result as if the 
$1,000 limitations had never existed. This system was 
ultimately found to be illegal--with the result that the DSCC 
paid $75,000 in fines to the FEC \63\--but for several years 
this ``tally'' system proved an invaluable means of skirting 
federal election laws.
    \63\ See Federal Elections Commission, Matter Under Review 3620, 
conciliation agreement, Aug. 11, 1995.
    After returning from the PLC's Taiwan trip, Hsia also 
worked for Senator Gore's re-election campaign through this 
DSCC tally system.\64\ As documented in files of her 
fundraising activity kept by Hsia and Howard Hom, for example, 
a donor named Michael Reyes became the frequent target of her 
efforts to earmark his DSCC contributions for Gore's re-
election campaign.\65\ In the period before the 1990 elections, 
the DSCC ``tallied'' at least $29,500 to Senator Gore's 
campaign.\66\ Senator Gore was well aware of this work she 
undertook on his behalf. As he put it in a letter he wrote to 
Hsia in January 1989, for example,
    \64\ Ex. 34 (``RE: DSCC tally to Senator Gore/Please check to see 
if the DSCC did in fact tally money to Sen. Gore per our request''); 
Jeff Su, fax transmission to Debra Fried, Aug. 22, 1990 (Ex. 48) 
(``John Huang will be attending the DSCC 1990 Fall Dinner. Maria will 
contact John and tell him [to] tally his $1,500 to Sen. Gore.'').
    \65\ See, e.g., Maria Hsia, fax transmission to Michael Reyes, Dec. 
2, 1988 (Ex. 49) (``I would like to tally your contribution to Senator 
Al Gore if you have no objections since his reelection is coming.'').
    \66\ Senator Paul Simon received even more DSCC money, being the 
recipient of $36,500 in DSCC ``tallies.'' Other recipients included 
Senators Howell Heflin ($7,500), Carl Levin ($2,500), Max Baucus 
($1,000), John Kerry ($1,000), and Tom Harkin ($4,000). See Ex. 34.

          I wanted to thank you for your generosity in 
        crediting by DSCC tally with the checks from Michael 
        Reyes and Tony Hsu. I have sent letters to both 
        thanking them and crediting you as the contact. Thanks 
        so much; it will help a great deal as we move into the 
        1990 Senate campaign. You are a wonderful friend.\67\
    \67\ Al Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, Jan. 31, 1989 (Ex. 50); see 
also Ex. 48 (``Senator Gore should call Michael [Reyes] and ask him to 
tally the remaining $5,000 to his campaign once it is paid.'').

Another letter in December 1990 similarly thanked Hsia for 
``your generous contribution to the Democratic Senatorial 
Campaign Committee, which you had tallied to me.'' \68\ 
Throughout the 1989-90 re-election campaign, Hsia remained in 
close contact about fundraising matters with Senator Gore and 
campaign officials such as Debra Fried of Friends for Al Gore.
    \68\ Albert Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, Dec. 5, 1990 (Ex. 51).
    All of this fundraising support was, of course, part of the 
rather explicit bargain Hsia had struck with Senator Gore in 
inviting him to visit Taiwan in November 1988. Hsia approached 
her political fundraising with clear objectives in mind, \69\ 
and Senator Gore's presidential ambition appears to have been 
her most favored long-term prospect. As Hsia put it in a note 
to one DSCC contributor, whom she was at that point trying to 
persuade to ``tally'' an additional $5,000 to Friends of Al 
Gore, help for Senator Gore was important because he had been 
``willing to take the Lead role to travel [to] Asia and [was] 
willing to work with us on a long term relationship for his 
future presidency.'' \70\
    \69\ Hsia advised Michael Reyes in January 1989, for instance, that 
$5,000 should be allocated to Senator Paul Simon, ``since he sits on 
the immigration sub-committee [and] he will be a very helpful source on 
any immigration related issues.'' A final $5,000 should be reserved, 
she said, for ``any [other] Senator who is responsive to our group's 
needs.'' Maria Hsia, fax transmission to Michael Reyes, Jan. 18, 1989 
(Ex. 52).
    \70\ Id.
    In fact, never a woman to say with circumspection what 
might be put bluntly, Hsia made no secret of her expectations 
even when writing to the Senator himself. Four days after the 
PLC's first fundraiser for Al Gore on May 21, 1989, she wrote 
to tell him that

          We were so happy that you were able to spend some 
        time with members of the Asian Pacific American 
        community here in Los Angeles. . . . I appreciate your 
        willingness to provide an opportunity for people to get 
        to know you better. I would also like to see you become 
        one of the senators closest to the Asian Pacific 
        community. But for that to occur, we need time and a 
        special commitment from each other. If you share the 
        same sentiments, please allow my colleagues and I a 
        role in developing this relationship.\71\
    \71\ Maria Hsia, letter to Albert Gore, May 25, 1989 (Ex. 53).

    Because of her work in the immigration services business, 
U.S. immigration law was another area of great personal 
interest to Hsia. By February 1989, a major immigration reform 
bill was being prepared in Congress,\72\ ultimately to become 
the Immigration Act of 1990. As this bill moved through the 
legislature during 1989, it became the subject of much lobbying 
by immigration services providers such as Hsia and Howard Hom. 
As finally adopted, the Act included a number of provisions of 
great value to such persons. First, the Act restricted 
deportation and provided work authorization for the spouse or 
unmarried children of legalized aliens.\73\ Second, the Act 
contained new provisions for what would become known as 
``investor immigrants'' (persons who received special visa 
preferences by virtue of their willingness to invest and/or 
create jobs in the United States) \74\ and ``multinational 
executive'' immigrants (persons employed by a foreign 
corporation seeking to work for it in the United States).\75\ 
Third, the Act created an entirely new visa category for 
``religious workers'' who belong to ``religious denomination[s] 
having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the 
United States'' and who seek entry in order to work here for 
their denomination.\76\
    \72\ Tom Griffith & Steve Huefner, letter to Christopher A. Ford, 
Aug. 18, 1997 (Ex. 54) (detailing legislative history of Immigration 
Act of 1990).
    \73\ P.L. 101-649, Sec. 301 [104 Stat. 4978, 5029]. As a result, an 
immigration services provider could use one alien's legal residence in 
the United States as a lever with which to secure visas (and ultimately 
legal residency) for other members of his or her family. This often 
enabled immigration services companies to develop an expanding ``tree'' 
of paying customers out of a single initial client contact. Hom and 
Hsia did a lucrative business by such expedients; according to Hom, 
losing the family reunification preferences ``would have wiped out a 
certain percentage of the client base.'' See Hom deposition, p. 120.
    \74\ P.L. 101-649 Sec. 121(b)(5) [104 Stat. 4978, 4989-90].
    \75\ Id., Sec. 121(b)(1)(C) [104 Stat. at 4988]. By the nature of 
these two categories, it was difficult to be both poor and eligible for 
their visa preferences. Moreover, demand for such visas far exceeded 
their supply--necessitating the development of a lottery system and 
leading clients eagerly to seek any chance for a perceived special 
advantage. See Hom deposition, pp. 128-129.
    \76\ P.L. 101-649, Sec. 151 [104 Stat. at 5004-05]. Similar 
provisions applied for temporary work visas, and these religious worker 
nonimmigrants were exempted from the overall visa caps established 
elsewhere in the legislation. Id. at Sec. Sec. 201(b)(1)(B) & 209 [104 
Stat. at 4981 & 5027]. For a discussion of the new religious worker 
rules, see Hom deposition, pp. 132-33.
    All three of these visa categories were to become lucrative 
parts of Hsia's business, especially after her association with 
the Fo Kuang Shan order gave her and Howard Hom the job of 
handling immigration work for foreign members of the Order 
affiliating with its U.S. branches such as the Hsi Lai Temple 
in Hacienda Heights, California.\77\ Hsia had long believed 
that her political activity provided important intangible 
advantages in her immigration services work, feeling that if 
she were ``politically active,'' her clients would conclude 
that she had ``more ability and more power to help them in 
their cases.'' \78\ In 1989, with an immigration bill pending 
in Congress that could provide a vehicle for visa provisions of 
such value to her business, Hsia set about to use her political 
ties to reap more concrete benefits as an immigration law 
    \77\ When Hom and Hsia stopped living together, Hsia took the 
Temple's immigration business with her, making it a major part of her 
work with Hsia & Associates. Hom deposition, pp. 160-61; Deposition of 
Man Ho, Aug. 6, 1997, pp. 51-54; Deposition of Yi Chu, Aug. 7, 1997, p. 
24; see also Deposition of Matthew Gorman, Sept. 23, 1997, pp. 140-43; 
(Ex. 55) (collection of illustrative immigration documents and invoices 
for services rendered sent from Hsia & Associates to Temple in 1996); 
Deposition of Man Ya Shih, Aug. 20, 1997, p. 16 (recounting that she 
obtained green card through Hsia at Temple's expense); Deposition of 
Siuw Moi Lian, Aug. 20, 1997, p. 11 (same); Deposition of Huei-Tsan 
Huang, Aug. 20, 1997, pp. 11-12 (discussing Hsia's role in obtaining a 
green card for her and in performing immigration services for Temple). 
According to Hsia's assistant at Hsia & Associates, Matthew Gorman, 
work for the Temple made up somewhere between 20 and 35 percent of 
Hsia's immigration business. Gorman deposition, pp. 75-76. Maria Hsia 
even handled immigration matters for Venerable Master Hsing Yun 
himself. See Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Representative for Hsing Yun, Oct. 28, 1996 (Ex. 56).
    \78\ Ex. 3, p. 28. According to Hsia, political involvement 
occasionally could lead to help with specific cases. Congressman Howard 
Berman's office, she claimed, helped her develop ways to improve 
client's chances in certain visa lotteries. Ex. 10, p. 26. Similarly, 
when Hsia asked for help with a particular immigration case from DSCC 
``tally'' recipient Senator Paul Simon, ``he made a phone call in front 
of me to the immigration commissioner in Washington, DC.'' Maria Hsia, 
deposition in Hsia v. Hom, Ca. Super. Ct., No. BC 059523, May 10, 1994, 
p. 78 (Ex. 57). Senator Gore also apparently helped Hsia on at least 
one occasion, by referring a particular case to her. See Hom 
deposition, pp. 117-118; Leon Fuerth, memorandum to Maria Hsia, Dec. 
14, 1989 (Ex. 58) (with attachments).
    One of the principal objects of Hsia's attentions--and 
fundraising support--in this respect was Congressman Bruce 
Morrison of Connecticut, who was the immigration bill's sponsor 
in the House of Representatives and the author of the religious 
worker and ``employment-based'' immigrant provisions so 
important to Hsia.\79\ Morrison was in the middle of a 
difficult (and ultimately unsuccessful) gubernatorial bid in 
Connecticut, and badly needed the funds with which Hsia and her 
PLC colleagues set out to provide him. Significantly, among 
other things, the PLC organized a fundraiser for Morrison at 
the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights on April 22, 1990.\80\ 
It was apparently not the first time Hsia had used the Temple 
for a political fundraising event,\81\ and it was not to be the 
    \79\ See Ex. 54, p. 2.
    \80\ See Ex. 59 (Jeffrey Su, fax transmission to Pat Andrews, April 
20, 1990 [enclosing press release announcing upcoming Morrison event at 
Hsi Lai Temple]; Invitation to Asian-Pacific American Friends of United 
States Congressman Bruce Morrison event at Hsi Lai Temple [giving price 
as ``$500 per couple/$300 per person'']). Hsia was even able to turn 
Morrison's Connecticut defeat to her advantage by hiring him as an 
immigration ``consultant'' immediately after the election of 1990--for 
a fee of $10,000 a month for six months. See Ex. 57 (containing as sub-
exhibit Consultancy Agreement between Bruce Morrison and Maria Hsia, 
Jan. 22, 1991). As Hsia explained it, Morrison had written ``the 
business provision which provides for the jo[b] creating investor 
category,'' and ``[t]he definition of ``new entrepreneur' will depend 
on Congressional intent and the implementation of the new 
regulations.'' Maria Hsia, fax transmission to Jamie Yang, Nov. 26, 
1990 (Ex. 60). Who better, therefore, to have on one's masthead and 
payroll as an immigration consultant?
    \81\ Eddy Yang apparently organized a fundraiser at the Hsi Lai 
Temple for Leo McCarthy's campaign. See Debbie McConville, memorandum 
to Maria Hsia, undated (Ex. 61) (listing ``Southern California Event 
Fundraising'' and indicating that ``Eddie Yang Event/Budhist [sic] 
Temple Event'' raised $10,450). Howard Hom also recalled that one of 
Senator Paul Simon's several visits to the Hsi Lai Temple had been a 
fundraiser. See Hom deposition, pp. 87-88; cf. Maria Hsia, fax 
transmission to Floyd Fithian, June 23, 1990 (Ex. 62) (describing Simon 
``event'' at Temple); Paul Simon, letter to Maria Hsia, Jan. 22, 1990 
(Ex. 63) (thanking Hsia for ``our visit to the Hsi Lai Temple''); Hom 
deposition, p. 172 (recalling that when Hsia described meeting with 
politician as ``event'' it was most probably a fundraiser). Other 
officials may also have benefited from fundraisers at the temple. Cf. 
Jeff Su, fax transmission to ``Elka,'' Jan. 22, 1990 (Ex. 64) 
(discussing opportunity for California State Controller Gray Davis to 
meet with ``Master Hsing Yun and potential supporters at Hsi Lai 
    Part of Hsia's lobbying effort during the summer of 1989--
at the same time she and her colleagues were pushing DSCC 
donors to earmark their unregulated ``soft'' money 
contributions to Senators Simon and Gore--involved traveling to 
Washington to lobby legislators in person on the pending 
immigration bill. According to Hom, the delegation Hsia took to 
Washington even included a pair of nuns from the Hsi Lai 
Temple. The presence of these monastics was intended to remind 
members of Congress of

          the Al Gore sponsorship to the Temple in Taiwan and 
        what the group--the Temple--did subsequently to let 
        other Senators know that if they came on board on the 
        immigration issue and other Asian issues, then they 
        could expect the same reciprocation . . . [through] 
        [t]rips to Taiwan and fundraising in the U.S.\82\
    \82\ Hom deposition, p. 153.

Hsia's group met with a number of U.S. Senators and 
Representatives on July 10 and 11, 1989.\83\
    \83\ See Maria Hsia, Schedule for July 10-11, 1989 (Ex. 65). See 
also, e.g., Ex. 7 (noting that Hsia ``organized and led delegations . . 
. to visit Washington, DC during debate on the bill in an effort to 
preserve the family reunification categories'').
    One of her contacts on this trip was with Senator Gore, who 
joined staff members Peter Knight and Leon Fuerth in meeting 
with Hsia on July 10. Her notes of the meeting recount that 
they discussed his trip to Taiwan with her in 1989, and that 
Gore ``want[ed] to involve [himself] in the Asian Community 
more for [the] future.'' 84 With regard to a 
particular amendment to the immigration bill which had by that 
point been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs and was rapidly 
approaching a full Senate vote 85 --``he said [he 
had] no problem for co-sponsorship.'' 86 The 
amendment they were discussing --the ``family unity'' 
provisions that were so important to Hsia's immigration 
practice was, in fact, adopted by the Senate two days later. 
Senator Gore was one of its co-sponsors.87
    \84\ Maria Hsia, notes of meeting with Senators, July 10, 1989, p. 
2 (Ex. 66); cf. Maria Hsia deposition in Hsia v. Hom, Ca Super. Ct., 
No. BC059523, apparently July 6, 1993, pp, 87-93 (Ex. 67) (discussing 
lobbying trip and taking handwritten notes).
    \85\ See Ex. 54, p.1.
    \86\ Ex. 66 p. 2.
    \87\ Ex. 54, pp. 1-2, On her Washington lobbying trip, Maria Hsia 
employed a simple system of ``grading'' Senators on an A-to-F scale 
based upon their responsiveness to her concerns; Senator Gore received 
an ``A''. Ex. 66, pp. 1-2. In fact, to some extent, Hsia apparently 
coordinated her lobbying on the pending immigration bill with Senator's 
Gore office--as well as the offices of Senator Simon and Representative 
Howard Berman--in promoting her favored legislative provisions. See 
Maria Hsia, fax transmission to Leon Fuerth, Jan. 24, 1989 (Ex. 68); 
see also generally Hom deposition. pp. 142-143.
    Writing to Senator Gore upon her return to Los Angeles, 
Hsia thanked him for ``your support on the recent immigration 
bill,'' adding that ``[o]n behalf of the Pacific Leadership 
Council and the communities we represent, I thank you for all 
that you have done.'' 88 Writing back to her in 
response, Senator Gore described himself as being ``pleased to 
have been able to assist you'' on the immigration bill. 
``Without your superb contribution,'' he said, ``it would have 
been much more difficult to find my way in these matters. I 
continue to value your good counsel.'' 89 As John 
Huang himself later described it to then-Vice President 
Gore,``you worked very hard on immigration issues; you worked 
very hard for us.'' 90
    \88\ Maria Hsia, letter to Albert Gore, July 17, 1989 (Ex. 69).
    \89\ Albert Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, Aug. 28, 1989 (Ex. 70). By 
all accounts, Maria Hsia appears to have been a significant ``player'' 
in crafting the Immigration Act of 1990--to the point that Senator Paul 
Simon, one of the bill's sponsors, later presented her with the pen 
used to sign the bill into law. See Hom deposition, pp. 158-159. So 
important was this pen, in turn, to Hsia that she reported broke into 
the offices of her law ``partner'' Arnold Malter in July 1995 in order 
to retrieve it after their business relationship collapsed. See 
Monterey Park Police, Crime Report for file number 95-4822, July 15, 
1995 (Ex. 1995 (Ex. 71) (describing theft of pen as recounted by Malter 
to police).
    \90\ John Huang, opening remarks at Vice Presidential event in 
Santa Monica, Sept. 27, 1993, on WHCA audiotape of Santa Monica event, 
Sept. 28, 1993 [transcription by Government Affairs Committee stafff]. 
The White House Communications Agency apparently misdated this tape: 
the event actually occurred on September 27. See John Huang, letter to 
Jack Quinn, Oct. 7, 1993 (Ex. 72) (``We enjoyed meeting you again on 
the following Monday, September 27 in Los Angeles. Vice President Gore 
was just super.'').
    In addition to more conventional communications thanking 
her for her fundraising on his behalf,91 Senator 
Gore sent effusive handwritten comments informing Hsia and 
Howard Hom, for example, that ``I cannot thank you enough. You 
two are great friends. See you soon. Al.'' 92 Hsia's 
involvement with Senator Gore extended even to helping him 
prepare his book Earth in the Balance: as Gore Chief of Staff 
Peter Knight wrote to Hsia in March 1991,
    \91\ See e.g., Ex. 51; Albert Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, Dec. 10, 
1990 (Ex. 73); Ex. 29; Ex. 50; cf Invitation sent to Maria Hsia for 
reception for swearing-in-ceremony on January 3, 1991 (Ex. 74).
    \92\ Albert Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, Oct. 2, 1990 (Ex. 75); see 
also Albert Gore, handwritten letter to Maria Hsia, undated (Ex. 76).

          The materials you got for Al's book on the 
        environment were perfect. Thanks so much for taking the 
        time to do it. He would have been lost without your 
        efforts because the chapter on religion and the 
        environment is integral to his work.93
    \93\ Peter Knight, letter to Maria Hsia, March 6, 1991 (Ex. 77).

    As will be described below, the close relationship between 
Maria Hsia and Al Gore continued at least through 
    \94\ Even apart from DNC fundraiser and the April 29, 1996 Gore 
fundraiser, for example, Maria Hsia interceded with Deputy Chief of 
Staff David Stauss to procure a congratulatory message for the annual 
conference of the Buddha's Light International Association (BLIA) in 
Paris in August 1996. Compare Maria Hsia, letter to David Strauss, July 
2, 1996 (asking for help in obtaining congratulations message), with 
Albert Gore, letter to Maria Hsia, July 26, 1996 (extending 
congratulations) (both Ex. 78. Hsia went so far as to invite President 
Clinton to attend the conference, but be declined--opting instead 
merely to send a congratulatory message of his own. See Ex. 79 (Maria 
Hsia, letter to Bill Clinton, June 13, 1996, Stephanie Streett & Ann 
Hawley, letter to Maria Hsia, Sept. 25, 1996; Bill Clinton, letter to 
Buddha's Light International Association, Aug. 2, 1996). As recounted 
by Temple official Man Hua during the deposition of her colleague Man 
Ho, Hsia became involved in trying to arrange such favors for the BLIA 
after learning that Yah Lin (``Charlie'') Trie was attempting to do so. 
Protecting her exclusive relationship with the Temple by telling Hsing 
Yun that Trie was ``not reliable,'' Hsia thereupon set about arranging 
this herself. See Man Ho deposition, pp. 54-68.
    Considerable publicity has surrounded the illegal 
reimbursement of DNC donors by the Hsi Lai Temple in connection 
with an April 1996 fundraiser organized by Hsia and Huang for 
Vice President Gore. The pattern for this conduct, however, was 
actually set at least three years earlier. Both Hsia and Huang 
were involved in similar donation-laundering at least as early 
as 1993, when they laundered contributions in connection with a 
meeting they helped arrange between Vice President Gore's chief 
of staff and the head of a company reportedly linked with the 
intelligence apparatus of the People's Republic of China. On 
Thursday, September 23, 1993, Huang wrote two checks to the 
DNC--for $15,000 each--drawn against accounts at Lippo Bank 
held in the name of two U.S. subsidiaries of James Riady's 
Lippo Group, for which Huang still worked. Four days later, on 
September 27, he wrote a third $15,000 check on the account of 
a third Lippo subsidiary.95 Two days later, Hsia 
arranged for three nuns from the Hsi Lai Temple to write checks 
to the DNC totaling $5,000.96 All of these donations 
were illegal, representing money from foreign sources or money 
from ``straw donors'' illegally reimbursed by another party.
    \95\ See Ex. 80 (Hip Hing Holding check #2626 for $15,000 on 
September 23, 1993; San Jose Holding check #1692 for $15,000 on 
September 27, 1993; Toy Center Holdings check #1458 for $15,000 on 
September 23, 1993).
    \96\ See Ex. 81 (DNC check tracking form for Pi Hsia donation of 
$2,000 on September 27, 1993; DNC check tracking form for Hsin Kuang 
Shih donation of $2,000 on September 27, 1993; DNC check tracking form 
for Hsiu Chu Lin donation of $1,000 on September 27, 1993). Each check 
tracking form lists Maria Hsia as the solicitor of the donation 
described. On the ``memo'' position of Pi Hsia Hsio's check is written 
``Maria Hsia.''
    Huang's three DNC checks came from Lippo subsidiaries--Hip 
Hing Holdings, San Jose Holdings, and Toy Center Holdings--each 
of which had negative income at the time the checks were 
written.97 In other words, they were losing money; 
the money for his three $15,000 contributions actually came 
from Lippo accounts overseas.98 With regard to the 
$5,000 in DNC donations from Temple monastics arranged by Hsia, 
each nun was reimbursed that same day for their donations, 
through checks written on the Temple's general expenses account 
by the Temple's treasurer, Yi Chu.99
    \97\ See Ex. 82 (Hip Hing Holdings. Ltd., Income statement for 
period ending December 31, 1993; San Jose Holdings, Inc., Income 
statement for period ending December 31, 1993; Toy Center Holdings of 
Ca., Inc., Income statement for period ending December 31, 1993). For 
more information, see the section of this report dealing with John 
Huang and Lippo.
    \98\ Since the money clearly did not come from the U.S. operations 
of these companies, this was a violation of federal election law. See 
FEC A.O. 1992-16, Fed. Election Camp, Fin. Guide (CCH) para. 6059, at 
11,811, June 26, 1992.
    \99\ See Ex. 83 (IBPS check #8086 for #2,000 to Pi-Hsiao on 
September 27, 1993; IBPS check #8087 for $2,900 to Hsing Kuang Shih on 
September 27, 1993; IBPS check #8088 for $1,000 to H.C. Lin on 
September 27, 1993). Temple treasurer Yi Chu's lay name Tsui-Hsueh 
Hsueh appears on the checks. (The reimbursement to Hsing Kuang Shih was 
apparently $900 more than her $2,000 DNC donation because she also 
needed to be reimbursed for $900 in unrelated expenses she had also 
borne on the Temple's behalf.) All three monastic ``straw donors'' 
received letters from DNC Chairman David Wilhelm thanking them for 
their ``participation in the Los Angeles Vice Presidential Dinner on 
September 27.''  See  Ex. 84 (David Wilhelm, letter to Pi-Hsia Hsiao, 
Oct. 15, 1993; David Wilhelm, letter to Ksing Kuang Shih, Oct. 15, 
1993; David Wilhelm letter to Hsiu Chu Lin, Oct 15, 1993). Federal 
election law prohibits funneling donations through third parties. See 2 
U.S.C. Sec. 441f.
    On Friday, September 24, 1993, the day after Huang's first 
$30,000 in laundered Lippo donations to the DNC, Huang escorted 
Shen Jueren, the head of a company called China 
Resources,100 to the White House for a meeting with 
Vice President Gore's top adviser, his then-chief of staff Jack 
    \100\ China Resources is owned by the government of the People's 
Republic of China, and is a major business partner of the Riady-owned 
Lippo Group. For more information about China Resources, see the 
sections of this report on John Huang's activities at Lippo Bank.
    \101\ See Ex. 72 (``I want to thank you for having taken the time 
out of your busy schedule to receive myself, Chairman Shen Jueren and 
his assistant, Miss Liang of China Resoruces Group on September 24 at 
your office.'') U.S. Secret Service WAVES list for June 7 through 
September 24, 1993 (Ex. 85) (showing Huang appointment to enter White 
House complex on September 24 with approval to enter both the Old 
Executive Office Building and the East Wing). There is a possibility 
that the Vice President may have also met Shen Jueren that day. The 
Committee has an audiotape of a September 27, 1993 meeting for Asian-
Americans in Santa Monica, California, at which an individual 
introduced himself to the Vice President by giving his name and saying, 
``we met just last Friday, in your office.'' The Vice President 
responded, ``Yes, of course, we just spoke.'' The Friday before this 
meeting in Santa Monica was the day Shen Jueren met with Quinn in the 
White House complex. The individual's name is not clearly intelligible, 
but prior to this brief conversation a word that may be ``Shen'' can be 
heard being spoken in the background of the audiotape. White House 
Communications Agency audiotape of September 27, 1993 Santa Monica 
event (misdated ``September 28, 1993'').
    The involvement of Huang and Hsia with Shen Jueren and 
China Resources raises an interesting and possibly troubling 
issue. As is detailed elsewhere in this report,102 
the Committee has learned that Hsia has been an agent of the 
Chinese government, that she has acted knowingly in support of 
it, and that she has attempted to conceal her relationship with 
the Chinese government. In view of this information--coupled 
with information suggesting that Huang may have had a direct 
financial relationship with the Chinese government 
103--the Committee has examined carefully the 
longstanding efforts by Huang and Hsia 104 to 
develop close ties to U.S. politicians and cultivate influence 
in the U.S. political system. This information might raise 
concerns regarding Huang and Hsia's involvement with China 
Resources' Shen Jueren in 1993.
    \102\ See chapter of report entitled, ``The China Connection.''
    \103\ See id.
    \104\ Nor should it be forgotten that James Riady himself played a 
significant role in trying to put U.S. Senators in contact with the 
head of China Resources in connection with the PLC's Asia trip during 
the 1988-89 period. See supra note 43. As recounted more fully in the 
report chapter, ``The China Connection,'' the Committee has learned 
from recently-acquired information that James and Mochtar Riady have 
had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.
    Public sources have for some years linked China Resources 
to the PRC's intelligence apparatus, describing it as an 
important source of what in U.S. espionage parlance is known 
as--non-official cover'' 105 for espionage and other 
intelligence-related activities, e.g., covert influence 
operations. As one Defense Intelligence Agency employee put it 
in a book published in 1994, for example,
    \105\ Intelligence officers operating under ``non-official cover'' 
are known as ``NOCs,'' and if caught will not have the protection of 
diplomatic immunity. See, e.g., Norman Polmar & Thomas B. Allen, Spy 
Book: The Encyclopedia of Espionage (New York: Random House, 1997), p. 

          [Chinese] [c]ase officers make extensive use of 
        commercial covers. For example, a vice president of the 
        China Resources Holding Company (Hua Ren Jituan) in 
        Hong Kong is traditionally a military case officer from 
        Guangzhou. This officer coordinates the collection 
        activities of other intelligence personnel operating 
        under Hwa Ren [China Resources] cover.106
    \106\ Nicholas Eftimiades, Chinese Intelligence Operations (Naval 
Institute Press, 1994), p. 80.

The increased prestige in commercial and political circles that 
could be derived from access to U.S. politicians would 
presumably be of no small value to such an operation.
    The link between Hsia and the Chinese government might also 
cast into a different light certain other episodes in Hsia's 
history of political activity in the United 
States.107 Among these would be her ties to Ted 
Sioeng, who as described elsewhere, has worked, and perhaps 
still works, on behalf of the Chinese government.108 
Sioeng sat at the head table next to Vice President Gore and 
Hsia at the April 29, 1996 Hsi Lai Temple fundraiser. The 
Committee has received information that Hsia worked with Sioeng 
and Huang to solicit contributions from Chinese nationals in 
the United States and abroad for Democratic 
    \107\ For example, Hsia apparently considered lobbying for the 
People's Republic of China on a commercial basis after the end of her 
relationship with Howard Hom, and claimed to have become increasingly 
involved with the PRC in immigration matters after 1992. See Ex 57 
(containing as sub-exhibit Bruce Morrison, memorandum to Maria Hsia, 
April 14, 1991); Ex. 3, p. 58; see also Hom deposition, p. 184. Though 
she claimed in a November 1997 interview that ``I have never had a 
single conversation with any Chinese government official about U.S. 
politics,'' Hsia also invited four Chinese consular officials to a 
reception in honor or Senator Tim Wirth in 1991, and hosted delegation 
of Chinese government officials on a trip to Washington during the 
summer of 1996. Compare David Johnston, ``Files on China Embarrass 
F.B.I. and Reno, and Miff Subject,'' New York Times, Nov. 15, 1997, p. 
A12 (quoting Hsia), with Jeff Su, memorandum to Paul DeNino, May 8, 
1991 (Ex. 86) (listing consular officials at Wirth event), and Gorman 
deposition, pp. 119-23; Matthew Gorman, sworn statement to Governmental 
Affairs Committee, Aug. 27, 1997 (Ex. 87, p. 3, para. 17) (discussing 
visit to Washington).
    \108\ See chapter, ``The China Connection.''
    \109\ See the section of this report entitled ``The China 
    Quite apart from these individuals' ties to the Chinese 
government, however, it should be clear by now that if one is 
to understand the Hsi Lai Temple's involvement in the 1995-96 
election cycle, and even the issue of Vice President Gore's 
knowledge with regard to the Temple fundraiser of April 29, 
1996, one must first understand the breadth and depth of the 
relationship between Maria Hsia and Vice President Gore. What 
the Vice President knew and when he knew it is not a question, 
in other words, that may be understood in isolation from the 
past. Rather, it must be placed in context, as the outgrowth of 
the long history of Vice President Gore's dealings with Maria 
Hsia, John Huang, James Riady, and Hsing Yun's Fo Kuang Shan 
Buddhist order.
    As the preceding pages indicate, the relationship between 
these five key figures was complex, but it was one firmly 
grounded in mutual advantage and revolving around political 
fundraising. Understood from the perspective of its 
participants, therefore, this history places the events of 1996 
in a new light. Ultimately, given the elaborate system of 
reciprocal assistance among them and the considerable financial 
investments the PLC's founding members had made in Vice 
President Gore's political career, the Vice President had to 
have understood that any DNC event organized at the Temple by 
Maria Hsia and John Huang could only really be for one purpose.
     Despite the political salience of this ``knowledge'' 
issue, however, the Temple incident involves much more than 
simply a single fundraiser unwisely attended by the Vice 
President and unlawfully supported by Hsia and Temple monastics 
who had become accustomed to relying upon Hsia to steer their 
illegal financial support to U.S. politicians. The DNC 
donation-laundering arranged by Huang and Hsia in April 1996 
was part of a broader pattern dating back at least to their 
collaboration in the Shen Jueren affair of September 1993. In 
some sense, the Temple episode of 1996 may even be understood 
as the product of a mutually-reinforcing relationship between 
Huang and Hsia that began in the late 1980s with their 
involvement in the PLC and their fundraising for the DSCC.
    Huang's appointment as a DNC fundraiser in early 1996 
brought Huang and Hsia back together in ways familiar to both 
of them, and with higher stakes than ever. As we have seen, 
Huang had used Lippo resources to help Hsia make up for 
unanticipated financial shortfalls in her political 
fundraising.110 By early 1996, the tables had 
turned, and Hsia had an opportunity to return the favor by 
greatly expanding what had hitherto been a relatively small-
scale Hsi Lai Temple donation-laundering scheme into a potent 
fundraising machine for the Clinton/Gore campaign. The infamous 
Hsi Lai Temple fundraiser of April 1996 is thus only part of 
this story; over the course of 1996, Hsia and Huang would raise 
over $100,000 in laundered Temple donations to help keep Bill 
Clinton and Al Gore in the White House.
    \110\ See supra text accompanying footnote 24.

            II. A PATTERN OF DONATION-LAUNDERING: 1993-1996 

    Hsia's involvement with illegally laundering money from the 
Hsi Lai Temple to U.S. politicians began at least as early as 
June 1993, with a donation made by Hsia herself to a longtime 
Hsia fundraising beneficiary, California Secretary of State 
March Fong-Eu. Hsia wrote a $500 check to March Fong-Eu's 
campaign in June 1993, having been earlier given $500 for that 
purpose by the Temple's treasurer.111 In September 
1993, as indicated previously, Hsia also arranged to launder 
$5,000 of the Temple's money through three monastic ``straw 
donors'' to the DNC for an event with Vice President Al 
    \111\ See Ex. 88 (Form 490, List of Contributions Received by March 
Fong Eu Campaign Committee '94 recording $500 contribution by Maria L. 
Hsia in June 1993; IBPS check #7562 for $500 to Maria Hsia on June 4, 
1993); Man Ho deposition, p. 214 (testifying that Temple supported 
March Fong-Eu).
    \112\ See supra text accompanying notes 96-99.
    The September 1993 episode involving the Vice President set 
a pattern for Temple donation-laundering that would persist 
until the 1996 elections: Hsia would telephone a nun at the 
Temple named Man Ho,113 who served as the Temple's 
chief administrative officer during this period, to inform her 
that she needed a certain sum of money in connection with a 
particular political fundraising event or political campaign. 
Man Ho would then pass along this request to the Temple's 
Abbess or Abbot of the time. The Abbot or Abbess would, in 
turn, approve a check request form prepared by Man Ho, who 
would give this completed form to Yi Chu, the Temple's 
    \113\ Because Temple officials and monastics invoked their Fifth 
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked about their 
involvement in DNC fundraising, the Committee granted immunity to five 
nuns in exchange for their testimony: Man Ho, Yi Chu, Man Ya Shih, 
Hueitsan Huang, and Siuw Moi Lian.
    \114\See Testimony of Man Ho, Sept. 4, 1997, pp. 48-49; Man Ho 
deposition, pp. 85-86 (testifying that September 1993 was first time 
Hsia asked Man Ho for political donations); id., p. 92 (affirming 
repetition of same pattern with other contributions); id., pp. 199 & 
211-13 (discussing pattern of calls from Hsia).
    Unbeknownst to Man Ho until late in 1996,115 
upon receiving the check request for political contributions, 
Yi Chu would then approach Temple monastics or devotees and ask 
them to write personal checks.116 The total amount 
raised by means of these checks would be the total figure Hsia 
had requested and the amount that Man Ho had indicated on the 
check request form approved by the Abbot or 
Abbess.117 Either the person who wrote the check or 
Yi Chu would place the name of the political recipient on the 
payee line of the check.118
    \115\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 199-201.
    \116\ Yi Chu deposition, pp. 69, 79, 84, & 92 (discussing pattern). 
The reimbursement was not, however, unknown to Hsia: as noted above, 
she herself was reimbursed for a donation to March Fong-Eu in June 
    \117\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 196-97.
    \118\ Yi Chu testified that she did not know what ``DNC'' stood for 
until the scandal broke in the press; she believed that few, if any, of 
the individual reimbursed donors had a much understanding of to whom, 
or for what purpose, their checks were being written. Yi Chu 
deposition, pp. 77-79; Testimony of Chu, Sept. 4, 1997, pp. 46-47.
    At about the same time she received each personal check 
from the monastics whom she had solicited, Yi Chu would write a 
check for the identical amount, drawn on the Temple's general 
expenses account and made payable to the ostensible political 
contributors.119 Hsia typically stopped by the 
Temple to pick up the monastics' donation checks from Yi Chu or 
Man Ho, while Yi Chu gave the Temple's reimbursement checks to 
the donors so that they could cover the cost.120
    \119\ Yi Chu deposition, pp. 86-87.
    \120\ See, e.g., id., pp. 39-42 & 46 (recounting that reimbursement 
checks were needed because monastics often could not afford 
contributions otherwise).
    The money used for these laundering transactions belonged 
to the Hsi Lai Temple as a whole: the reimbursement checks were 
all drawn upon the Temple's ``general expenses'' account, which 
was in turn filled exclusively from an account into which 
flowed donations made to the Temple and the Fo Kuang Shan order 
by faithful Buddhist devotees in all walks of 
    \121\ Id., pp. 86-88; Yi Chu testimony, p. 47. Though some 
monastics did keep so-called ``Futien accounts'' at the Temple, their 
money being held by the institution in a form of private banking and 
segregated for each monastic's own use, these Futien accounts were not 
used to reimburse political donations. See generally Yi Chu deposition, 
pp. 16-19; Yi Chu testimony, pp. 50-51.
    The general pattern was simple: Hsia would select the 
recipient politician, ask the Temple for money, and the Temple 
would funnel its own institutional funds through monastic straw 
donors to that politician's campaign. This scheme served Hsia 
and a number of U.S. politicians quite well until the 1996 
elections, by which point Hsia was using it so frequently that 
Yi Chu complained to Man Ho that the requests left her too 
little time to find monastic donors who could be 
    \122\ See Man Ho testimony, p. 48; Yi Chu deposition, p. 84. As a 
result, for the last known Temple reimbursement--in October 1996--Yi 
Chu simply gave Man Ho five blank Temple checks and left it for Man Ho 
to solicit the donors/reimbursees herself.
    Hsia's laundering of Temple donations to U.S. politicians 
continued in 1994 with two separate episodes in which money was 
funneled to Julia Wu, a local school board candidate. In the 
first such instance, a monastic named Jou Sheng donated $2,000 
to Wu's campaign in March 1994 and was reimbursed the next day 
by Yi Chu.123 According to the Temple's attorneys, 
another $3,000 was also laundered to Julia Wu at this time, 
being passed through Pi-Hsia Hsiao and Nancy Mao, who were also 
reimbursed with checks numbered sequentially with that written 
to Jou Sheng.124 The Temple laundered money to Wu's 
campaign again in May 1994, with at least $2,000 passing 
through Temple Abbess Hsing Kuang Shih, as well as an 
additional $3,000 through Pi-Hsia Hsiao and Hsiu Chu 
Lin.125 In July 1994, Pi-Hsia Hsiao gave $900 to the 
campaign of another local California official, Los Angeles 
County Tax Assessor Kenneth Hahn, and was reimbursed by Yi Chu 
for her efforts.126 Hsia and the Temple returned to 
national-level fundraising in September 1994 by laundering 
$5,000 to the campaign of Senator Edward Kennedy.127
    \123\ See Ex. 89 (Jou Sheng check #187 for $2,000 to Friends of 
Julia Wu on March 2, 1994; IBPS check #8880 for $2,000 to cash on March 
3, 1994, endorsed on reverse by Jou Sheng).
    \124\ See Ex. 90 (IBPS check #8881 for $2,000 to cash on March 3, 
1994, endorsed on reverse by Pi-Hsia Hsiao; IBPS check #8882 for $1,000 
to ``cash NANCY MAO'' on March 3, 1994, endorsed on reverse by Nancy 
Mao). Interestingly, Man Ho--normally the conduit for Hsia's requests--
claimed not to have been involved in the Julia Wu donations, leaving 
open the question of which other present or former Temple officials 
have been involved in Hsia's donation-laundering schemes.
    \125\ See Ex. 91 (Hsing Kuang Shih check #587 for $2,000 to Julia 
L. Wu on May 4, 1994; IBPS check #9167 for $2,000 to Hsing Kuang Shih 
on May 6, 1994); see also Ex. 92 (IBPS check #9168 for $2,000 to Pi-
Hsia Hsiao on May 6, 1994; IBPS check #9169 for $1,000 to Hsiu Chu Lin 
on May 6, 1994).
    \126\ Ex. 93 (Ph Hsia Hsiao check #174 for $900 to Committee to Re-
elect Assessor Kenneth Hahn on June 15, 1994; IBPS check #9397 for $900 
to Pi-Hsia Hsiao on July 1, 1994).
    \127\ See FEC Info database printout of individual contributor data 
(Ex. 94) (listing total of $2,000 in contributions by Pi-Hsia Hsiao to 
Kennedy for Senate, recorded by campaign on September 15, 1994); Id. 
(listing $2,000 to Kennedy for Senate from Ling-Tzen Huang, recorded on 
same date); id. (listing $1,000 to Kennedy for Senate from Hsiu-Chu 
Lin, recorded on same date); Ex. 95 (Pi-Hsia Hsiao check #179 for 
$2,000 to Kennedy for Senate on September 6, 1994; Hsiu Chu Lin check 
#365 for $1,000 to Kennedy for Senate on September 6, 1994; IBPS check 
#1034 for $2,000 to Pi-Hsia Hsiao on September 6, 1994; IBPS check 
#1035 for $2,000 to Ling-Tzen Huang on September 6, 1994; IBPS check 
#1036 for $1,000 to cash, endorsed on reverse by Hsiu Chu Lin).
    The first recipient of laundered Hsi Lai Temple money 
arranged by Maria Hsia in 1995, was apparently the DNC itself, 
in connection with a Clinton/Gore event in September for which 
Hsia reportedly raised $5,000 in unlawful Temple 
donations.128 Los Angeles County Supervisor Don 
Knabe and Senator Edward Kennedy also each received $3,000 in 
laundered Temple donations arranged by Hsia in 
    \128\ See Ex. 96 (IBPS check #2727 for $2,500 to Hsiu Chu Lin on 
September 20, 1995; IBPS check #2729 for $2,500 to cash, endorsed on 
reverse by what appears to be the name ``Tong Sew Long''; Jou Sheng 
bank records for 09/09/95 through 10/10/95 showing deposit of $2,500 on 
September 22, 1995 and debit of $2,500 on September 28 with cashing of 
check #215). (On their ``memo'' lines, the IBPS check to Tong Sew Long 
bears the Chinese characters for ``public relations''--the term Maria 
Hsia used for political fundraising. See Yi Chu deposition, p. 106. The 
check to Hsiu Chu Lin is strangely annotated with Chineses characters 
and the English phrase ``birthday gift.'') According to the Temple's 
attorneys, at least two additional $2,500 checks were filled out by Fo 
Kuang Shan monastics in connection with this event--but the payee line 
was left blank and Maria Hsia subsequently diverted it for her own 
purposes, filling it out not to the originally-intended political 
recipient but to a company called Shen He International, Inc. See Ex. 
97 (Gin F.J. Chen check #405 for $2,500 on September 20, 1995; Jou 
Sheng check #215 for $2,500 on September 20, 1995; IBPS check #2728 for 
$2,500 to Jou Sheng on September 20, 1995).
    \129\ See Ex. 98 (Shiwen W. Teh a.k.a. Shiwen Wang check #1772 for 
$1,500 to Kanabe for Supervisor on October 25, 1995; Knabe for 
Supervisor, list of Monetary Contributions Received for 10/01/95 
through 12/31/95 period, indicating $1,500 contributions from Hsiu Chu 
Lin and Shiwen Teh, both recorded on November 11, 1995; IBPS check 
#2846 for $1,500 to cash, endorsed on reverse by Melissa Wang [a.k.a. 
Shiwen Teh] on October 24, 1995; IBPS check #2847 for $1,500 to Hsiu 
Chu Lin on October 24, 1995; Federal Election Commission, Selected 
Receipts & Expenditures (95-96), showing $1,500 in contributions on 
December 1, 1995 from Hsiu-Chu Lin and Shiwen W. Teh; Hsiu Chu Lin 
check #623 for $1,500 to Edward M. Kennedy; Shiwen W. Teh a.k.a. Shiwen 
Wang check #1776 for $1,500 to Edward M. Kennedy on November 13, 1995; 
IBPS check #2923 for $1,500 to Melissa Wang [a.k.a. Shiwen Teh] on 
November 10, 1995; IBPS check #2924 for $1,500 to Hsiu Chu Lin on 
November 10, 1995).
    As noted, however, Hsia's fundraising scheme for funneling 
Temple money through ``straw donors'' expanded dramatically in 
1996 after John Huang went to work at the DNC and began to 
organize Democratic fundraisers among California's Asian 
community. It was not by coincidence, therefore, that Hsia's 
biggest foray yet into Temple donation-laundering occurred in 
conjunction with the first significant event Huang organized 
for the DNC: a fundraiser with President Clinton at the Hay-
Adams Hotel in Washington in February 1996. For this event, 
Hsia telephoned Man Ho at the Temple to ask for $25,000 in 
contributions,130 an amount which was duly collected 
from nine monastic straw donors who were thereafter 
reimbursed.131 Don Knabe also continued to receive 
the Temple's support during 1996. At the end of February, Hsia 
made a $1,500 donation to Don Knabe's campaign, being duly 
reimbursed by the Temple for her pains.132
    \130\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 196-97; Yi Chu deposition, pp. 69-73.
    \131\ See Ex. 99 (DNC Check Tracking Form for Hsiu Chu Lin check 
#667 for $3,000 to DNC on February 17, 1996; IBPS check #3286 for 
$3,000 to Hsiu Chu Lin on February 14, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form 
for Jou Sheng check #223 for $3,000 to DNC on February 16, 1996; IBPS 
check #3294 for $3,000 to Jou Sheng on February 16, 1996; DNC Check 
Tracking Form for Pi-Hsia Hsiao check #194 for $2,500 to DNC on 
February 16, 1996; IBPS check #3300 for $2,500 to Pi-Hsia Hsiao on 
February 16, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Suh-Jen Wu check #107 
for $3,000 to DNC on February 16, 1996; IBPS check #3298 for $3,000 to 
Suh-Jen Wu on February 16, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Hsing 
Kuang Shih check #600 for $3,000 to DNC on February 16, 1996; IBPS 
check #3295 for $3,000 to Hsin Kuang Shih on February 16, 1996; DNC 
Check Tracking Form for Gin F.J. Chen check #486 for $3,000 to DNC on 
February 17, 1996; IBPS check #3299 for $3,000 to Gin F.J. Chen on 
February 16, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Hsin Cheng Shih check 
#137 for $3,000 to DNC on February 19, 1996; IBPS check #3297 for 
$3,000 to Hsing Cheng Shih on February 16, 1996; DNC Finance Executive 
Summary of $2,500 contribution from Hsiao Jie Su on February 19, 1996; 
IBPS check #3301 for $2,500 to Hsiao Jie Su on February 16, 1996; Hsiao 
Jie Su check #304 for $2,500 to DNC; DNC Check Tracking Form for Jen 
Chin Hsueh a.k.a. Gary Hsueh check #269 for $2,000 to DNC on February 
16, 1996; IBPS check #3296 for $2,000 to Jen-Chin Hsueh on February 16, 
1996. The Temple's computerized accounting records list this series of 
payments by consecutively numbered checks as ``No Name'' payments. See 
Hsi Lai Temple, Transaction Detail by Account (February 1996) (Ex. 
    \132\ Ex. 101 (IBPS check #3318 for $1,500 to Maria Hsia on 
February 29, 1996 with ``memo'' notation apparently reading ``re: 
contribution of Don Knabe'' [sic]; Knabe for Supervisor, List of 
Monetary Contributions Received for period 02/11/96 through 03/09/96, 
indicating $1,500 contribution recorded on March 7, 1996).
    At least four additional episodes of donation-laundering, 
occurred between the April 1996 event and the general elections 
in November 1996. In July 1996, Hsia contacted Man Ho at the 
Temple, informing the nun that Hsia would need $50,000 in order 
to purchase two tickets to an upcoming fundraising luncheon 
with President Clinton at a private home. Hsia subsequently 
changed her plans, however, deciding instead upon a less 
expensive $5,000-per-person dinner at the Century Plaza 
Hotel.133 In the end, two Temple monastics donated 
$5,000 each for the Century Plaza event,--thereby making it 
possible for Hsia to become one of its co-chairs, a status 
contingent upon raising $10,000 134--and were 
reimbursed by the Temple.135
    \133\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 202-06; Yi Chu deposition, pp. 75-76.
    \134\ See Invitation to July 22, 1996 Presidential Gala (undated) 
(Ex. 102) (noting that status of ``Co-Chair for the Presidential Gala'' 
requires one personally to contribute $5,000 or to raise $10,000).
    \135\ Ex. 103 (Bih-Yueh Jeng check #158 for $5,00 to DNC on July 
22, 1996; Wang Chi Rung check #135 for $5,000 to DNC on July 22, 1996; 
IBPS check #3894 for $5,000 to Wang Chi Rung on July 17, 1996; IBPS 
check #3890 for $5,000 to Bih-Yueh Jeng on July 17, 1996).
    In September 1996, two Temple monastics donated a total of 
some $6,500 to the DNC and were reimbursed by the 
Temple.136 Also that month, Hsia and her assistant, 
Matthew Gorman, arranged for the nun Pi-Hsia Hsiao to donate 
$1,000 to Don Knabe's re-election campaign,137 a 
donation which was reimbursed by the Temple on the same day it 
was made.138 Finally, Hsia arranged for $5,000 in 
Temple funds to be laundered to the campaign of Representative 
Patrick Kennedy for a fundraiser held in Los Angeles on October 
5, 1996. For this event, the occasion on which an exasperated 
Yi Chu finally refused to arrange to funnel the money through 
monastic ``straw donors'' 139--Hsia used blank 
Temple checks to reimburse herself and four friends for their 
$1,000 contributions to Kennedy's campaign.140 These 
laundered donations--along with another $100 check from Hsia's 
friend Richard Choi--were handed to Rep. Kennedy and a campaign 
aide as they emerged back onto the street at the end of a visit 
to the Hsi Lai Temple on October 5.141
    \136\ Ex. 104 (FECInfo database printout of individual contributor 
data,showing $1,500 contribution to DNC from Hsiu Chu Lin on October 2, 
1996; IBPS check #4119 for $1,500 to Hsiu Chu Lin). According to Yi 
Chu, Chee Kien Koh (a.k.a the Rev. Hai Kai) also donated to the DNC at 
this time, being reimbursed in cash ($3,000) and with a check made out 
to cash ($2,000). See Yi Chu deposition, pp. 79-82; IBPS check #4118 
for $2,000 to cash, with ``memo'' notation reading ``Chee Kien Koh'' 
(Ex. 105). It may be, however, that Koh failed to pass the $2,000 on to 
its intended political recipient; he returned $2,000 to the Temple in 
two $1,000 payments in December 1996 and January 1997. See IBPS, Chee 
Kien Koh deposit check records (Ex. 106).
    \137\ Ex. 107 Matthew Gorman, letter to Peter Kelly, Sept. 18, 1996 
[forwarding Pi-Hsia Hsiao check #197 for $1,000 to Don Knabe for L.A. 
County Supervisor dated September 18, 1996]; Knabe for Supervisor, List 
of Monetary Contributions received for period 10/01/96 through 10/19/96 
listing $1,000 contribution from Pi-Hsia Hsiao). Pi-Hsia Hsiao's check 
was filled out improperly, however, and had to be reissued. See Matthew 
Gorman, letter to Dardy Chen, Oct. 8, 1996 (Ex. 108) (forwarding 
reissued check, also dated September 18, 1996).
    \138\ IBPS check #4120 to Pi-Hsia Hsiao for $1,000 on September 18, 
1996 (Ex. 109).
    \139\ See Yi Chu testimony, p. 48.
    \140\ The other reimbursees were Hilary Goldstone and Donald Burns, 
two Los Angeles attorneys and longtime Kennedy family fundraisers, as 
well as Hsia's business colleague Stephen Zhou and his wife May Lin 
Zhou. See Ex. 110 (Federal Election Commission, Selected List of 
Receipts & Expenditures [95-96], listing $1,000 contributions on 
October 5, 1996 by Burns, Goldstone, Hsia, and the Zhous; IBPS check 
#4193 for $1,000 to Hilary Goldstone on October 5, 1996; IBPS check 
#4194 for $1,000 to Donald Burns on October 5, 1996; IBPS check #4195 
for $1,000 to Maria Hsia on October 5, 1996; IBPS check #4196 for 
$1,000 to May Lin Zhou on October 5, 1996; IBPS check #4197 for $1,000 
to Stephen Zhou on October 5, 1996).
    Stephen Zhou was the head of Zarks International, a company located 
in the same office spaces as Hsia & Associates. Zhou also leased office 
space to T&W Arts & Crafts--the U.S. subsidiary of a company from 
Hangzhou, China, called Yalong Economics & Trade Corporation--as well 
as apparently serving as an officer of T&W. See Ex. 111 (Commercial 
Lease between Zarks International, Inc. and T&W Arts & Crafts dated 
Feb. 14, 1996; Projected Organizational Chart of T&W Arts & Crafts 
(USA), Inc. (undated), listing Stephen Zhou as vice president).
    \141\ Having received this money just outside the door of the 
Temple apparently enabled Representative Kennedy to claim later that 
``our story could not be compared to the vice president's because we 
never did a fundraiser at the temple.'' See John Mulligan, ``Grand Jury 
probes Buddhist temple fundraising,'' Providence Journal-Bulletin, Oct. 
20, 1997, pp. A1 & A6; John Mulligan, ``Kennedy explains his rationale 
in returning money raised at temple,'' Providence Journal-Bulletin, 
Sept. 9, 1997, p. A4. All of these funds have apparently been returned.
    Counting the Temple fundraiser in April 1996, which yielded 
at least $65,000 in unlawful Temple donations, this elaborate 
system of donation-laundering, in which Temple officials 
marshaled funds to political candidates and causes chosen by 
Maria Hsia, may ultimately have funneled $146,400 to various 
U.S. political candidates. Of this total, some $116,500 went to 
the DNC in support of the Clinton/Gore ticket.


    The idea to hold a DNC fundraising event at the Hsi Lai 
Temple appears to have had its beginnings in March 1996, when 
Hsia persuaded Venerable Master Hsing Yun to meet with Vice 
President Gore by visiting the White House. Although Temple 
officials apparently understood ahead of time that some White 
House trip was in the offing, arrangements for this visit seem 
to have been hastily concluded at the last minute while Hsing 
Yun and a delegation of Temple monastics were in New York City 
on other business.142 On March 14, 1996, Hsing Yun 
received a telephone call from Hsia in California, informing 
him that the White House meeting had finally been arranged. 
Temple administrator Man Ho thereupon made flight arrangements 
to take Hsing Yun's delegation to Washington the next day, and 
obtained for the White House the social security numbers of 
those who would meet with the Vice President.143 The 
Master was reportedly initially reluctant to rearrange his 
schedule in order to accommodate this last-minute change, but 
he was ultimately persuaded by Hsia's entreaties and by those 
of former Temple abbess Hsing Kuang Shih enlisted by Hsia to 
help in this regard.144
    \142\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 94-95 & 101.
    \143\ Id., pp. 88-96 & 110.
    \144\ Man Ho deposition, p. 96; see also Transcript of Hsing Yun 
interview by Governmental Affairs Committee Staff, June 17, 1997, p. 2 
(Ex. 112) (recounting that Hsia had called him in New York to urge that 
he meet with Gore, and that although ``reluctant to go'' Hsing Yun has 
``said, `O.K., I'll go.' ''). (This transcription of the Committee 
staff's interview with Hsing Yun was transcribed by Stuart Chandler, 
who attended the meeting apparently on behalf of the Temple's 
    John Huang played the central role in setting up the March 
15 meeting with Vice President Gore. Even before Hsing Yun's 
delegation left for New York on March 10, Huang had telephoned 
Man Ho in order to obtain the Master's social security number 
for the anticipated White House visit.145 It was 
Huang who requested the Hsing Yun meeting,146 and he 
both worked with Gore scheduler Kim Tilley in arranging it 
147 and wrote the Vice President's briefing 
    \145\ Man Ho deposition, p. 99. Maria Hsia called Man Ho later--
when the Temple delegation was in New York--to obtain social security 
numbers from the other members of the delegation who would be visiting. 
Id., p. 110.
    \146\ John Huang, memorandum to Albert Gore, March 15, 1996 
(describing meeting as having been ``requested by John Huang''). Hsing 
Yun suggested that the meeting had been the idea of John Huang and 
Maria Hsia. See Transcription of Hsing Yun interview, p. 2.
    \147\ See John Huang, memorandum to Kim Tilley, April 11, 1996 (Ex. 
113) (''You know we have together arranged Master Hsing Yun to visit 
the Vice President Gore [sic] in the White House in March of this 
year.''). The Vice President's schedule also listed John Huang as the 
staff contact for the Hsing Yun meeting. Gore schedule for March 15, 
1996 (Ex. 114).
    \148\ John Huang, fax transmission to Eric Anderson, March 15, 1996 
(Ex. 115) (forwarding briefing notes for Vice President ``prepared by 
John Huang'').
    On the morning before the March 15 meeting, Hsia spoke 
personally with Vice President Gore by telephone from the 
delegation's room at the Hay-Adams Hotel. Although the Vice 
President had already agreed to the meeting, and the Temple 
delegation was at that point waiting at their hotel, the Vice 
President's staff had become concerned over the potential 
political implications of a visit from Hsing Yun. Taiwan was 
then in the midst of its 1996 presidential election campaign, 
which involved, among others, an independent Buddhist candidate 
named Lian Chien, who had been endorsed by Venerable Master 
Hsing Yun. Vice President Gore's foreign policy advisors 
worried that meeting Hsing Yun could be seen as an implicit 
endorsement of Dr. Chien, and feared that the Master would 
somehow interject Taiwanese politics into the White House 
meeting.149 As Gore national security staffer John 
Norris later recalled,
    \149\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 106-07; Deposition of Kimberly Tilley, 
June 23, 1997, p. 138.

          After we became aware of the scheduling proposal [for 
        the Hsing Yun meeting], I checked with State and NSC 
        (Taiwan Coordination Staff) to get information on Hsing 
        Yun's background. Neither office thought there was a 
        high risk that the meeting would lead to an incident in 
        our relations with either China or 
    \150\ John Norris, memorandum, Oct. 16, 1996 (Ex. 116) (recounting 
``my recollection of the two VP events involving Hsing Yun, the Taiwan 
Buddhist leader, and the DNC'').

So concerned was Vice President Gore that despite having 
received such a sanguine assessment from the State Department 
and the NSC, he called Hsia personally at the Hay-Adams for 
additional reassurances. As recounted by Man Ho, who was in the 
room as Hsia spoke with him, the Vice President ``was afraid 
that [M]aster might talk to him about political issues or 
[M]aster might bring some message [from] Lian Chen [sic].'' 
Hsia assured Gore that Hsing Yun ``was not going to talk 
[about] any political issue with the Vice President.'' 
151 The group then went to the White House to meet 
with Vice President Gore, leaving Man Ho and one Temple devotee 
behind at the hotel.152
    \151\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 105-07; see also Ex. 116 (``[Y]ou or 
(Bill [Wise]) expressed concern about the sensitivities to Scheduling. 
As a result of those conversations, Hsia called the VP and assured him 
the meeting would be nothing more than a courtesy call.''). Tilley 
deposition, pp. 139-40 (recalling hearing about a talk between Gore and 
Maria Hsia).
    \152\ Man Ho deposition, p. 111. As used in this report, 
``devotees'' of the Hsi Lai Temple are lay persons who nonetheless 
worship there regularly and who take part in various Temple activities. 
By contrast, Temple ``monastics'' are those who formally take religious 
vows and join the Fo Kuang Shan order itself (i.e., monks and nuns)--
shaving their heads, adopting distinctive monastic clothing, and 
usually living in the Temple complex.
    The meeting involved little more than exchanges of 
greetings and pleasantries and a ``photo op'' with the Vice 
President. Hsing Yun, accompanied by three other Temple 
monastics 153 as well as both Hsia and Huang, met 
with the Vice President for approximately ten 
minutes.154 At the end of this brief meeting, the 
Master invited Gore to visit the Hsi Lai Temple.155 
As to when this visit might occur, Hsing Yun told the Committee 
staff that Gore had indicated that he would be in Los Angeles 
at some point within the next six or seven weeks, i.e. in late 
April 1996.156
    \153\ Yumei Yang, Ke-Chun Hong, and Abbess Suh-Jen Wu (a.k.a. Tzu 
    \154\ Ex. 113; Ex. 114.
    \155\ Ex. 112, pp. 4-5; see also Ex. 113.
    \156\ Memorandum of Interview of Hsing Yun, June 17, 1997, p. 2 
(``At the close of this meeting the Master invited Gore to visit the 
Hsi Lai temple in California. In reply, Gore indicated that he would be 
traveling to California `in the near future' and would be glad to 
accept the invitation. No specific date was discussed but the Master 
recalled that Gore indicated he would be in LA within 6-7 weeks--that 
is, late April.''). (In contrast to the document prepared by Chandler 
purporting to be a near-verbatim transcription of the interview, this 
memorandum was prepared by Governmental Affairs Committee Staff.)
    Within a week of the White House meeting, Maria Hsia sent a 
letter to Leon Fuerth at the White House, advising him that 
``Master Hsing Yun . . . could be very helpful for Vice 
President Gore's re-election.'' 157 The next day, 
Hsia wrote the Vice President himself, informing him that

    \157\ Maria Hsia, letter to Leon Forth [sic], March 22, 1996 (and 
earlier drafts dated March 20 & 22) (Ex. 117); see also Progress Sheet 
from Hsia & Associates (Ex. 118) (indicating ``sent final draft letters 
to Gore & Forth [sic]'' on March 24, 1996).

          John Huang has asked me to help with organizing a 
        fund-raising lunch event, with your anticipated 
        presence, on behalf of the local Chinese community. 
        After the lunch, we will attend a rally at the Hsi Lai 
        Temple where you will have the opportunity to meet 
        representatives from the Asian-American community to 
        visit again with Master Hsing Yun. The even is 
        tentatively scheduled for April 29. . . .158

    \158\ Maria Hsia, letter to Albert Gore, dated March 23, 1996 (and 
earlier drafts dated March 20 & 23) (Ex. 119). It should be noted, 
however, that neither Hsia's March 22 letter to Feurth nor her March 23 
letter to the Vice President was produced to the Committee by the White 
House in the voluminous Temple-related records delivered to the 
Committee pursuant to subpoena.

Though this letter did not make clear whether the ``fund-
raising lunch event'' being organized by Huang and Hsia would 
take place at the Temple or at some other unspecified location, 
unambiguous arrangements were worked out over the next few days 
to have both the fundraising luncheon and the rally at the 
Temple. By April 4, the DNC has apparently prepared invitations 
to a Vice Presidential luncheon at the Hsi Lai Temple, 
159 and Hsia's assistant Gorman had opened a file 
specifically identifying April 29, 1996 as the date of the Vice 
President's anticipated visit. This file was entitled ``Vice 
President Gore Hsi Lai event April 29, 1996--DNC Fundraiser.'' 
160 By April 8, the Vice Presidential Protective 
Division of the U.S. Secret Service had begun planning for 
Gore's April 29 luncheon in Los Angeles.161
    \159\ Maria Hsia, fax transmission to Ted Marino, April 4, 1996 
(Ex. 120) (forwarding invitation on DNC letterhead for Vice 
Presidential event at Hsi Lai Temple).
    \160\ Ex. 121 (Photocopy of file header opened on April 4, 1996; 
Maria Hsia, memorandum to Matthew Gorman of April 4, 1996 instructing 
him to ``open file under V.P. Gore Hsi Lai Temple Visit 4/29/96''); 
Gorman deposition, pp. 20-22 (confirming opening file on April 4, 
    \161\ U.S. Secret Service, VPPD Scheduling Document, April 8, 1996 
(Ex. 122) (including William Pickle, letter to Sen. Fred Thompson, 
Sept. 2, 1997 [explaining document]).
    In late March 1996, Hsia notified the Master and others at 
the Temple that the Vice President would visit on April 29, 
1996. Immediately, Hsia set up meetings to plan the event. Hsia 
requested, and it was accordingly decided that a luncheon would 
be served in the Temple's dining hall.\162\ Both Man Ho and Yi 
Chu testified that in one of these early planning meetings at 
the Temple, the Abbess told to the monastics in attendance that 
it would be ``acceptable'' or ``appropriate'' for the monastics 
to contact devotees of the Temple to indicate that they could 
attend the luncheon with the Vice President and, for $5,000, 
have their photograph taken with him.163
    \162\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 117-119.
    \163\ Man Ho testimony, pp. 27-28; see also Man Ho deposition, pp. 
125-31. In her deposition testimony, Man Ho recalled that the Abbess 
might perhaps have said that the price for a photograph was $5,000 per 
couple. Nor is it clear who suggested to the Abbess that she encourage 
contributions in connection with the event, or how she arrived at this 
$5,000 figure.
    After one or two early planning meetings at the Temple, and 
early in the month of April, both the Abbess and Hsia left the 
U.S. for Taiwan, where they remained until very shortly before 
the April 29 event. In their stead, Hsia and the Abbess left 
Matt Gorman and Man Ho, their respectiveassistants, to take 
care of the day-to-day planning and preparation for the 
event.164 Most of Gorman's responsibilities consisted of 
arranging for the invitation of special VIP guests, who did not have to 
pay to attend the DNC fundraiser--at Hsia's direction.165 
Among the nonpaying guests Hsia invited to the event were two senior 
officials from the INS, Joseph Thomas and Daniel Hesse, and a federal 
judge from Los Angeles, Robert Tagasuki.166 The VIP guest 
list also included Monte Perez, chairman of the ``Nationwide 
Citizenship Association,'' and Tom Byun, who headed the ``Radio Korea 
Citizenship Nationwide Program.'' 167
    \164\ Man Ho testimony, pp. 29-30; Man Ho deposition, pp. 132-33; 
see also Gorman deposition, pp. 23 & 25.
    \165\ Gorman deposition, pp. 22-25.
    \166\ These three men were to have their invitations specially 
hand-delivered. See Ex. 123 (Matthew Gorman, fax transmission to 
Richard Choi, April 22, 1996 (forwarding to Choi copies of invitations 
that were to be hand delivered to Thomas, Hesse, and Tagasuki); Matthew 
Gorman, fax transmission to Man Ho, April 12, 1996 (advising Man Ho 
that Thomas, Hesse, and Tagasuki will attend as ``V.I.P. guests''). It 
is not clear, however, that Judge Tagasuki actually attended. Senator 
Daniel Inouye and Congressman Matthew Martinez were also invited, but 
neither official attended. See Ex. 124 (Matthew Gorman, fax 
transmission to Mary Lou, April 12, 1996 [inviting Inouye]; Matthew 
Gorman, fax transmission to Rev. Man Ho, April 12, 1996 [containing 
invitation for Martinez]).
    \167\ See Ex. 125 (Richard J. Soon Choi, letter to Matthew Gorman, 
April 24, 1996 [responding to confirm acceptance of invitation by Perez 
and Byun]; Matthew Gorman, fax transmission to Richard Choi, April 24, 
1996 [advising Man Ho of attendance of Byun and Perez)].
    At some point in mid- or late-April, Hsia telephoned Gorman 
in order to request that he solicit money from a number of 
individuals for the Gore luncheon. Many of these individuals 
apparently did not speak English well, if at all, and Gorman 
left the solicitation of these persons to another Hsia & 
Associates employee, Betty Luk, because he did not speak 
Chinese particularly well.168 Among these persons 
were Huang Guang Miao, president of the U.S. subsidiary of a 
Chinese company, and Joseph Chen,169 the head of a 
Taoist religious organization called the Great Tao Foundation 
of America and secretary-general of the World I-Kuan Tao 
Headquarters in Taiwan.170
    \168\ Gorman deposition, pp. 47-48; Matthew Gorman, memorandum to 
Betty Luk (Ex. 126) (giving list of names for solicitation: ``Professor 
Lo,'' Jennifer Tsai, Huang Guang Miao, Celia Wu, Joseph Chen, Zhou Buo, 
Chan Ya Shery, & Jeffrey Lin).
    \169\ Chan had written John Huang earlier in April to ask if Vice 
President Gore could visit the anniversary celebrations of the Great 
Tao Foundation after stopping at the Hsi Lai Temple on April 29. ``If 
you could make arrangements so that the vice-president after the 
luncheon at the Hsi Lai Temple could say a few congratulatory remarks 
at our ceremony between 2:00 and 2:30 P.M., and pose for photos with 
all attending Taoists,'' Chen wrote, ``the Great Tao Foundation will 
respectfully donate $25,000 toward the campaign funds.'' Joseph Chen, 
letter to John Huang, April 10, 1996 (Ex. 127) [translated by Michael 
Yan for the Governmental Affairs Committee]. The Vice President did not 
ultimately attend Chen's event on April 29, 1996, but Maria Hsia did 
arrange to bring Chen to an event with President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore in Los Angeles in September 1995. See Maria Hsia, letter 
to Joseph Chen, Sept. 19, 1995 (Ex. 128) (forwarding details of event 
to Chen, with handwritten note ``Thank you very much for everything 
that you've done!'').
    \170\ See generally Gorman deposition, pp. 49-52.
    Gorman was not the only person soliciting funds for the 
Vice President's Temple fundraiser, however. In addition to 
funds solicited independently by Huang and perhaps 
Hsia,171 Temple monastics, acting on the suggestion 
by Abbess Tzu Jung that it would be ``appropriate'' for them to 
do so, solicited a number of donations to the DNC from Temple 
devotees in advance of the Vice President's visit. The checks 
thereby obtained totaled $32,500.172
    \171\ See infra note 202.
    \172\ See Ex. 129 (Photocopied checks from files of Hsia & 
Associates, reproducing, inter alia: $5,000 check from K-Stone 
Industries, Ltd.; $5,000 check from Micro International U.S.A., Inc.; 
$7,500 check from Ying-Chiu Tien; and $2,500 check from Min Hsiang 
Teng; $5,000 check from Shu Woei Huang and Jan Yueh Lian Huang; $5,000 
check from Henry J. Chen & Jessie F. Chen; $2,500 check from Marina 
Chiu); see also Man Ho deposition, pp. 159-60 (recalling that ``Chiu 
Tien'' and Marina Chu were on list summarizing Temple-solicited pre-
event donations).
    In addition to money openly raised from Temple devotees, 
Man Ho and Yi Chu also helped arrange for two devotees 
anonymously to give a total of $10,000 in cash to the DNC. This 
money was deposited by the two anonymous donors into the 
Temple's bank account, and three Temple monastics were chosen 
to make corresponding contributions to the DNC.173 
These three nuns were thereupon reimbursed by Yi Chu out of the 
Temple's general expenses account.174
    \173\ These persons were Jou Sheng, Shiwen The (a.k.a. Melissa 
Wang), and Hsin Cheng Shih. See Yi Chu deposition, pp. 94-95 & 96-98; 
Man Ho deposition, pp. 149-50. At least two of them, Jou Sheng and Hsin 
Cheng Shih, are Fo Kuang Shan nuns.
    \174\ See Ex. 130 (DNC Check Tracking Form for Jou Sheng check #227 
for $5,000 to DNC on April 16, 1996; IBPS check #3523 for $5,000 to Jou 
Sheng on April 16, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Shiwen Teh check 
#1808 for $2,800 to DNC on April 16, 1996; IBPS check $3521 for $2,800 
to Melissa Wang [a.k.a. Shiwen Teh] on April 15, 1996; DNC Check 
Tracking Form for Hsin Cheng Shih check $141 for $2,200 to DNC on April 
18, 1996; Hsing Cheng Shih bank records for period 03/21/96 through 04/
19/96 [indicating cash deposit of $3,000 on April 18, 1966]); Yi Chu 
deposition, pp. 100-01 (confirming reimbursement of these three 
individuals). Each of the DNC check tracking forms for these straw 
donations credit Hsia with having solicited the contribution.
    Also as part of the preparations for the Vice President's 
fundraiser, Huang visited the Hsi Lai Temple on three different 
occasions during April 1996 prior to Gore's arrival. On the 
last of these pre-event visits, on April 28, the day before the 
luncheon, Huang, Hsia, and DNC fundraiser Maeley Tom worked 
together in a room at the Temple, using their cellular 
telephones to call guests and potential guests for the next 
day's event. As Gorman recalled it, they spoke to these persons 
in Chinese, and though he was far from fluent,

          My impression was that they were kind of soliciting 
        contributions, soliciting guests maybe. I got the 
        feeling they were kind of--they were kind of urgent in 
        trying to get like as many people as possible. Maybe 
        they had not gotten as much--raised as much 
        contributions [sic] as they'd wanted. . . 
    \175\ Gorman deposition, pp. 77-78; see also Ex. 87, p. 2, para.12.

At one point, Huang's telephone ran out of battery power, and 
he began to pick up a nearby wired telephone--only to be 
stopped by Maeley Tom, who admonished him that he should not 
use the Temple's telephones.176
    \176\ Gorman deposition, pp. 78-79. Hsia had previously warned that 
``the telephones at the Hsi Lai Temple were not to be used for 
`political purposes' because this would jeopardize the Temple's non-
profit (tax exempt) status.'' Ex. 87, p. 2, para. 11; cf. infra text 
accompanying note 212 (discussing tax exempt status of Temple).
    During this last-minute telephone effort by Huang, Hsia, 
and Tom, Man Ho delivered to Huang a list of those guests 
Temple officials expected to attend the fundraiser. Next to 
each name was a notation of the amount of money each person 
had, or was expected to, contribute to the DNC. When Huang saw 
the list, he asked Man Ho if she knew of anyone else who would 
like to attend the luncheon for $2,500. In response, Man Ho 
called a friend, Catherine Chen, who agreed to contribute 
$2,500.177 On top of the donations solicited by 
monastics from Temple devotees, and the illegally laundered 
$10,000 in anonymous contributions described above, Chen's 
donation brought the total raised at the Temple prior to Gore's 
visit to $45,000.178
    \177\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 143-47 (discussing giving list to 
Huang and identifying solicitation of Catherine Chen, ``Bill Chen's 
wife,'' as the subsequent $2,500 donor); Yuh How Bill Chen and Nancy 
Kainan Mao check #959 (Ex. 131). Catherine Chen's $2,500 check bore the 
name of her husband, Bill Chen, as well as that of ``Nancy Kainan 
Mao.'' This suggests that Catherine Chen is the same `'Nancy Mao'' who 
was apparently reimbursed by the Temple for a donation made in early 
1994. See supra Note 124.
    \178\ Man Ho deposition, p. 148.
    The Vice President arrived at the Temple at approximately 
12:30 p.m. on April 29. A throng of invitees and a local high 
school band were outside to meet him. Inside the entrance hall, 
Hsia, Huang, Congressman Bob Matsui, and Donald Fowler were 
among the official greeters. After meeting briefly in a holding 
room with Master Hsing Yun, the Vice President walked up the 
Temple's courtyard, between a phalanx of monastics, to the 
Temple's Buddha shrine, to which the Vice President made a 
flower offering. From there, the Vice President was escorted 
downstairs to have his photograph taken with VIP attendees and 
those who had contributed in connection with the event.\179\
    \179\ See generally Man Ho deposition, pp. 176-82; Ex. 122, pp. 11-
    At lunch in the Temple's dining hall, the Vice President 
sat at the head table with Master Hsing Yun, Hsia, and Ted 
Sioeng, among others.\180\ John Huang apparently did not sit at 
one of the tables, instead circulating amongst the tables 
working with Temple officials and Gore's ``advance'' team to 
ensure that things ran smoothly.\181\ As part of a brief series 
of speeches after lunch that included remarks by Hsing Yun, 
Huang and Fowler, Congressman Matsui, who then also served as 
the DNC's treasurer, introduced Vice President Gore--who spoke 
for a few minutes to the assembled guests as Hsia interpreted 
his comments into Chinese.\182\ Immediately following his 
speech, the Vice President posed outside with all Temple 
monastics, and left the Temple at about 2:00 p.m. From there, 
the Vice President departed for the airport, flying on Air 
Force Two to San Jose, and ending up at a DNC fundraising 
dinner that evening at a private home in Los Altos Hills, 
    \180\ According to the seating chart, at Gore's table were seated 
Maria Hsia, Ted Sioeng, Don Knabe, Joseph Thomas, Yvonne Burke, and 
Gary Shaw, among others. Dining Hall Guest List--April 29th Vice 
President Gore Event (Ex. 132).
    \181\ See, e.g., Photograph of Vice President Gore at lunch, April 
29, 1996 [produced by Temple to the Committee] (seated with Hsing Yun, 
Maria Hsia, and Ted Sioeng, with Huang in background talking to Bain 
Ennis of the Vice President's advance staff).
    \182\ Ex. 122.
    \183\ Id., pp. 12-17. There were several other quick stops after 
the Vice President flew to San Jose before his motorcade arrived at the 
home of George and Judy Marcus in Los Altos Hills for this event.
    At around 3:00 p.m., following the Vice President's 
departure, the Master and Hsia held a press conference at the 
Temple. A number of reporters were angry because they had not 
been permitted to attend the event itself; some also questioned 
the propriety of holding a political event at the Temple. 
According to Man Ho,

        some reporters say that it was not proper to have this 
        type of luncheon at the temple, but Maria told them 
        that someone has checked with the White House and 
        [they] say that it's okay to have luncheon at the 
    \184\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 182-83.

    Even on April 29, it had become apparent that the Hsi Lai 
Temple fundraiser had not raised as much money as Huang and 
Hsia had hoped. That evening, after the Vice President's 
departure, Gorman spoke briefly with Hsia at the Temple while 
she awaited an audience with Venerable Master Hsing Yun. Hsia 
``seemed disappointed not so much as to how the event itself 
went, but that they had not been able to raise the amount of 
money that they wanted to raise.'' \185\ As Gorman recalled,

    \185\ Gorman deposition, p. 86.

          After the event, I asked Ms. Hsia how she felt the 
        Vice Presidential visit had gone. She responded to the 
        effect that they didn't raise as much [money] as they 
        wanted, but she had talked to the Master and he had 
        said ``he would take care of it.'' \186\
    \186\ Ex. 87, p. 3, para. 14.

This need for more DNC donations, however, became an urgent 
priority the next day when DNC officials in Washington began to 
pressure Huang for more money.
    As DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan later recalled it, 
he telephoned Huang the day after the Gore luncheon as part of 
his ``general practice'' of trying to ``rally the troops at the 
end of the month and ask them to get in money.'' He 
``remember[ed] having a conversation with John'' in which he 
told Huang that ``we need you to get some money in.'' \187\ 
According to Sullivan,
    \187\ Deposition of Richard Sullivan, June 25, 1997, pp. 41-42.

          I remember being disappointed . . . I remember just 
        fine, being somewhat personally disappointed--you know, 
        between San Jose and the fact that it [had been] so 
        important to somebody out there that the event be at 
        the temple, that . . . you would have thought . . . we 
        would get a big contribution out of somebody.\188\
    \188\ Id., pp. 46-47.

Sullivan had ``expected that they were going to make some big 
contributions.'' ``I was expecting . . . maybe some 15s and 
20s'' \189\--i.e., individual contributions of $15,000 or 
$20,000 each. Since this had not occurred, Sullivan asked Huang
    \189\ Id., pp. 50-51.

          Can you get some [more] funds in? Can you send some 
        money in? Don't you have some outstanding money out? . 
        . . I may have said, John, get some money in from your 
        people in Los Angeles, get some money . . . . I 
        probably did say, John, get some California money 
    \190\ Id., pp. 45-46.

    Huang apparently wasted little time in passing this message 
on to Hsia and to the Temple, for during a break in a seminar 
program being conducted for the assembled monastics by Hsing 
Yun, Man Ho received a telephone call from Hsia informing her 
that Huang needed to raise more money. Huang, Hsia told her, 
needed another $55,000, enough to bring the total raised at the 
Temple to $100,000. Hsia also told Man Ho that Huang needed 
this money before he returned to Washington that very 
    \191\ Man Ho deposition, p. 183; Man Ho testimony, p. 41; Yi Chu 
testimony, pp. 42 & 47 48. When Man Ho went to inform Hsing Yun and 
Abbess Tzu Jung of this sudden need for more money, she discovered that 
they had already been told. Man Ho deposition, p. 185.
    Man Ho then contacted Yi Chu, telling her that ``we were a 
certain number [of donations] short, and she wanted me to make 
it up.'' What was needed, Man Ho informed her, was to add 
another $55,000 to the $45,000 the Temple had collected 
already.\192\ Accordingly, given the need for haste, Yi Chu 
approached the first monastics she saw, soliciting donations 
from the first 11 monks or nuns she encountered who happened to 
have their checkbooks with them.\193\ Because many of them did 
not have enough money to cover the $5,000 sum Yi Chu asked of 
them \194\--and because after 1993 it was the Temple's standard 
practice to reimburse monastics who made donations to political 
causes \195\--Yi Chu reimbursed every one of these eleven 
    \192\ Yi Chu deposition, p. 51; Yi Chu testimony p. 43.
    \193\ Yi Chu deposition, pp. 55-56; Yi Chu testimony, p. 43.
    \194\ See, e.g., Yi Chu deposition, p. 60; Yi Chu testimony, pp. 
45-46; Siuw Moi Lian deposition, pp. 31-32; Huei-Tsan Huang deposition, 
pp. 21 & 25.
    \195\ Yi Chu deposition, pp. 56-57.
    \196\ See id., pp. 61-65; Yi Chu testimony, pp. 43-44 & 47-48. Some 
of the donors even postdated their checks to the DNC so that the check 
Yi Chu wrote them from the Temple's general expenses account would 
clear first. See e.g., Yi Chu deposition, pp. 46-47 (discussing 
postdated check from Siuw Moi Lian); Yi Chu testimony, pp. 45-46.
    Hsing Yun was among those solicited and reimbursed in this 
fashion. By his own admission, in fact, the Master appears to 
have been well aware that in assuring Hsia that ``he would take 
care of'' Huang's cash shortfall, he was authorizing monastics' 
reimbursement for their DNC contributions. As Hsing Yun put it 
to Committee staff who met with him at his temple in Kiaoshung 
in June 1997,

          In [the] Hsi Lai Temple there were some monastic and 
        lay disciples who, influenced by my own conduct, also 
        wanted to help Mr. Gore. In truth, they had only 
        limited funds since they ordinarily donate all of their 
        money to Hsi Lai Temple. However, when they want to use 
        some of it, Hsi Lai Temple ought to give it to them. 
        Therefore, when they did not have enough money to cover 
        the checks they were donating, I thought Hsi Lai Temple 
        could help these disciples.\197\
    \197\Ex. 25, p. 4.

``Some devotees did not have enough money,'' he said, ``so the 
temple, due their past good service, when they need money the 
temple will give them the money they want.'' \198\ ``Influenced 
by [the Master's] own conduct'' in making a contribution that 
day, \199\ ten other monastics joined Hsing Yun in writing 
$5,000 checks to the DNC--and in being reimbursed by Yi Chu for 
the cost of these donations.\200\
    \198\Id., p. 8.
    \199\Id., p. 4.
    \200\ Ex. 133 (DNC Check Tracking Form for Shing Yun check #102 for 
$5,000 to DNC on April 30, 1996; IBPS check #3573 for $5,000 to Shing 
Yun on May 1, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Man Ya Shih check #509 
for $5,000 to DNC on April 30, 1996; IBPS check #3576 for $5,000 to Man 
Ya Shih on April 30, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Hsiu Chu Lin 
check #702 for $5,000 to DNC on April 30, 1996; IBPS check #3581 for 
$5,000 to Hsiu Chu Lin on May 1, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Suh-
Jen Wu check #121 for $5,000 to DNC on May 1, 1996; IBPS check #3574 
for $5,000 to Suh-Jen Wu on May 1, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for 
Pi-Hsia Hsiao check #195 for $5,000 to DNC on April 30, 1996; IBPS 
check #3571 for $5,000 to Pi-Hsia Hsiao on May 1, 1996; DNC Check 
Tracking Form for Siuw Moi Lian check #1016 for $5,000 to DNC dated May 
6, 1996; IBPS check #3577 for $5,000 to Man Ya Shih on May 1, 1996; DNC 
Check Tracking Form for Hueitsan Huang check #243 for $5,000 to DNC on 
April 30, 1996; IBPS check #3575 for $5,000 to Hueitsan Huang on April 
30, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Hsiu Luan Tseng check #140 for 
$5,000 to DNC dated May 6, 1996; IBPS check #3572 for $5,000 to Hsiu 
Luan Tseng on May 1, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Bor Yun Jeng 
check #221 for $5,000 to DNC on April 30, 1996; IBPS check #3570 for 
$5,000 to Bor Yun Jeng on May 1, 1996; DNC Check Tracking Form for Seow 
Fong Ooi check #497 for $5,000 to DNC on April 30, 1996; IBPS check 
#3578 for $5,000 to Seow Fong Ooi on May 1, 1996).
    According to Yi Chu, Seow Fong Ooi actually contributed $10,000 to 
the DNC. Yi Chu deposition, pp. 63-64. Thus, according to the Temple's 
attorneys, Seow Fong Ooi's second $5,000 was actually paid to another 
Fo Kuang Shan nun named Chia-Hui Ho. See DNC Check Tracking Form for 
Chia-Hui Ho donation of $5,000 on May 1, 1996 (Ex. 134); Ex. 133, p. 19 
7284 (IBPS check #3579 providing second Temple payment of $5,000 to 
Seow Foing Ooi on April 30, 1996). The Temple's accounting records show 
this series of payments in sequentially-numbered checks as ``No Name'' 
payments. See Hsi Lai Temple, Transaction Detail by Account, May 1996 
(Ex. 135).
    Hsia was at the Temple later that evening when Huang 
stopped by briefly to pick up the checks, before leaving for 
Washington.\201\ With this money, the amount of money raised by 
the Temple for the DNC by the April 29 event now totaled 
$100,000: $35,000 in donations solicited ahead of time by 
Temple monastics, $10,000 in laundered donations by anonymous 
devotees before the Vice Presidential luncheon, and $55,000 in 
laundered donations in response to Huang's request for more 
funds just after the event. Added to the sum Huang and perhaps 
others apparently solicited independently of the Temple, the 
Vice Presidential fundraiser raised $166,750 for the DNC.\202\
    \201\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 183-84 & 187.
    \202\ Democratic National Committee, DNC Contribution Review, Feb. 
1997 (Ex. 136) (excerpts), p. 4 (listing ``[t]otal raised in connection 
with event'' for ``Hsi Lai Temple Event'' as $166,750); cf. Man Ho 
deposition, p. 149 (remarks of Man Hua) (explaining that Man Ho 
``doesn't know what others contribute[d]'' beyond DNC donations 
solicited by Temple officials). As described earlier, the Hsi Lai 
Temple raised at least $146,400 in illegal reimbursed contributions for 
local, state, and national political campaigns from 1993 through the 
elections of 1996. Some $116,500 of this total went directly to the DNC 
for events involving Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore; other 
recipients included Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Patrick 
Kennedy. Sections 441e and 441f of Title 2 of the U.S. Code prohibit 
knowingly accepting such unlawful donations, and therefore presumably 
prohibit keeping donations that one discovers have been raised 
illegally. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441c (``It shall be unlawful . . . for any 
person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a 
foreign national.''); id. at Sec. 441f (``No person shall . . . 
knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of 
    Although the reimbursed monastic donations with regard to the April 
29 event have been the subject of media reporting for months, the 
Committee's depositions of actual straw donors who gave money to the 
DNC suggests the DNC has not yet paid back all of the donations it 
claims to have returned. Man Ya Shih and Siuw Moi Lian, for example, 
testified in their depositions in August 1997 that although they each 
gave $5,000 to the DNC, they have yet to receive their donations back. 
Siuw Moi Lian deposition, p. 36; Man Ya Shih deposition, p. 44.
    The repeated donation-laundering in which Hsia and Temple 
officials, and perhaps Huang, engaged clearly violated federal 
elections laws barring political contributions made through 
``straw donors'' \203\ and meets the legal definition of a 
``criminal conspiracy.'' \204\ Moreover, Temple officials have 
admitted that at least two of the monastics who gave money in 
connection with the Gore event, Chia-Hui Ho and Seow Fong Ooi, 
were foreign nationals prohibited from making political 
contributions \205\ at the time they made their donations.\206\ 
Nor were these two individuals the only foreign nationals 
reimbursed by the Temple after making contributions to the DNC. 
According to her responses to a DNC telephone survey, 
reimbursed Temple donor Bih-Yueh Jeng was neither a U.S. 
citizen nor a permanent U.S. resident at the time she made her 
$5,000 contribution to the DNC in connection with the 
Presidential event in Los Angeles in July 1996.\207\ Since 
Temple officials made no efforts to ascertain the immigration 
status of monastics or devotees solicited for political 
contributions, or those selected to participate in ``straw 
donor'' reimbursement schemes, it may have been no more than 
blind luck that prevented even more foreign nationals from 
making donations.\208\
    \203\ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441f (``No person shall make a contribution in 
the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to 
effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a 
contribution made by one person in the name of another person.'').
    \204\ United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990) 
(holding that conducting donation-laundering scheme can amount to 
criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States and to make fraudulent 
statements to Federal Elections Commission in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 371 & 1001); id. at 212 (describing elements of conspiracy, 
and citing United States v. Medrano, 836 F.2d 861, 863-64 (5th Cir. 
1988); United States v. Colwell, 764 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir. 1985)).
    \205\ See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441e(1) (``It shall be unlawful for a 
foreign national directly or through any other person to make any 
contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly 
or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an 
election to any political office or in connection with any primary 
election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any 
political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any 
such contribution from a foreign national.''). The term ``foreign 
national'' is defined to mean persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor 
permanent resident aliens See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441e(b) (defining ``foreign 
national'' to exclude ``any individual who is a citizen of the United 
States'' and any person ``lawfully admitted for permanent residence'').
    \206\ Man Ho deposition, pp. 232-33 (identifying Chia Hui-Ho and 
Seow Fong Ooi as having been neither U.S. citizens nor permanent 
residents at time of DNC donations); Yi Chu deposition, p. 96 
(similarly identifying Seow Fong Ooi); Ex. 137 (Peter Kelly, letter to 
Joseph Sandler, Nov. 15, 1996 [discussing Chia Hui-Ho's $5,000 
contribution to DNC and noting that ``this individual's application for 
legal permanent residence is still pending before the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service'']; Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
approval notice for Sec. 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) special immigration 
[religious worker] status for Chia Hui-Ho, Oct. 7, 1996; James 
Robinson, letter to INS, Nov. 7, 1996 [enclosing Chia-Hui Ho's 
application for permanent resident status]).
    \207\ Ex. 138 (Bih-Yueh Jeng, Debevoise & Plimpton survey response 
via telephone interview, Dec. 17, 1996, p. DNC 1803698 [answering 
``No'' to question ``Are you a United States citizen?'' and ``No'' to 
question ``Are you a permanent resident of the United States?'']. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, Sept. 27, 1996 [granting Bih-Yueh Jeng's petition for 
nonimmigrant religious worker status several months after the Temple 
    \208\ See Yi Chu deposition, p. 95 (``Well, I didn't know whether 
contributions were prohibited from the noncitizens or nonpermanent 
residents. All I did was to encourage people to make donations.''). 
Moreover, the Temple's donation-laundering scheme raises questions as 
to the ultimate source of the monies that flowed into the DNC's coffers 
over the 1993-96 period. As noted previously, the reimbursements were 
all made out of the Temple's general expenses account, which in turn 
got its money from the account into which Buddhist devotees made 
donations to the Temple. Because Temple officials never screened 
Buddhist contributors to the Temple for U.S. citizenship or permanent 
resident alien status, there is no way of knowing whether or not the 
money that ended up being funneled to the DNC by Hsia and Huang 
ultimately came from foreign nationals. See id. (stating that ``[n]o 
attempt was ever made'' to determine whether devotees were citizens or 
permanent residents).
    Richard Sullivan and the DNC clearly knew that it was 
inappropriate to have a fundraiser at the Temple. As he told 
John Huang when Huang first described his Temple plan, for 
example, ``you know, . . . you can't do a fund-raiser at a 
temple.'' 209 Nevertheless, faced with huge 
pressures to raise money for the re-election of Bill Clinton 
and Al Gore, Sullivan let Huang continue with the event even 
though Huang admitted that ``he'd get money out of it'' and 
``he'd get some money out of them.'' 210 But the 
impropriety could not be erased simply because Huang promised 
that he would not solicit all attendees for money. 
211 As one of the DNC's own auditors noted after the 
Temple affair had begun to appear in the national press, 
contributions from the Temple should be returned because ``[i]t 
was a temple, you idiot!'' 212
    \209\ Sullivan deposition, June 25, 1997, p. 23.
    \210\ Id., p. 24.
    \211\ Id., pp. 24 & 26.
    \212\ Democratic National Committee, list of contributions returned 
since September 1996, Nov. 22, 1996 (Ex. 139) (listing $5,000 donation 
from ``Buddhist Temple'' and noting as reason for refund that ``It was 
a temple, you idiot!'').
    One reason why it was wrong to hold the fundraiser there is 
that the Hsi Lai Temple--in its corporate incarnation as the 
International Buddhist Progress Society (IBPS)--is a 
Sec. 501(c)(3) organization for federal income tax 
purposes.213 Like all churches, therefore, it is 
prohibited by law, not to mention its own organizational 
charter, from engaging in political activity. As the Temple's 
own articles of incorporation state, ``the corporation shall 
not participate or intervene in any political campaign . . . on 
behalf of any candidate for public office.'' 214 
Political activity of the sort in which Temple officials 
engaged, e.g., donating Temple money to political campaigns and 
soliciting funds for such campaigns, is impermissible. 
Moreover, contributions made by faithful Buddhists to the 
Temple are tax deductible. On top of the various legal concerns 
already discussed herein, this raises at least two additional 
troubling issues.
    \213\ See, e.g., Internal Revenue Service, Cumulative List of 
Organizations, vol. 1, Sept. 30, 1995, p. 1049 (Ex. 140) (listing 
``International Buddhist Progress Society, Hacienda Heights, Ca.'' as 
tax-exempt organization). The IBPS was also exempt from California 
taxes as a nonprofit organization. See International Buddhist Progress 
Society, Statement by Domestic Nonprofit Corporation, March 15, 1996 
(Ex. 141) (document signed by Hsing Huang Shin, Liang Yueh Fang, and 
Tsui-Hsueh Hsueh [a.k.a. Yi Chu], listing Hsia as agent for service of 
    \214\ International Buddhist Progress Society, Articles of 
Incorporation, Aug. 4, 1978, p. 1 (Ex. 142). This document was signed 
by three Temple officials, two of whom were Hsing Yun himself and 
former Temple Abbess Hsing Kuang Shih, id., p.3--both of whom were 
subsequently involved in unlawful Temple donation-laundering in support 
of various political causes.
    First, the checks laundered through Temple monastics to the 
DNC--over $100,000 worth in 1996 alone--apparently consisted of 
money derived directly from tax-exempt charitable contributions 
made to the Temple. In essence, therefore, this amounts to 
taxpayer funding for political contributions to the DNC, which 
is clearly prohibited.
    Second, this use of Temple funds perpetuated a fraud upon 
faithful Buddhists who donated to the Temple upon the 
assumption that their money would be used to advance the 
Temple's legitimate religious purposes and not be given to a 
political party. Through the Temple's donation-laundering and 
willingness to host political fundraisers for various 
candidates, however, money given by faithful devotees to the 
Temple was illegally diverted without their knowledge to 
support the re-election of Bill Clinton and Al 
    \215\ Another potential consequence to the Temple from this 
violation of its Section 501(c)(3) status relates to the validity of 
visas and green cards Hsia obtained for Fo Kuang Shan religious workers 
under the terms of the Immigration Act of 1990. Because the Temple had 
apparently been engaged in unlawful political activity through hsia 
since at least 1993, it is open to question as to whether the Hsi Lai 
Temple qualifies as such a ``bona fide nonprofit'' organization. As 
Hsia's assistant Matthew Gorman recognized, political activity by the 
Temple might threaten the validity of all the religious worker visas 
and green cards obtained for Temple affiliates since 1993. See Gorman 
deposition, p. 75.
    It is also worth noting that there is a problem here even 
apart from the Temple's reimbursements of DNC donors. As the 
Committee learned from Maura McManimon, the DNC's event 
coordinator for the Temple luncheon, the DNC had no expenses in 
organizing the Temple event apart from Huang's airfare to Los 
Angeles. The DNC apparently did not even give McManimon a 
budget for this event, and had absolutely no idea what the 
Temple luncheon cost because the Temple paid for 
everything.216 These expenditures alone amounted to 
a large, in-kind contribution to the DNC by the Temple.
    \216\ Deposition of Maura McManimon, July 25, 1997, pp. 49-50 & 58-
    Significantly, the DNC did not repay the Temple for this 
significant in-kind contribution until the day after the first 
stories about the Temple affair appeared in the Wall Street 
Journal on October 17, 1996.217 It was only then 
that the DNC decided to reimburse the Temple for the money it 
saved the DNC in organizing the Gore event, by sending the 
Temple a check for $15,000.218
    \217\ Kuntz, supra note 1.
    \218\ The DNC's check for this reimbursement was written on the 
very day the first stories appeared. See Ex. 143 (Bradley Marshall, 
letter to Man Ho, Oct. 18, 1996, enclosing $15,000 check to cover 
estimated costs of April 29, 1996 event; DNC Services Corporation check 
#025100 for $15,000 to Buddha's Light International Association on 
October 17, 1996).
    When press accounts of the Temple fundraiser and associated 
donation-laundering by the Temple began to appear in the fall 
of 1996, Temple officials became alarmed. Both Man Ho and Yi 
Chu, in fact, ``panicked'' and set about destroying and 
altering documents in their files which they felt were 
``embarrassing.'' Man Ho destroyed a number of documents 
relevant to the Temple's illegal donation-laundering, 
          (1) The check-request forms that Man Ho had prepared 
        for the Abbess' signature after receiving calls from 
        Maria Hsia requesting political contributions;
          (2) The list of attendees Man Ho gave to John Huang 
        on April 28 indicating guests who would attend the Gore 
        luncheon, who among them had agreed to donate money to 
        the DNC, and the amount of each contribution; and
          (3) Most of the paperwork held at the Temple in 
        preparation for the Vice President's visit, including 
        invitations (including newspaper clippings of the 
        event). 219
    \219\ See Man Ho deposition, pp. 155-58 & 219-20 (recounting 
``panic,'' ``embarrassment,'' and document destruction).
    Venerable Master Hsing Yun has subsequently claimed that 
the destruction of these documents was merely part of an 
ongoing process by which the Temple would ``regularly purge old 
files in storage and add new ones'' and ``has nothing to do 
with destruction of evidence.'' 220 It is clear from 
Man Ho's testimony, however, that this is untrue. Furthermore, 
when questioned by Senator Susan Collins during Committee 
hearings, Yi Chu admitted that the nuns' document purge was 
anything but ordinary:
    \220\ Hsing Yun, statement in response to Governmental Affairs 
Committee hearings, Sept. 6, 1997 (Ex. 144) [translated by Michael Yan 
for the Governmental Affairs Committee].

          Senator Collins. When the press stories appeared 
        regarding the temple fund-raiser and the 
        reimbursements, were you worried that the negative 
        publicity would hurt the temple's reputation?
          Ms. Yi-Chu. Yes.
          Senator Collins. And you also did not want to 
        embarrass the Vice President or . . . Maria Hsia; is 
        that correct?
          Ms. Yi-Chu. Yes.
          Senator Collins. So that was your motivation for 
        making these changes and altering these documents as 
        well as destroying other documents; is that correct?
          Ms. Yi-Chu. Yes.221
    \221\ Yi Chu testimony, Sept. 4, 1997, p. 65; see also id., pp. 34-
35 & 97 (confirming that motive for destruction was to avoid 

    In addition to this campaign of document destruction, Yi 
Chu testified that in approximately November of 1996, she 
modified some of the cashed Temple checks used to reimburse 
monastic donors on the day following the event. After stories 
about the Temple incident began to appear in the press, she 
added, often in Chinese characters, the words ``loan'' or 
``Futien account'' on the previously-blank ``memo'' lines of a 
number of checks.222 This, she hoped, would conceal 
the actual origin of the reimbursements: while the checks had 
actually come out of the Temple's general expenses account with 
no expectation of repayment, she wanted to create the 
impression they were either ``loans'' to the monastic donors or 
had come from these donors' own funds held for them by the 
Temple in so-called Futien accounts.223
    \222\ These altered checks were the ones produced to the Committee 
pursuant to its subpoena of the Temple, but the forgery can clearly be 
seen if one compares the altered checks produced by the Temple with 
photocopies kept by the bank when the checks were originally cashed in 
their unaltered form. Exhibit showing ``Checks as produced by Temple'' 
alongside ``Checks as cashed by bank'' (Ex. 145) (reproducing 
illustrative IBPS reimbursement checks to Hsiu Chu Lin, Hsiao Jie Su, 
and Seow Fong Ooi).
    \223\ See Yi Chu deposition, pp. 47-50, 83-84, & 108-09.
    Yi Chu's alteration of these checks is significant not only 
because of the cover-up it demonstrates, but because it 
emphasizes the fact that while Yi Chu could have selected to 
make contributions only monastics who had sufficient funds in 
their personal ``Futien'' accounts to cover the cost--and 
thereby create at least the basis for an argument that the 
political contributions by these monastics were voluntary ones 
made from personal monies--she instead followed her usual 
pattern of immediately reimbursing the ostensible donors from 
the Temple's general expenses account, which is funded with 
tax-deductible contributions to the Temple itself. These 
alterations underscore the fact that the Temple's numerous 
reimbursements during the 1993-96 period were not done with the 
donors' ``own'' money, and they make clear that Temple 
officials clearly understood that it was wrong to reimburse 
donors with the Temple's funds.
    Temple monastics were also less than candid in responding 
to press inquiries and official investigations of the Temple 
affair. Man Ya Shih--whose false story about donation-
laundering had helped first bring the episode to light when it 
was reported in the Wall Street Journal in October 1996 
224--was the worst offender in this regard. In a 
letter to Hsia apologizing for certain false statements she had 
made to the Journal and seeking Hsia's approval of a proposed 
written response to FEC inquiries, for example, Man Ya Shih 
promised Hsia that ``I will cover the fact if I did help anyone 
in laundering the money.'' 225 Thereafter, in a 
signed and sworn statement to the FEC, Man Ya Shih did exactly 
this--swearing that no one had given her the money she used to 
make her $5,000 donation to the DNC.226
    \224\ See Kuntz, supra note 1.
    \225\ Ex. 146 (Man Ya Shih, letter to Maria Hsia, Nov. 7, 1996; Man 
Ya Shih, excerpt from November 7, 1996 letter to Maria Hsia translated 
from Chinese by Michael Yan for Governmental Affairs Committee).
    \226\ Man Ya Shih, sworn declaration to Federal Elections 
Commission, Nov. 30, 1996, p. 2 (Ex. 147), (``Please note that I was 
not given money to donate to DNC. But money given to me from the past 
years was used to be donated to DNC by my kind intention to support the 
people to elect the right persons to the Government''.) Hsia apparently 
also forwarded information to Man Ya Shih regarding the requirements of 
federal election law, and attempted to arrange for Man Ya Shih to 
receive legal representation from Hsia's own lawyer, James Robinson. 
See Ex. 148 (Progress Sheet from files of Hsia & Associates [recounting 
Man Ya Shih inquiry about election law, apparently on Nov. 1, 1996]; 
Maria Hsia, fax transmission to Jim Robinson, Nov. 6, 1996 [forwarding 
``Statement of Designation of Counsel'' signed by Man Ya Shih]). As the 
DNC attempted to assess the scope of its illegal-donation problem in 
late 1996 and early 1997, Hsia apparently helped a company called 
Matsunichi of America prepare a response to the DNC's questionnaire in 
which it denied that its president, Pan Su Tong, had ever made any 
contributions to the DNC. At the time, however, Hsia possessed both a 
photocopy of Pan's $5,000 check to the DNC on July 22, 1996 and a copy 
of the bank statement showing that it had been cashed by the DNC. Ex. 
149 (Packet of materials forwarded to Matt Gorman by Matsunichi of 
America, including: check in name of Pan Su Tong signed by Lance Zheng; 
copy of bank statement for August 1996; draft letter denying 
contribution written on letterhead of Matsunichi of America and 
prepared for signature by Lance Zheng; copy of questionnaire sent to 
Pan by Ernst & Young on behalf of DNC).
    In early 1997, Maria Hsia also played a role in 
coordinating monastics' responses to the Ernst & Young surveys 
sent to contributors by the DNC as part of their review of 
campaign finance problems--helping them respond to difficult 
questions such as who had solicited their donations and whether 
anyone else had provided them with money for this 
    \227\ See e.g., Matthew Gorman, fax transmission to Jan Yueh Lian 
Huang, Jan. 9, 1997 (Ex. 150) (noting that ``I will ask Ms. Hsia about 
item number 16.''); id. at SEN 00329 (enclosure of Ernst & Young DNC 
donor survey). Question 16 of Huang's survey was an inquiry as to ``who 
was the person who asked or solicited you to make this contribution.'' 
Moreover, this survey response contains a handwritten note by Matt 
Gorman in the response portion of Question 15--which asks ``If this 
money was not yours, we need to know whose mney it was. Please tell us 
whose money was given to the DNC and give us his/her name.'' Gorman's 
note, which was written in Chinese, indicates that he will ask Maria 
Hsia about this question. Id.: see generally Gorman deposition, p. 92 
(identifying authorship and content of handwritten note); Matthew 
Gorman, fax transmission to Maria Hsia, Jan. 11, 1997 (Ex. 151) 
(forwarding Huang's query about survey and requesting ``Please let me 
know how you suggest she should respond.''); Ex. 87, p. 3, para. 15 
(``In late 1996 or early 1997, Ms. Hsia asked me to help any persons 
who had donated to the DNC in connection with the April 29, 1996 event 
who needed help in responding to questionnaires sent by Ernst & Young 
on behalf of the DNC.''). According to Gorman, he did indeed ask Hsia 
about Huang's responses, but was told merely to ``say whatever is 
true.'' Gorman deposition, p. 94. He could not remember whether he 
helped other donors ``coordinate'' their responses with Hsia.
    Another nun, Siuw Moi Lian--who donated $5,000 to the DNC 
in connection with the Gore luncheon and was reimbursed by the 
Temple--appears to have submitted a false response to the DNC 
when asked about her role. When asked on behalf of the DNC by 
the accounting firm of Ernst & Young whether anyone had 
solicited her donation and what the source of the money for it 
had been, Siuw Moi Lian wrote ``myself.'' 228
    \228\ Siuw Moi Lian response, undated (Ex. 152).
    Hsia barred reporters from viewing the videotape taken by 
King & I Productions, videographers hired for the Vice 
President's Temple luncheon, including that taken of the 
speeches made by Vice President Gore and others to the 
assembled guests.229 Within two days of the 
luncheon, all copies of the videotape footage were gathered up 
from the film company and quickly shipped to 
Taiwan.230 Moreover, the monastic who took the tape 
from the production company on May 3, 1996--a monk by the name 
of Man-Chin 231--left the Fo Kuang Shan order 
shortly after the Committee served Temple officials with a 
subpoena for the videotape; he has since disappeared. 
232 Despite the repeated assurances of Temple 
officials that they are looking for this missing tape--and 
despite the fact that Temple officials have used short excerpts 
from this tape in making a brief publicity video that appeared 
on the Cable News Network--the full videotape record of the 
event with Vice President Gore on April 29, 1996 remains hidden 
to this day.
    \229\ See Memorandum of Interview of Anonymous Chinese newspaper 
reporter, May 16, 1997, pp. 1-2.
    \230\ Hank Tseng, letter to Christopher Ford, Aug. 27, 1997 (Ex. 
153); Hearing testimony, Sept. 4, 1997, pp. 167-69 & 173-81.
    \231\ See Ex. 153.
    \232\ Hearing testimony, Sept. 4, 1997, pp. 174-75 & 179 (remarks 
of Man Ho, Senator Fred Thompson, and Brian Sun).
    It has continued to be difficult to establish precisely 
what the Vice President claims to have known about the nature 
of the Temple fundraiser. At first, he claimed that he believed 
the Templelunch was only a ``community outreach'' 
event.233 Later, Vice President Gore said that he had 
believed it to be a ``finance-related'' event,234 a term 
that the White House apparently now uses to describe a range of events 
including, but not limited to, fundraisers. More recently--after it 
became apparent to the Committee that no one at the White House or the 
DNC could ever recall seeing or using the term ``finance-related'' 
prior to the point at which the Hsi Lai Temple story first broke in the 
press in October 1996 235--Vice President Gore adjusted his 
position again. On the day before Committee hearings on this subject, 
White House officials told reporters that the Vice President had 
actually believed it to be a ``donor-maintenance'' event, by which they 
apparently meant that he felt it to be an affair for DNC contributors 
at which money was not to be raised.236 The Vice President 
has said that ``no money was offered or collected or raised at the 
event,'' 237 and he has insisted that ``[i]t was not a 
ticketed event.'' 238 According to his spokeswoman Ginny 
Terzano, ``[a]ny money collected was without our knowledge.'' 
    \233\ Albert Gore, interview by Nina Totenberg for National Public 
Radio, Oct. 22, 1996 (``It was billed as a community outreach event . . 
    \234\ See Brian McGrory, ``Gore says he knew Buddhist event was 
fund-raiser; He earlier cited `community outreach,' '' Boston Globe, 
Jan. 15, 1997, at A9.
    \235\ According to the Vice President's scheduler Kim Tilley, in 
fact, the term ``Finance-related event'' was never used at all. Tilley 
deposition, p. 128 (``We would not call them DNC Finance-related 
    \236\ See David Stout, ``Gore's Presence at Fund-Raiser Called 
Innocent,'' New York Times, Sept. 3, 1997, p. A19.
    \237\ Albert Gore interview, supra note 233.
    \238\ See Dan Balz, ``For Vice Presdent Gore, a Term of 
Transition,'' Washington Post, Jan. 20, 1997, p. E31.
    \239\ See John Mintz, ``Fund-Raisers Pressured Temple After Gore 
Visit,'' Washington Post, June 13, 1997, p. A20.
    Virtually everyone at the DNC and on the Vice President's 
staff, however, not only clearly understood the Hsi Lai Temple 
event to be a ``fundraiser,'' but also freely and repeatedly 
described it as such. Indeed, the Vice President himself once 
referred to his DNC engagement in Los Angeles that day as a 
``fundraiser''--and did so at a point after which he had 
already accepted Hsing Yun's invitation to visit the Temple. 
Moreover, it is clear that both the Vice President himself and 
his staff members understood that whatever the event was 
ostensibly called, its purpose was to raise money for the DNC.
    The Vice President was advised of this, for example, by 
Harold Ickes, who described the event's anticipated fundraising 
total to the Vice President on the day before the Vice 
President received his briefing notes from the DNC for the 
Temple visit. In fact, at least two of the guests who attended 
the event in Hacienda Heights on April 29, 1996 recall 
fundraising actually being discussed from the lectern--in the 
presence of the Vice President. While there are obvious reasons 
for the Vice President to wish to distance himself from the 
Temple event by claiming that he had no idea fundraising was 
involved, such a claim is improbable.
    To understand what the Vice President really knew about the 
Temple, one must first understand the ``dire financial 
situation'' that faced the DNC after Republicans won majorities 
in Congress in 1994.240 Without vast new infusions 
of money, felt the Democrats in the White House, they could not 
afford the expensive media campaign needed to save themselves 
from a similar defeat in 1996.241 With this very 
much in mind, Vice President Gore resigned himself to a long 
and arduous season of fundraising, concluding that ``we can 
raise the money--BUT ONLY IF--the President and I actually do 
the events, the calls, the coffees, etc. . . . And we will have 
to lose considerable time to the campaign trail to do all of 
this fundraising.'' 242
    \240\ Deposition of David Strauss, June 30, 1997, p. 254.
    \241\ According to one DNC Trustee, for example, the DNC 
established a special media fund because the ``the media campaign was 
going to be expensive.'' Deposition of Beth Dozoretz, Sept. 2, 1997, p. 
56. Ultimately, the DNC spent many millions of dollars on this 
campaign, which the President himself identified in videotaped comments 
produced to the Committee by the White House,
    \242\ Albert Gore, ``Points for Political Budget Meeting with 
President,'' undated, p. 4 (Ex. 154).
    The DNC's April fundraiser in Los Angeles was a direct 
result of the fundraising campaign that grew out of the 
perceived importance of financing the DNC's massive media 
campaign on behalf of the President's re-election. Since the 
beginning of 1996, in fact, DNC and White House officials had 
been planning a fundraiser for the Vice President in April of 
that year. In early January, for example, Ickes sent a 
memorandum to the Vice President outlining the DNC's proposed 
events for 1996. This memorandum outlined, among other things, 
a plan to hold a $200,000 fundraiser for Vice President Gore in 
Los Angeles in April; it was to be the Vice President's only 
one in the city that month.243
    \243\ This document also outlined the DNC's plan for another 
$200,000 April fundraiser for Gore in San Jose. This Ickes memorandum 
is the first planning document which the Committee has been able to 
locate the two April 29, 1996 fundraisers attended by the Vice 
President, Harold Ickes, memorandum to the President and Vice 
President, Jan 2, 1996, p. SCGA-00286 (Ex. 155) (identifying VPOTUS 
events in April listed as intended to raise ``$ AMOUNT[[s]'' of 200 K'' 
in Los Angeles and another ``200K'' in San Jose). This document is 
stamped ``THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN,'' with a handwritten notation 
appearing next to this reading ``1/8/96.''
    This initial DNC proposal for Vice President Gore's only 
April 1996 event in Los Angeles became increasingly specific 
over time in additional Ickes memoranda forwarding fundraising 
targets to the Vice President. On February 9, for example, 
another Ickes memorandum raised the anticipated fundraising 
goal from Gore's planned April trip to Los Angeles to $250,000, 
and projected its likely expense as $25,000.244 At 
least by early March 1996, it appears, John Huang--now the 
DNC's top fundraiser among Asian-Americans--had been given 
responsibility for some of the upcoming events in 
California.245 By March 12, Vice President Gore's 
scheduling staff had begun specifically to discuss possible 
dates for the event, referring in internal memoranda to 
upcoming ``DNC fundraisers in San Jose & LA'' on ``April 27-
29.'' 246
    \244\ Harold Ickes, memorandum to the President and Vice President, 
Feb. 9, 1996, at EOP 041361 (Ex. 156). This document is marked to 
indicate that the President read it on February 22.
    \245\ On March 7, for example, the Vice President's deputy chief of 
staff, David Strauss, had a telephone conversation with Huang about 
``events in Cal[ifornia].'' David Strauss, telephone memorandum, March 
7, 1996 (Ex. 157).
    \246\ Lisa A. Berg, e-mail to Kimberly H. Tilley, March 12, 1996 
(Ex. 158) (discussing ``Up-coming travel of the Vice President'').
    No specific location was set or even discussed for the Vice 
President's April fundraiser in Los Angeles, however, for some 
time after the initial Ickes memorandum in January that 
outlined the need for such an event. The first connection of a 
specific location to the Los Angeles fundraising trip, as we 
have seen, apparently came from the Vice President himself when 
he met at the White House with Venerable Master Hsing Yun on 
March 15. Vice President Gore's reference during this meeting 
to an upcoming trip to Los Angeles, apparently in April, could 
only have been to the $250,000 fundraising trip of which Ickes 
had advised the Vice President in his January and February 
memoranda: he had no other trips to Los Angeles planned between 
March 15 and April 29. This meeting was therefore the first 
time anyone at the White House had discussed a specific 
location in connection with Vice President Gore's April visit 
to Los Angeles.
    Indeed, Huang and Hsia, at least, may even have intended 
the March 15 meeting with Hsing Yun to lay the groundwork for a 
Vice Presidential fundraiser at the Hsi Lai Temple. There is 
little other way, in fact, to explain the involvement of both 
Huang and Hsia in this meeting: Huang's job was to raise money 
for the DNC among Asian-Americans, and he and Hsia had been 
raising money together for Al Gore since 1989. Huang both 
requested and organized the Vice President's March 15 visit 
with Hsing Yun, and it was he who wrote the Vice President's 
briefing notes for the meeting. Furthermore, on March 13, two 
days before the White House meeting, the Vice President's 
deputy chief of staff, David Strauss, had a telephone 
conversation with Huang. Strauss claimed not to remember any 
specifics of this conversation, but he testified that it was 
related to the upcoming Hsing Yun visit at the White 
House.247 Significantly, his notes of this 
conversation include the notation ``John Huang . . . lead to a 
lot of $.'' 248
    \247\ Strauss deposition, June 30, 1997, pp. 56 & 59 (identifying 
telephone memorandum and adding that ``in my head . . . I have this 
linked with the Vice President's meeting with the Venerable Master.''); 
id., p. 68 (``[T]his is connected to the meeting with the Vice 
President. That's the linkage.''); see generally id., pp. 56-68.
    \248\ David Strauss, telephone memorandum, March 13, 1996 (Ex. 
    Vice President Gore also clearly knew on March 15, 1996 
that the DNC hoped to have him attend a fundraiser in Los 
Angeles at the end of April. Just after his meeting with Hsing 
Yun, his scheduler Kim Tilley asked the Vice President in an e-
mail message about whether he would be interested in adding 
another stop on his April 29 itinerary on top of ``the two 
fundraiser[s] in San Joe [sic] and LA.'' In this same message, 
she informed the Vice President that ``[w]e've confirmed the 
fundraisers for Monday, April 29th.'' 249 The Vice 
President responded--also that afternoon, by this point still 
only some four hours after having discussed his upcoming trip 
to Los Angeles with Hsing Yun in accepting the Temple's 
invitation to visit--that ``if we have already booked the 
fundraisers, then we have to decline'' invitations to add 
additional stops on the trip.250
    \249\ Kimberly H. Tilley, e-mail message to Albert Gore, March 15, 
1996 (Ex. 160).
    \250\ Albert Gore, e-mail message to Kimberly Tilley, March 15, 
1996 (Ex. 160). Both Tilley and David Strauss have said that when the 
Vice President sent this e-mail, he understood the April 29 event to be 
a fundraiser. Strauss deposition, June 30, 1997, p. 83; Tilley 
deposition, pp. 147-48.
    The March 15 meeting at the White House thus set in motion 
the process of picking the Hsi Lai Temple as the location for 
Vice President Gore's April 29 fundraiser in Los Angeles. 
Within two weeks, the DNC had confirmed the Temple as the 
location and notified the Office of the Vice President of this 
fact: by April 3, Maura McManimon had already sent a memorandum 
to the White House that described the location of this event as 
``Hsi Lai Temple (Buddhist Temple presided over by Hsing Yun, 
whom the Vice President has met).'' 251
    \251\ Maura McManimon, memorandum to Jackie Dycke, April 3, 1996 
(Ex. 161) (outlining for White House luncheon in Los Angeles). The very 
next day, as we have seen, Hsia asked Gorman to open a file entitled 
``Vice President Gore Hsi Lai event April 29, 1996--DNC Fundraiser.'' 
See supra note 160.
    Although Vice President Gore had been sufficiently 
concerned about possible foreign policy embarrassments to call 
Hsia for reassurances before meeting Hsing Yun at the White 
House in March 1996, the Vice President appears to have pressed 
ahead with the April 29 Temple event despite the misgivings of 
the NSC and his own national security advisors. As the 
fundraiser approached, the NSC again urged ``great, great 
caution.'' 252 Because of these concerns, the 
Department of State was consulted; it suggested certain 
criteria to govern the event in the interest of preventing 
``political exploitation by people from Taiwan.'' According to 
these rules, the Temple event was not to be billed as a 
``Taiwan'' event but rather one ``for the Chinese community of 
Southern California.'' No ``Taiwan flags or KMT symbols or 
other signs that would be embarrassing for the VP'' could be 
displayed at the Hsi Lai Temple, and ``no Taiwan politician 
should be allowed to exploit the event.'' 253 
Despite the imposition of these criteria, however, the Vice 
President's own national security staff suspected that the 
event's DNC organizers would be unable to meet them. As one 
aide put it, ``I think it may be difficult for the sponsors to 
meet the three criteria suggested by State.'' 254 As 
one of Vice President Gore's national security aides, Bill 
Wise, warned in mid-April, ``I tend to seek the safer course in 
these situations, but I suspect the VP might opt to go ahead'' 
    \252\ Robert Suettinger, e-mail message to John Norris, April 19, 
1996 (Ex. 162) (``This is terra incognita to me. Certainly from the 
perspective of Taiwan/China balancing, this would be clearly a Taiwan 
event, and would be seen as such. I guess my reaction would be one of 
great, great, caution. They may have a hidden agenda.''). Gore's 
schedulers had consulted with the Vice President's national security 
staff in order ``to find out if there are any problems/ramifications 
with the use of the Hsi Lai Temple [sic] for the VP's DNC Lunch while 
in LA.'' Jackie Dycke, e-mail message to Tyler S. Beardsley, April 15, 
1996 (Ex. 163); see also Jackie Dycke, e-mail message to Kimberly 
Tilley, April 16, 1996 (Ex. 164) (``Did you ever hear back from Bill 
[Wise] on Hsi Lai Temple?'').
    \253\ John Norris, memorandum to Bill [Wise], April 16, 1996 (Ex. 
    \254\ Bill Wise, handwritten addendum to John Norris memorandum of 
April 16, 1996 (Ex. 165).
    \255\ Id.
    It has been suggested--in accounts attributing this 
information to Hsia after stories about the Temple scandal 
began to appear in the press--that Huang had planned to hold 
his April 29 Vice Presidential fundraiser at the Harbor Village 
Restaurant in Monterey Park, California, but that this 
fundraiser was relocated to the Temple ``several days before 
Gore's trip.'' 256 Such claims of a ``last-minute'' 
switch in location are false. As the restaurant's management 
declared in a sworn statement given to the Committee, no one 
ever contacted the Harbor Village about holding an event there 
on April 29, 1996.257 Even had the event initially 
been planned for another site, in fact, no specific location 
for the April 29 fundraiser other than the Hsi Lai Temple was 
ever discussed by or with anyone at the White 
    \256\ See Rich Connell and Alan C. Miller, ``Principals Say Temple 
Event was Explicit Fund-raiser,'' Los Angeles Times, Nov. 3, 1996, p. 
A21 (recounting claims by ``Hsia and others'' that Harbor Village 
Restaurant fundraiser was changed to Temple ``several days before 
Gore's trip'').
    \257\ Diana So, letter to Special Agent Gayle Jacobs, May 20, 1997 
(Ex. 166) (``Per your request, we have looked into our reservation book 
back to the period between February 1996 and May 1996, [and] our record 
shows that there was not any party organized by John Huang, Maria Hsia 
or Matthew Gorman in our restaurant.''). A review conducted at the 
request of the Committee by the Vice Presidential Protective Division 
(VPPD) of the U.S. Secret Service also showed no ``records that would 
relate to a planned or actual visit by the Vice President to the Harbor 
Village Restaurant located in Monterey Park, California. No VPPD record 
reflects a planned or actual visit to that site.'' Ex. 122, p. 2.
    \258\ Hsia at one point apparently possessed a draft invitation on 
what appeared to be DNC letterhead for a DNC event on April 29 at the 
Harbor Village. Invitation to DNC APALC Event (Ex. 167). This document, 
however, was produced to the Committee only by Hsia & Associates, and 
apparently exists nowhere in the files of either the DNC or the White 
House (suggesting that no one beside Hsia ever saw it). Moreover, 
Gorman could not recall when he first saw this document. Indeed, Gorman 
admitted that he may only have seen it after the Gore fundraiser, and 
may indeed only have learned anything about the purported Harbor 
Village plan from Hsia herself--or from newspaper accounts quoting her 
that appeared after the Temple scandal had begun to break in the press. 
See Gorman deposition, pp. 187-90. No other document or testimony 
suggests any other specific location for the April 29 fundraiser apart 
from the Hsi Lai Temple itself, and there is no evidence that any such 
information was ever transmitted to the White House.
    It is clear, therefore, that the Hsi Lai Temple was the 
only specific location ever discussed with White House 
officials. Documentary evidence also makes clear that after DNC 
event coordinator Maura McManimon sent her April 3 memorandum 
to the White House specifically identifying the Temple as the 
location for the DNC luncheon, the White House knew that the 
purpose of the April 29 stop in Los Angeles was to raise money. 
On April 10, for example, Harold Ickes sent the Vice President 
another memorandum, advising him that the April 29 event would 
raise $250,000 and would be organized by John 
Huang.259 Ickes specified further that for this 
event, as well as for the event in San Jose that same day, 
``all proceeds [would go] to [the] DNC.'' 260
    \259\ Harold Ickes, memorandum to the President and the Vice 
President, April 10, 1996 (Ex. 168), p. EOP 040782 (identifying VPOTUS 
event in Los Angeles on ``29-Apr'' having ``Projected Revenue'' of 
$250,000 and ``Huang'' as the staff contact). Later, this same 
memorandum again listed events for April as including a $250,000 
fundraiser on April 29. Id., p. EOP 040791.
    \260\ Id., p. EOP 040808.
    Ickes sent the Vice President another memorandum on April 
25, 1996, once again describing the DNC as planning a 
fundraising event in Los Angeles on April 29--again listing 
John Huang as the organizer, but now describing it in more 
detail as a luncheon and raising its ``projected revenue'' to 
$325,000.261 Within 24 hours of receiving this 
memorandum, Vice President Gore was given briefing materials 
from the DNC informing him that the DNC luncheon he would 
attend on April 29 was at the Hsi Lai Temple.262 The 
conclusion could scarcely have been more obvious.263 
From these memoranda alone, it is clear that Vice President 
Gore understood the Temple event to be a DNC fundraiser.
    \261\ Harold Ickes, memorandum to the President and the Vice 
President, April 25, 1996 (Ex. 169), p. SCGA-01213 & -01223 (listing 
fundraiser in sections describing projected April events).
    \262\ DNC Finance, memorandum to Office of the Vice President, 
April 26, 1996 (Ex. 170) (briefing notes prepared by Richard Sullivan, 
John Huang, and Maura McManimon), pp. D 0000027-28 (last set of notes 
phrased in second person [i.e. ``you''] for Vice President Gore 
discussing DNC luncheon at Hsi Lai Temple).
    \163\ Nor is there any question that the Vice President received 
this and other memoranda from Ickes. As Gore's executive assistant 
Heather Marabetti testified, while the Vice President's staff generally 
culled his ``inbox'' in order to remove documents that were not of the 
utmost importance, Ickes' memoranda always ``stayed in the inbox'' so 
as to receive personal Vice Presidential attention. Deposition of 
Heather Marabeti, Sept. 3, 1997, pp. 66-67.
    The Vice President's staff also clearly understood that the 
April 29 event at the Temple was a fundraiser, as attested by 
the numerous internal messages and memoranda discussing the 
upcoming April 29 ``fundraiser'' in Los Angeles. On April 11, 
in fact, his staff held a meeting in Kimberly Tilley's office 
to discuss the upcoming ``fundraising events on April 29.'' 
264 Despite later White House claims that the Temple 
fundraiser was ``not a ticketed event,'' 265 at this 
April 11 meeting, Vice Presidential scheduler Jackie Dycke 
handed out copies of a document she had prepared showing that 
the upcoming April 29 luncheon at the Temple in Hacienda 
Heights had a ``ticket price'' of $1,000 to $5,000 a head. 
266 This document was prepared on the basis of 
information given her by the DNC. Throughout the rest of April, 
internal White House e-mail traffic continued to refer to the 
upcoming Los Angeles ``fundraiser,'' 267 the last of 
such references being on April 24, less than a week before the 
event was to occur. 268
    \264\ See, e.g., Jackie A. Dycke, e-mail to R. Martinex et al., 
April 10, 1996 (Ex. 171) (``As you know, the VP is going to San Jose 
and LA for DNC fundraising events on April 29. . . . We are going to 
have a meeting at 2:15 p.m. TOMORROW (Thursday) in Kim Tilley's office 
(Room 285) to discuss everything that is out there for this California 
trip.''). This e-mail was sent to no fewer than 11 people on Vice 
President Gore's staff: R. Martinez, John Emerson, Kim Tilley, Julie 
Payne, Karen Skelton, Ellen Ochs, Wendy Hartman, Caren Solomon, Dennis 
Alpert, David Thomas, and Kim Hopkins.
    \265\ See supra text accompanying note 238.
    \266\ Current Schedule for April 29, April 11, 1996 (Ex. 172), p. 
EOP 056497 (describing ``DNC Luncheon in LA/Hacienda Heights: 1000-5000 
head/150-200 people'' and ``Reception in San Jose 150-200 guests/ticket 
price working out''); Deposition of Jacqueline Dycke, Aug. 8, 1997, p. 
    \267\ See, e.g., Ex. 162 (John Norris, e-mail message to Robert 
Suettinger, April 15, 1996) (``Hsing Yun has invited the VP to visit 
the Hsi Lai Temple in LA. Hsing Yun would host a fundraising lunch for 
about 150 people in the VP's honor.'').
    \268\ John B. Emerson, e-mail to Bill [Wise], April 24, 1996 (Ex. 
173) (listing Vice Presidential travel ``LA-- . . . DNC funder for 
lunch; then to San Jose for TV workshop event and funder'').
    Everyone on the Vice President's staff involved with the 
Temple event thus knew exactly what was to occur. Despite the 
Vice President's claim that the staffers who accompanied him 
did not know that the event was a fundraiser,269 
Gore staffer Caren Solomon, who accompanied him on this 
trip,270 had been sent an e-mail by scheduler Jackie 
Dycke discussing the upcoming ``fundraiser'' and inviting her 
to the meeting at which Dycke's ``ticket price'' memo had been 
    \269\ Albert Gore interview supra note 233 (``I did not know that 
at the time. The people with me did not.'').
    \270\ Schedule for the Vice President, April 29, 1996 (Ex. 174), at 
EOP 007195-96 (showing Solomon on manifest for Marine II, Air Force II, 
and Los Angeles motorcade).
    \271\ Ex. 171 (reference to ``LA . . . DNC fundraising event[ ] on 
April 29'' and invitation to meeting to discuss trip, sent to Solomon). 
The Minority has tried to argue that a line-by-line analysis of the 
briefing notes and the daily schedule given to the Vice President for 
the Temple event--and a comparison between these documents and those 
that accompanied certain other DNC events--would have suggested to him 
that it was not, in fact, a fundraiser. This reasoning is entirely 
spurious. As Deputy Chief of Staff David Strauss testified, the Vice 
President's briefing materials for fundraisers did not always include 
information indicating that they were fundraisers and did not always 
indicate the amount to be raised. See Deposition of David Strauss 
deposition, Aug. 14, 1997, p. 240. Gore scheduler Ladan Manteghi 
testified similarly, conceding that not all fundraisers were described 
as such on the Vice President's schedule and that this schedule would 
usually not include indication of monetary amounts to be collected at 
fundraising events. Deposition of Laden Manteghi, Aug. 26, 1997, p. 33.
    Moreover, Vice President Gore was apparently reminded that 
the April 29 luncheon was a fundraiser at the Temple itself. At 
least two of the guests who ate lunch with the Vice President 
in the Temple's dining hall on April 29 recall specifically 
that DNC fundraising was actually discussed from the podium 
after lunch. Daniel Hesse, for example--one of the two INS 
officials invited by Matthew Gorman as a non-paying ``VIP 
guest'' of Hsia--told the Committee that at some point during 
the Vice President's introductions by Don Fowler and Bob 
Matsui, ``one speaker commented that `they had raised X amount 
of dollars.' '' 272 More explicitly, Sherry Shaw, 
who sat at Table 8,273 recalls that one of the 
luncheon speakers took the podium and reassured the assembled 
guests that ``they'' had ``double-checked,'' and that it was 
``O.K. to give contributions at the Hsi Lai Temple.'' 
274 She said that the man who made this comment 
``had a Japanese last name.'' 275 Vice President 
Gore was thus reminded of the event's fundraising purpose at 
the event itself, by the very DNC official who introduced 
    \272\ Memorandum of Interview of Daniel Hesse, Aug. 5, 1997, p. 2.
    \273\ Ex. 132, p. 3. According to this list, Sherry Shaw's husband 
Gary sat at the head table with Vice President Gore. (Shaw is a 
naturalized U.S. citizen from the People's Republic of China, and gave 
$5,000 to the DNC at this Temple event.)
    \274\ Sherry Shaw, sworn statement submitted to the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, Aug. 21, 1997 (Ex. 175). This story of ``double-
checking is generally corroborated by several other sources, among them 
Man Ho, Yi Chu, and Man Ya Shih--who have stated that the Temple had 
been advised prior to the event that the DNC had indicated that the 
Temple could host the luncheon even and that the holding of the event 
would not jeopardize the Temple's tax-exempt status because it was not 
unprecedented to hold such activities at a religious venue.
    Joint Statement of Venerable Man-Ho Shih, Venerable Man-Ya Shih, 
and Venerable Yi-Chu on Behalf of Themselves and the Hsi Lai Temple/Fo 
Kuang Shan Order, Sept. 4, 1997, p. 10 (Ex. 176). According to Man Ho, 
furthermore, Maria Hsia told a press conference after the Vice 
President's visit on April 29, 1996 that the White House had 
specifically approved holding this sort of event at the Temple. See Man 
Ho deposition, pp. 182-83. This account of Hsia's comments at the press 
conference is also corroborated by contemporaneous Chinese-language 
press coverage. See ``Gore visits Hsi Lai Temple on the 20th'' April 
24, 1996 [translation of newspaper article by SA Becky Chan for the 
Governmental Affairs Committee], p. 1 (Ex. 177), (``After being 
briefed, the White House saw no conflict in Gore attending a fund 
raiser at a religious facility.''); Wong Mei, television news broadcast 
[translation and transcription from videotape produced by Hsi Lai 
Temple by SA Becky Chan for the Governmental Affairs Committee] (Ex. 
178) (``After being briefed, the White House saw no inappropriateness 
in a fundraiser held at a religious institution; therefore, the White 
House agreed on Gore's visit.''); see also Memorandum of Interview of 
Anonymous Chinese newspaper reporter, May 16, 1997, p. 2 (giving 
similar account).
    \275\ Ex. 175 (Noting that man who made comments had ``a Japanese 
name''). This presumably identifies the speaker as DNC Treasurer Robert 
Matsui, the only Japanese-American to address the assembled guests and 
the official who introduced Vice President Gore. Representative Matsui, 
however, citing ``constitutional'' considerations, has refused to 
discuss with the Committee any comments he may have made at any point. 
See Stanley Brand, letter to Paul Robinson, June 9, 1997 (Ex. 179).
    \276\ See April 29 Lunch: Event Procedures, undated (``Bob Matsui 
will introduce Vice President after Don Fowler's speach [sic].'') (Ex. 
180); Handwritten note from Hsia & Associates files, undated (Ex. 181) 
(``Order of speeches: (1) M Hsing Yun (2) Don Fallow [sic] (Chairman) 
(3) Bob Mats. (4) VP Gore''). These remarks at the Vice President's 
luncheon may help explain the mysterious disappearance of the videotape 
taken by King & I Productions of the of the April 29 event at the Hsi 
Lai Temple. As Man Ho explained in her testimony before the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the videographers were told not to 
videotape the speeches after lunch but apparently exceeded their 
instructions. See Man Ho testimony, pp. 176-77. After the company did 
record the speeches however--apparently including the abovementioned 
discussions of DNC fundraising that clearly show the Vice President to 
have known the nature of the Temple event--the Temple may have found it 
necessary to conceal the tape.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    In sum, it was or should have been obvious to everyone 
involved, including the Vice President, that the Hsi Lai Temple 
luncheon on April 29, 1996 was a DNC fundraiser. It is also now 
clear that most of the fundraising that occurred in connection 
with the Temple event was illegal--and that the donation-
laundering orchestrated by Maria Hsia and carried out by Temple 
officials in connection with the Vice President's visit was not 
an aberration. Rather, it was part of a longstanding pattern of 
illegality undertaken in support of Democratic candidates in 
national elections that was established at least as early as 
September 1993 with the laundering of donations to the DNC in 
connection with another Vice Presidential event organized by 
Hsia and John Huang. More broadly, the Temple donation-
laundering in 1996 was the culmination of a longstanding 
relationship of mutual assistance between Maria Hsia, John 
Huang, and the Vice President having its origins in the trip to 
Taiwan organized in late 1988 as part of James Riady's agenda 
for the Pacific Leadership Council.277
    \277\ This close relationship between Hsia and covered persons 
under the Independent Counsel Act creates a ``political conflict of 
interest'' for the Attorney General that warrants the seeking of the 
appointment of an independent counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 591(c)(1). 
See the section of the report on Charlie Trie and Ng Lap Seng's illegal