Representative Jay Kim, pursuant to Rule 23 of this Committee's Rules of Procedure answers the August 7, 1998, Statement of Alleged Violation against him as follows:
The Investigative Subcommittee established to conduct the inquiry into the conduct of Representative Kim has repeatedly violated the spirit and the letter of the Committee's Rules of Procedure during this investigation, in contravention of Clause 2 of House Rule XLIII, the Code of Official Conduct. Such violations have resulted, for example, in the Subcommittee having to take action to suppress improperly obtained testimony; to allow certain witnesses to withdraw information that was provided in violation of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Committee's Rules of Procedure; and to permit the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee to continue fact-gathering after the creation of the Investigative Subcommittee in direct violation of Rule 17(d).
Representative Kim re-alleges and incorporates by reference all defenses and objections previously raised in his Motion to Dismiss which was submitted on September 9, 1998. In denying such Motion to Dismiss, the Investigative Subcommittee improperly exercised authority to interpret and apply certain Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, actions beyond the scope of its authority pursuant to Committee Rules 2(d) and 20. Such improper interpretations included, for example, interpreting the limitations of Committee Rule 17(d) to allow the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee to continue factgathering after the establishment of an Investigative Subcommittee and interpreting the application of Rules 17(b) and (c) concerning when an Investigative Subcommittee must be created. Such matters should have been referred to the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for guidance. In all such instances, the Investigative Subcommittee exceeded its authority and, not surprisingly, rendered self-serving interpretations of the Rules.
The summary denial of the Respondent's August 24, 1998, Motion for a Bill of Particulars, without meaningful response to any factual inquiry necessary for Representative Kim to advance or explain his conduct has effectively denied Representative Kim the critical information necessary to advancing either a defense or making an admission based upon all known and available information in the possession of the Investigative Subcommittee. Such abdication of responsibility is a violation of House Rule 43, clause 2 and the reasonable expectation of what an Investigative Subcommittee "reply" means as that term is used in Committee Rule 23(b) and (c). Moreover, on the rare occasion when a substantive "reply" has been provided it has been long after the denial (e.g., of a Motion) or weeks after an evidentiary objection was raised.
Compelling Representative Kim to file an Answer at this time is in direct violation of Committee Rule 20(e). In point of fact, the Investigative Subcommittee continues to investigate matters relevant to Representative Kim based upon exculpatory information provided to the Investigative Subcommittee on September 18, 1998. Consequently, Representative Kim has been required to file an Answer prior to the completion of the Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry. In this connection, Representative Kim incorporates by reference, in its entirety, the September 25, 1998, letter from the Congressman's counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee transmittinq this Answer.
Notwithstanding the "explanation" provided by the Investigative Subcommittee, almost one week after its summary denial of Representative Kim's Motion to Dismiss, there has been no documentation provided setting forth and explaining how the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee acted within the strict time constraints imposed by Committee Rule 17.
Specifically, the Investigative Subcommittee's September 16, 1998, explanation effectively acknowledges a violation of Rule 17 wherein it stated that the Committee received information from the Department of Justice regarding Representative Kim in late October 1997 and the Parliamentarian provided his guidance to the Committee in early December 1997. The Subcommittee's explanation completely ignores the month of November 1997 and the time constraints imposed by Rule 17(b). Nowhere in the Committee's Rules of Procedure is there implied or stated a tolling of the Rule 17(b) time limits or deliberative process occasioned by the Chairman and/or Ranking Minority Member seeking guidance from the House Parliamentarian.
Under the Subcommittee's construct, therefore, Rule 17(b) is meaningless since the House Parliamentarian could take any amount of time to provide guidance to the Committee and, nowhere in the Committee's Rules of Procedure is it stated or implied that the House Parliamentarian has any role in the operation or deliberative process assigned to the Committee. Assuminq, arguendo, the accuracy of the Investigative Subcommittee's explanation as to timeframe, one can only conclude that the decision required under Rule 17(b) had to have been made within 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days after the "late October 1997" receipt of information from the Department of Justice. The Investigative Subcommittee admits that this did not occur. It therefore follows that the Investigative Subcommittee was not established in accordance with Rule 17, renderinq its actions a nullity.
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF HOUSE RULE 43, CLAUSE 1 (CONTRIBUTING AND CAUSING IN-RIND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A CORPORATION)
A. Based upon footnote 9 of the Investigative Subcommittee's September 16, 1998, "explanation" of its denial of the Motion to Dismiss, Representative Kim admits having caused to be contributed improper in-kind corporate contributions to the Jay Kim for Congress Committee in violation of 2 U.S.C. Sections 441b and 437g. Such admission is consistent with the Congressman's August 11, 1997, plea agreement.
B. Representative Kim denies that the statutory violations occasioned by the improper conduct referenced in item I-A, above, constitute a violation of House Rule 43, clause 1. Such statutory violations are in no way related to the "performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities" as a Member of Congress. Representative Kim disagrees that House Rule 43, clause 1, is a free-standing and unlimited grant of authority to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to punish Members for actions not specifically identified or prohibited in House Rules. The Investigative Subcommittee has no authority to interpret Rule 43, clause 1 -- an action only the full Committee can undertake. See, Second Defense, supra.
C. Representative Kim denies that, standing alone, his August 11, 1997, guilty plea to the matter addressed in item I-A, above, constituted a separate violation of House Rule 43, clause 1. Such charge is duplicitous and does not reflect independent improper conduct of Representative Kim but, instead, is simply a restatement of item I-B, above.
COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF HOUSE RULE 43, CLAUSE 1; HOUSE RULE 44, CLAUSE 2; AND ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978 (ACCEPTANCE AND RECEIPT OF A CONTRIBUTION FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL; FALSE STATEMENTS ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS; AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMNITTEE)
A. Consistent with his August 11, 1997, plea agreement, Representative Kim admits acceptance and receipt of a contribution from a foreign national in violation of 2 U.S.C. Sections 441e and 437g.
B. Representative Kim denies that the statutory violations occasioned by the improper conduct referenced in item II-A, above, constitute a violation of House Rule 43, clause 1. Such statutory violations are in no way related to the "performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities" as a Member of Congress. Representative Kim disagrees that House Rule 43, clause 1, is a free-standing and unlimited grant of authority to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to punish Members for actions not specifically identified or prohibited in House Rules. The Investigative Subcommittee has no authority to interpret Rule 43, clause 1 -- an action only the full Committee can undertake. See, Second Defense, supra.
C. Representative Kim denies that, standing alone, his August 11, 1997, guilty plea to the matter addressed in item II-A, above, constituted a separate violation of House Rule 43, clause 1. Such charge is duplicitous and does not reflect independent improper conduct of Representative Kim but, instead, is simply a restatement of item II-B, above.
D. Representative Kim denies that he knowingly and willfully either reported or did not report accurately the personal liability incurred as a result of the transaction described in item II-A, above, on his relevant Financial Disclosure Statements. The Investigative Subcommittee has in its possession correspondence from an attorney, copy attached, supporting Representative Kim's understanding of the transaction; i.e., that he borrowed money from Jerry Yeh. The implication of this charge is that the attorney knowingly and willfully lied and/or mislead Representative Kim.
E. Representative Kim denies that he knowingly made a false statement to the Investigative Subcommittee regarding the identities of Jerry Yeh and Song Nien Yeh. Accordingly, Representative Kim denies that he violated House Rule 43, clause 1, as charged in connection with this allegation.
COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF HOUSE RULE 43, CLAUSE 1 (ACCEPTANCE AND RECEIPT OF AN EXCESSIVE CORPORATE CONTRIBUTION FROM NIKKO ENTERPRISES INC., AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE)
A. Consistent with his August 11, 1997, plea agreement, Representative Kim admits acceptance and receipt of an excessive corporate contribution in violation of 2 U.S.C. Sections 441b and 437g.
B. Representative Kim denies that the statutory violations occasioned by the improper conduct referenced in item III-A, above, constitute a violation of House Rule 43, clause 1. Such statutory violations are in no way related to the "performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities" as a Member of Congress. Representative Kim disagrees that House Rule 43, clause 1, is a free-standing and unlimited grant of authority to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to punish Members for actions not specifically identified or prohibited in House Rules. The Investigative Subcommittee has no authority to interpret Rule 43, clause 1 -- an action only the full Committee can undertake. See, Second Defense, supra.
C. Representative Kim denies that, standing alone, his August 11, 1997, guilty plea to the matter addressed in item III-A, above, constituted a separate violation of House Rule 43, clause 1. Such charge is duplicitous and does not reflect independent improper conduct of Representative Kim but, instead, is simply a restatement of item III-B, above.
D. Representative Kim denies that he made a false statement to the Investigative Subcommittee regarding the transaction described in item III-A, above, in light of his understanding that the transaction created a personal obligation between Representative Kim and Mr. David Chang. Accordingly, Representative Kim denies that he violated House Rule 43, clause 1, as charged in connection with this allegation.
COUNT IV: VIOLATIONS OF HOUSE RULE 44, CLAUSE 2 (FALSE STATEMENTS ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS RELATED TO THE CONTRIBUTION BY NIKKO ENTERPRISES, INC.)
A. Representative Kim denies that he knowingly and willfully made false statements on his Financial Disclosure Statements with regard to the transaction addressed in Count III, above. This assertion is supported by the formal advice of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in its advisory opinion dated June 29, 1998, copy attached. Such opinion is relevant both to this Count as well as Count II-D, above. The Investigative Subcommittee has in its possession documentation, attached, consistent with Representative Kim's understanding of the transaction.
COUNT V: VIOLATIONS OF THEN-HOUSE RULE 43, CLAUSE 4; HOUSE RULE 43, CLAUSE 1; ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978; AND HOUSE RULE 44, CLAUSE 2 (IMPROPER GIFTS FROM HANBO STEEL AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION; FAILURE TO DISCLOSE GIFTS ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT; ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE STATEMENTS TO INVESTIGATORS; AND FALSE STATEMENTS TO INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE)
A. Based upon exculpatory information provided to the Investigative Subcommittee, copies attached, and the fact that the Investigative Subcommittee has reopened and begun reinvestigation this matter, Representative Kim denies this allegation in the absence of conclusive information establishing the time, date, and value of any alleged benefits received directly or indirectly from Hanbo Steel. The Congressman denies having violated House Rule 43, clause 1, in the absence of such additional information and in light of the on-going investigation.
B. Based upon the situation described in item A, above, including exculpatory information provided to the Investigative Subcommittee, Representative Kim denies that he knowingly and willfully failed to disclose gifts of travel expenses and golf equipment on his Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1994.
C. Based upon exculpatory information provided to the Investigative Subcommittee which refutes the accuracy of Mr. Dobum Kim's testimony, Representative Kim denies that he received a $30,000 gift from Mr. Kim in January of 1994 -- a matter, which also is currently being reinvestigated by the Investigative Subcommittee.
D. Based upon the response to item V-C, above, Representative Kim denies a violation of House Rule 43, clause 1.
E. Based upon the responses in items V-C and D, above, Representative Kim denies the allegation of an improper Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1994 regarding the $30,000 "gift" from Dobum Kim.
F. Representative Kim denies the allegation that he attempted to induce Dobum Kim to give false information to federal investigative authorities regarding the $30,000 check alleged to have been given directly to him by Dobum Kim. Accordingly, Representative Kim denies that he violated House Rule 43, clause 1, as charged.
G. Representative Kim denies having knowingly submitted false answers regarding Dobum Kim in his May 21, 1998, letter to the Investigative Subcommittee. In this regard, Representative Kim also denies a violation of House Rule 43, clause 1, as charged.
COUNT VI: VIOLATIONS OF HOUSE RULE 51 AND HOUSE RULE 43, CLAUSE 1 (RECEIPT OF IMPROPER GIFTS TO PAY PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR EXCESS OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME FROM BOOK)
A. Based upon exculpatory information provided to the Investigative Subcommittee, copy attached, Representative Kim denies receipt of an improper gift of $30,000 from Heon Kim through Ms. Jennifer Ahn. Consequently, Representative Kim denies that he violated House Rule 43, clause 1, as charged in this Count.
Submitted by:
Ralph L. Lotkin
Counsel for Respondent
I swear pursuant to penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct:
JAY C. KIM
Respondent
Attachments