Loral Chief Denies Seeking Favors Through Donations

Bernard L. Schwartz, a major Democratic campaign donor, said Sunday that he never sought special treatment from President Clinton for his satellite company now under investigation for possible unlawful assistance to China.

“I’ve never sought favor nor gotten favor,” said Schwartz, chairman and chief executive of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., on ABC-TV’s “This Week.”

His denials did not deter two congressional Republicans from pledging to lead separate Senate and House investigations into why the Clinton administration allowed Loral to launch a satellite in China--a special waiver that may have inadvertently helped China improve its nuclear capabilities.

Framing the issue as a question of whether U.S. national security may have been compromised in exchange for campaign donations, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) nevertheless signaled in television interviews that they intend to conduct the investigations in a calm and bipartisan manner.

That would be in sharp contrast to the circus atmosphere that has surrounded a campaign fund-raising investigation by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, chaired by controversial Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.).

The White House has come under fire for having approved the transfer of satellite technology to China, particularly Loral’s request this year to mount a civilian commercial satellite onto a Chinese rocket. It is not unusual for U.S. businesses to use foreign rockets, including those of China, to put satellites in orbit, but questions have been raised in this case about the possibility that Beijing gained militarily useful information from the venture.

Questions were also raised because Schwartz is a longtime Democratic donor who, in the 1996 election cycle alone, gave more than $600,000 to the party, making him the largest individual giver.

*

Further fueling the controversy are administration documents showing that Justice Department officials had warned the White House that a waiver to Loral would harm a department investigation of the company involving previous technology transfers to China.

But Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, the president’s national security advisor, speaking on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation,” said Sunday that such waivers go back to the Reagan and Bush administrations.

“Political considerations had nothing whatsoever to do with the decisions made. We made the best decision that we knew how in the national interest,” Berger said.

Schwartz said insinuations of a quid pro quo are “just untrue.” Although he has given more than $1 million to the Democratic National Committee, Schwartz noted that he also has given more than $10 million over the years to hospitals and schools.

“If the implication is that I would take a stand that was harmful to this country for my business interests, that’s absolutely outrageous,” he said.

“I have never spoken to the president of the United States about my business. I never once raised any issue that would be favorable to us, and I have never sought favor nor gotten favor,” Schwartz added.

As a part of his investigation, Shelby, who heads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said he intends to find out where the heads of the CIA and the National Security Agency stood on the Loral waiver.

“Where were they? Were they asleep somewhere?” Shelby said. “I believe that, when it comes to national security, that there should be a real scrutiny of whatever we sell in the world.”

Shelby and Cox, who was named by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to lead a House investigation, also urged Clinton to postpone his June trip to China. The plea was strongly endorsed by Gingrich, who spoke on CNN’s “Late Edition” via satellite from Israel.

*

Gingrich called the president’s trip “very inappropriate” in light of the unfolding controversy and said its timing would be “very, very inauspicious.”

Cox vowed on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press” to lead a “very collegial” investigation.

”. . . this is going to be a small, select committee, Democrats and Republicans, totaling eight in number . . . and, frankly, a great bit of what we will be doing is handling classified information. And that means, beyond being a cooperative group, this has to be a discreet group--it won’t be political theater in the form of flashy congressional hearings,” Cox added.

“There’s a big difference between talking about campaign finances in an election year and talking about the transfer of technology that improves the accuracy of nuclear weapons pointed at us,” he said. “I think Republicans and Democrats can work together in the interests of national security and get to the bottom of this. I think we shall do it.”