Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, if we need more time, I would be glad to claim the time in opposition. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will conclude by saying that I think the point of the gentleman is well-taken, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I will try to ask the Surgeon General to include that in this. I hope anybody in the media who is watching will realize how serious Congress is about finding out the source of a lot of our problems so that we do not have these problems in the future. And if people in the media and the entertainment industry and other industries that have depicted violence and sexual explicitness on television and in the movies in the years past, if they would just of their own initiative start addressing this problem, it might eliminate some of the action that Congress might have to take in the future. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I would just like to have a little colloquy with the gentleman. I would just like to say that I was going to make some of the same points that my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) just made, but I do not want to be redundant. I will just say that this is something that is extremely important. As he said, it has been a long, long time since we have had any kind of report or study like this. With the advent of all the new technologies, television becoming so pervasive, the Internet becoming so pervasive, it is extremely important that we in the Congress and the people of this country know where the problems lie. And this report is going to be extremely important in our decision-making process and for the American people. So I join with my colleague in trying to make sure that this passes with an overwhelming majority. It is the right thing to do, and I do not see why anybody would oppose it. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for taking the initiative on this.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let me first start off by saying we are all concerned about the violence that has taken place in places like Littleton. We are all trying to find out the causes and effects of those acts of violence. Many of us believe that one of the major causes is the garbage that our children consume. That is why the V-chip was passed a few short years ago. After the V-chip, and I want to say that I am sure my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) are well-intentioned, and I know we all agree that we have to do something about the violent content we see in the things our kids are consuming. The fact of the matter is we passed a V-chip a couple of years ago, 3 years ago, and just yesterday we had a news conference where RCA, the Thompson Company, has just produced 200,000 sets with the V-chip in them. There are going to be millions of those sets produced in the next year. People are buying those sets with the intention of blocking out objectionable material they do not want their children to see. This legislation would hamper those people being able to do that because the parent groups, working with the industry, have worked out a rating system that has been agreed to. They are going to be able to block out that objectionable material. All of that may go out the window if we come up with a new system with labeling involved and everything else, and a lot of these industry people may back out. What does that mean? The people that bought those TV sets will not be able to block out that objectionable material because there is going to be a new rating system that is not agreed to. That is what we are concerned about. I think everybody in this body, everybody in the other body, wants to make sure that we stop the horrible things that are happening in this country, the violence and the things our kids are consuming that is really causing a lot of that. But the way to do it is to do it in a different way than we are talking about today. We should not be doing anything that is going to impede the progress of the V-chip and blocking out of objectionable material, which this would do. If we are going to do it, let us do it a different way. I tried working with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) last night, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to try to come up with a compromise. We were not able to work it out in that short period of time but we will continue to work with them to try to block objectionable material in the future, but let us not mess with the V- chip or the current system we have.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, are either one of these gentlemen opposed to the amendment?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, for many years Nigeria has been a symbol in international circles of mismanagement, corruption, drug trafficking, and dictatorship. It stood as one of the world's pariah nations. Nigeria is a country of more than 100 million people and abundant natural resources, which should make it leader on the African continent and the world stage. It has been prevented from taking its rightful role because of poor political leadership. In 1993, a democratic election was annulled and once again military dictatorship prevailed. Now, however, it appears the tide may have turned. On May 29th of this year, President Olusegun Obasanjo was inaugurated after his victory in democratically-held national elections. This is a moment of truth for Nigeria. Obasanjo faces several tremendous challenges. He must build up democratic institutions in a country that has had precious little experience with them. He must overcome serious economic problems. And, he must repair Nigeria's negative international image. Nigeria may finally be on the path to prosperity and democracy, and the entire African continent could reap the benefits.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Columbine High School tragedy and its aftershocks still haunt our memories. Statesmen, pundits and ordinary citizens ask questions every day as to why our children are murdering their peers. Clearly, the mere fact that we must ask these questions demonstrates that a real crisis exists and needs to be addressed immediately. While no one has any definitive answers, many opinions have been put forth without reaching any consensus. These opinions are multi-faceted and have included: the de-moralization and de-humanization of our youth due to a ``culture of violence'' perpetuated by the media, the non-enforcement of existing laws regarding firearms, and the degradation of families and communities due to this ``culture of violence.'' All of these opinions likely point to sources of the problem of teen violence, but they do not reveal the possibility of one single and simple solution. In order to put a halt to the specter of teen violence, an investigation should be made into its causes and to its probable solutions. Such a Commission should be bi-partisan, and it should be appointed equally by the President of the United States and Leaders in Congress from both the Majority and Minority parties. In the best interests of the Nation, the Commission will come to some form of a consensus concerning the various natures of, and the solutions to, the extreme teen violence that is plaguing our society. These tragedies are too important to ignore, and too important not to focus all of our resources on discovering their root causes and possible solutions. That is why I, along with Representatives Markey and Tierney, am introducing legislation to create a national Commission that will be asked to conduct an in-depth analysis of teen violence. The Commission would be made up of a panel of experts that include religious figures, teachers, law enforcement officials, counselors, psychologists, and research groups that deal with family issues. Hopefully, a Commission that contains such experts will be able to appraise the situation accurately and make the necessary recommendations. Upon completion of its work, the commission will be responsible for submitting to Congress and the President a report detailing possible steps to reduce the level of juvenile violence in America. While this is not a problem that will be solved overnight, and there are some serious ideological differences that need be overcome, I am hopeful that this Commission can help us in preventing similar tragedies from occurring in the future, and at least begin to address the plague of youth violence that is tearing the very fabric of our nation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes No. 167, 168, and 169 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 167, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 168, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 169.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 140 on H. Res. 180 I was unavoidably detained in an important meeting. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Government Waste Corrections Act of 1999. One of my highest priorities as chairman of the Committee on Government reform is to attack the widespread fraud, waste, and error in many federal programs and activities that cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Already this year, the Government Reform Committee has held several hearings and received reports from GAO and agency Inspectors General on this subject. Just a few examples from the GAO and IG reports show outright waste that amounts to over $30 billion annually. This $30 billion figure only scratches the surface, no one knows the total cost to the federal government each year from waste and error. One of the most troubling aspects of waste and error is that the problems tend to persist year after year. Many problems just grow worse. GAO, IGs and others already have fully and repeatedly documented these problems. They don't need more general discussion; they need solutions. The bill I introduce today will go a long way toward solving one of the most serious areas of waste and error--overpayments to vendors and others that provide goods and services to federal agencies. The bill deals with the problem by applying a proven practice from the private sector known as ``recovery auditing.'' The bill requires agencies to conduct recovery auditing to identify and collect back erroneous payments for programs that spend $10 million or more annually. This should result in recoveries to the taxpayers of at least $1 billion each year. The bill also provides agencies the means and incentives to make lasting improvements in their financial management that will reduce future overpayments, and other forms of waste and error. The practice of recovery auditing is actually quite simple. Here's how it works: Recovery auditors review payment transactions to uncover errors such as vendor pricing mistakes, missed discounts, duplicate payments, and so forth. The vast majority of payment transactions are correct. But inevitably, some errors occur because of communication failures between purchasing and payment departments, complex pricing arrangements, personnel turnover, and changes in information and accounting systems. Once an error is identified and verified through the review of transactions, a notification letter is sent to the vendor for review. Monetary recoveries are usually accomplished through administrative offsets. Recovery auditing has been used successfully by private sector firms for over 30 years. It began with major retailers and is now an accepted business practice among Fortune 1000 companies. It has helped even well-managed companies recover millions of dollars annually in overpayments to their vendors. It clearly has the potential to recover billions annually in federal overpayments, given the magnitude and complexity of federal payment programs coupled with the serious financial management problems that plague most agencies. In places where recovery auditing has been tested in government, it has proven effective. The Army Air Force Exchange System (AAFES) has contracted with a recovery auditing firm since 1991. AAFES makes purchases of approximately $6.5 billion annually. Over the last 7 years, $108 million has been recovered. In another example, the Defense Department has been conducting a recovery auditing demonstration program at several of its locations. Roughly $6 billion in purchase transactions are being reviewed in this audit. This program is nearing completion and has identified over $24 million in overpayments. These results were achieved despite the fact that most of the payments audited were 4 to 6 years old and agency records were incomplete. The potential financial benefits to the federal government from recovery auditing are enormous, and can conservatively be estimated at well over $1 billion annually. Experience thus far with recovery auditing in the federal government shows an error rate of about 0.4 percent, of four times the private sector error rate. Given that federal procurements total about $170 billion per year, recoveries from procurement dollars alone could average at least $680 million annually. Here's what my bill does: It establishes a general mandate that all Executive branch agencies use recovery auditing for all of their activities that involve recurring payments totaling at least $10 million per year to vendors and other service providers. The scope of this mandate is very broad. It covers not only payments under procurement contracts, but also payments to fiscal agents, like consultants, who perform services on behalf of the federal government and are reimbursed from federal funds. Exceptions from the bill's coverage could only be made by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in cases where he determines that recovery auditing would be impractical. In addition to its general mandate for recovery auditing, the bill requires OMB to designate at least five agency recovery auditing model programs to receive particular attention and provide best practice for other federal recovery auditing programs. If OMB provides strong leadership, and if agencies vigorously implement the bill's requirements as intended, recoveries to the federal government should amount to billions of dollars each year. This in itself will go a long way toward mitigating the effects of the pervasive waste and error that now occurs in federal payment programs. However, requiring agencies to identify and recoup overpayments is only one of the bill's key objectives. The other is to remedy the root causes that gave rise to the overpayments in the first place. The bill contains two remedial measures. One requires that recovery auditing contractors periodically report to agencies on the conditions they find to have caused overpayments and provide recommendations for fixing them. The agency must take prompt action in response to these reports. The second remedial measure is to dedicate up to 50 percent of overpayment recoveries to invest in management improvement programs that each agency must undertake. These programs will improve the agency's staff capacity, information technology, and financial management in order to prevent overpayments and reduce other problems of waste and error. One particular feature of agency management improvement programs deserves special note. The bill provides for cash incentive awards of up to $150,000 for federal employees who make extraordinary contributions that result in concrete savings to their agencies from reductions in waste or error. One specific condition is that the employee or employees must be directly responsible for documented savings of at least twice the amount of their awards. Dedicated federal employees can be valuable front line soldiers in combating waste and error. When they accomplish major results, they deserve major rewards. In addition to the 50 percent reserved for management improvement programs, the bill allows agencies to use up to 25 percent of collections from recovery audits to finance their recovery auditing costs, including making payments to contractors. Agencies can return another 25 percent of collections to the programs and activities from which the overpayments originated. Any collections not used for these purposes will be returned to the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, my bill lays out an ambitious program of immediate and aggressive action to recover wasted tax dollars and achieve large annual savings for the federal government through application of the private sector business practice of recovery auditing. It also ensures a long-term investment in the fundamental management reforms so badly needed to achieve lasting improvements in the way the federal government does business. It includes bold and innovative measures such as unprecedented incentives for federal employees to combat waste. The bill also contains controls and safeguards to ensure that its system of incentives is applied most effectively and is not abused. It assigns OMB substantial authority and responsibility to provide guidance and oversight. It provides for periodic reporting by both OMB and GAO. It envisions that Congress will likewise provide active oversight, including reviewing and, if necessary, modifying funding levels through reprogramming actions and other means. I believe that this bill holds great potential to achieve substantial cost benefits for the government and the American taxpayers, as well as major improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations throughout the government.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I think that Louis Freeh and the FBI were trying to do the best that they could. They went to the Justice Department four times asking for electronic surveillance on Mr. Wen Ho Lee, the man who was involved in the espionage, or allegedly involved in the espionage, and the Justice Department denied on four separate occasions the electronic surveillance, and to my knowledge that was the only denial of electronic surveillance where there was probable cause by the FBI in the year of 1997, 1998. And so why did they deny it when we are talking about national security, and why was this man left in this position for 3 years? Those are questions that need to be answered and answered very quickly.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No, the problem has been exacerbated by the espionage that has taken place, as I alluded to a few minutes ago. The thing that really concerns me is the head of the National Security Council, Sandy Berger, who was briefed about this in April 1996 really did not do anything about it. He informed the President in 1997. The President has not owned up to that, and the thing that concerns me a great deal is that when this was known we should have called the head of the FBI, Louis Freeh; Janet Reno; the head of the CIA; and the head of the Energy Department, and together to come up with a way to catch the people who were involved in the espionage and make sure it stopped. But unfortunately they kept the people on at Los Alamos for 3 years after that, and the Justice Department would not even allow wiretaps on the fellow. So it has been a real mess, and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The gentleman makes a very valid point. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is growing at a rapid rate, and with this technology going to the Chinese communists, I do not know if they are going to let it out or not, but the fact is they have been selling a lot of advanced weaponry to countries like Iran, and I am not sure about Iraq, but I believe Iraq, and my colleague mentioned some other countries as well. And that technology, if it gets into the wrong hands, could precipitate a strike by some kind of a crazy like Saddam Hussein, if he had the opportunity, that could cause untold human misery. And so we need to keep a tight lid on all of the nuclear technology that we have, and for us to keep a person who is suspected of espionage in a position of leadership at Los Alamos for 3 years and not allow the FBI to even put electronic surveillance on him is a real dereliction of duty.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reluctantly support this rule because it does allow some amendments that will hopefully force the President to come before this body and the Senate before he would send ground troops into Kosovo. I am not sure it will do it, but I think at least it expresses the will of the Congress that we would like for him to come before this House and the Senate before sending our troops into harm's way. When President George Bush decided to go into the Persian Gulf, there was great planning involved. We created an army of 550,000 troops, and before we went in there was a very sound battle plan. When we went into Kosovo, the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicated to the President that they thought it was a mistake to start bombing without more planning. Nevertheless, the President chose to do it because he thought, in his own wisdom, that he could end this thing in a short period of time. The Nazis could not do it, and we have not done it in the last 30 days. Now they are talking about sending in ground troops. Hopefully, the discussions that are going on in Germany today will preclude that possibility by getting other U.N. forces in there to deal with this problem. But the fact of the matter is, proper planning has not taken place. And as a result, if we send ground troops in there, we are going to see a lot of young men and women come home in body bags or being maimed. What Nazi Germany could not do in years we are talking about doing in months, and we are talking about sending 200,000 or 300,000 ground troops in there. I tell my colleagues, in my opinion, the poor planning, the ineffective leadership out of the White House, the poor foreign policy will lead to a disaster if we do not take proper precautions. That is why this House, the people's House, and the other body needs to be involved in the decision-making process. The American people need to have all the facts before them through their elected representatives. The case needs to be made before we ever send one young man or one young lady into harm's way into Kosovo. That is why I think it is extremely important that that point be made today, that it has to be made clear to the White House, do not do this without consulting with this body and the other body. Because if we get into a ground war without proper planning, without all the people working together, with the entire Nation behind it, it is a recipe for disaster. We saw that happen in Vietnam when the country came apart. We need proper planning. We need the leadership of the Congress to be involved in the decision-making process as well as every Member here voting on it. So I would just urge the White House that after we appropriate this money today, and I am sure it is going to happen and the rule will pass, I urge the White House to consult with this body before ever sending one young man or one young lady into harm's way in Kosovo.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I do not know how the gentleman voted.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me just say to my esteemed colleague, when the President sent our troops into Bosnia, he said they would be out in 6 months. It has now been over 3 years, and we have spent billions of dollars. That is why many of us were very concerned and are still concerned. Now, we all want to support our troops. We all want to put additional funding into the hollowed-out military that has been hollowed out to such a degree that we cannot deal with the crises around the world. But let me just give my colleagues a fact. The fact is, from 1950 to 1990, military operations, we had 10 of them. In 40 years, we had 10 of them. In the last 7 years, we have had 25 deployments without the Congress being involved, unilateral actions taking place by the administration, by the President. Now, let us take a look at what happened when George Bush was President. The Democrat Congress, in 1991, insisted that we have a vote on whether or not we go to war in the Persian Gulf. There was proper planning. We had 550,000 troops. General Schwarzkopf was in charge. We planned it fully before we did anything. But still the Congress insisted that George Bush come before this body before we started any military operations. I remember Lee Hamilton standing right there debating against that operation. But it passed both the House and the Senate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is great. I am glad he did. But the point is we have got a similar situation today, and they do not want a vote of the Congress of the United States. Why? Why is it that it was important back then and it is not important now? We are going to be taking young Americans' lives and putting them at risk in Kosovo in a ground war, in a mountainous area that is not like what we faced in the Persian Gulf. The fact of the matter is that the Congress of the United States and the American people need to be on board if we are going to send our troops into harm's way in a ground war. They have said that they would need as many as 300,000 troops if we had to go in there. Do Members want to commit them without the people's voice being heard through their elected representatives? I think not. We need proper planning. Let me just say one more thing to my colleague. When Mr. Tudjman in Croatia killed 10,000 people and ran 750,000 out of that country with an ethnic cleansing, what did this body do? What did we say? Not a darned thing. But now we are talking about possibly giving this man unilateral authority to send in ground troops in Kosovo. It is an insane policy. The American people ought to be heard through the people they elect in this House and in the other body. It is no different, Mr. Chairman, than it was in 1991 when we went into the Persian Gulf. They insisted on a vote then, and I insist on a vote now.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week I came to the floor to point out some of the misleading statements coming out of the White House with respect to China's thefts of U.S. nuclear secrets. I said that the White House had misled the public when it was said by the President that no one had reported to him about Chinese spying, when in reality National Security Advisor Sandy Berger had made such a report to him in July of 1997. The President said on March 19, when asked by a reporter, and the reporter asked this question, ``Can you assure the American people that under your watch no valuable secrets were lost?'' And the President responded, ``Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the labs since I have been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred.'' Well, Sandy Berger, the head of the National Security Council, in the fall of 1996 and early 1997 was told by the Department of Energy, their intelligence people, their security people, that there had been espionage taking place at the nuclear laboratories, at Los Alamos and others. Now, he is the head of the National Security Council. He is appointed by the President to inform him about national security matters. He is the chief national security fellow. And yet the President said he had no knowledge of any espionage taking place; and he said this in March of 1999 this year, just last month or so. And then again on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, said his first Energy Department briefing with Chinese spying was very general and very preliminary, said he did not really know about it. He went on to say at that interview, at that stage Mr. Berger said to Mr. Tim Russert of NBC, ``We did not really know how and we did not really know what was taking place.'' These facts are not facts. These assertions do not square with the facts. In April of 1996, Notra Trulock, the Energy Department's Chief of Intelligence, briefed Sandy Berger about the full extent of Chinese spying. Berger was told that China had stolen W- 88 nuclear warhead designs and the neutron bomb data. He was told that a spy might still be passing secrets to China at Los Alamos. He was even told that the theft of neutron bomb data occurred in 1995 under President Clinton's administration. So if he was told all that, why did he not go right into the Oval Office and tell the President? Well, I believe he did, and the President stated, later on, that he did know about these things. At the end of the briefing, Trulock referred to a recent intelligence report. In the report a Chinese source said that officials inside China's intelligence service were boasting about how they had just stolen U.S. secrets and how those secrets allowed them to improve their neutron bomb. The neutron bomb is a weapon that could be launched at an American city, kill everybody in it but leave the infrastructure, the buildings and bridges and the roads intact. The source said that the Chinese agents solved the 1988 design problem by coming back to the United States in 1995 to steal more secrets. According to one official, the intelligence about the neutron bomb was hot off the press, and it was included in the briefing to warn the White House of the possibility of continued Chinese espionage at Los Alamos and Livermore. It was a pretty specific briefing, one official said who was present. When Paul Redmund, the CIA's chief spy hunter, was given a similar briefing from Mr. Trulock a few months earlier, he said that China's spying was far more damaging to the United States security than Aldrich Ames, who is now in prison, and would turn out to be as bad or worse than the Rosenbergs, who were executed for giving top nuclear information to the Soviets back in the 1940s. Mr. Speaker, contrary to his claims on Meet the Press, the fact is that Sandy Berger knew who, knew how and really knew what with respect to the Chinese spying right then in his April 19, 1996, Energy Department briefing. So why does the head of the NSC, Sandy Berger, claim that this briefing was so general? Why does he claim that he did not brief the President until July of 1997 only after receiving a second and supposedly more detailed briefing from Trulock? Now, he admits to briefing the President in 1997, but remember what the President said in March of this year: ``Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the lab since I have been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to me they suspect such a thing has occurred.'' And yet Mr. Berger does admit that he briefed the President in 1997. So why was the President misleading the American people? I do not know, but we need to know why. There are only two explanations. Either Mr. Berger was grossly incompetent and did not want to tell the President when he should have back in 1996 and is now covering for himself, or he wants to protect the President and make it appear that the President only found out about the spying in July of 1997. But, again, the President said he did not really know anything about it, even in March of this year. Is it really likely that Sandy Berger after hearing such a detailed and alarming picture of Chinese spying, that he would keep this information to himself instead of immediately informing the President? And if he did so, if he did not tell the President when he found out about it, he should be fired. The New York Times reported that in 1998, in a sworn reply to the House committee chaired by Christopher Cox, the Cox report which we have read so much about, Berger first said that the White House was not told about the espionage until 1998. So Berger apparently has changed his story as more and more of the facts have come out. When David Leavy, the National Security Council spokesman, was asked to explain the discrepancy about when Berger informed the President, he said that after the Cox committee process, we started to remember more. They started to remember more about Chinese espionage on our nuclear facilities at our nuclear laboratories? They just did not tell the truth. Are we supposed to believe that Sandy Berger forgot about the briefing of the President on Chinese spying in July of 1997? That is just crazy. How could we believe anything that the Clinton administration says about this when the President says he was not told, did not know anything about it in 1999 in March? Berger says he told him in 1997 and said he did not tell him anything before that when he knew about it in the fall of 1996. Worse than that is the man that they knew or believed was giving these secrets to the Communist Chinese about our nuclear weaponry that makes them on a par with us in many cases, this man was left in the job at these laboratories, this man who was supposed to be a spy, for 3 years. Why was he kept at the laboratory in his top secret position for 3 years after they knew espionage was taking place from our sources in China? Why did they not fire the guy? And the FBI went to the Justice Department, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times the FBI went to the Justice Department with probable cause and said they wanted to put a wiretap on this guy and they wanted to have a warrant to investigate his computer to see if he was giving information to the Chinese Communists. And the Justice Department denied all four of the requests, saying there was not enough evidence. Yet that was the only wiretap in 1997 and 1998 that was turned down, and it was turned down four times. Now, the Justice Department has said they are going to investigate this whole thing. But they are the ones who turned down the wiretaps on the man that was performing the espionage, according to the FBI, Mr. Lee, Wen Ho Lee. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. And at the same time this espionage was taking place and the Chinese Communists were being able to target not one American city but 10 American cities with one missile with 10 warheads, with pinpoint accuracy, at the time all this technology was being transferred and we were leaving this guy in place at the nuclear laboratory, the White House and the Democrat National Committee was getting campaign contributions from sources in Communist China. Mr. Johnny Chung will be appearing before my committee next week and will be questioned about these conduit contributions into the Democrat National Committee and into the Clinton-Gore Reelection Committee. What I cannot understand is how the White House could have all these Chinese Communist businesspeople coming in and out of the White House with Johnny Chung. He was in there 49 times. He said, the only way you get in and out of the White House is by putting money in because it is like a turnstile at a subway station. While all this money was changing hands and going into the coffers of the President's Reelection Committee, this espionage was taking place at our nuclear laboratories and the man was left in place even though the Justice Department was asked four times by the FBI for electronic surveillance. These questions must be answered for the American people, because the security of every man, woman and child has been jeopardized by this espionage that has taken place. Now, the thing that bothers me even in addition to all this is that when the President went to China last year, he stood beside President Jiang; and President Jiang said that nobody in his government was involved in giving illegal campaign contributions to the President's Reelection Committee or to the Democrat National Committee. Johnny Chung has said that the head of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Military Intelligence Agency, the head man, the head spy for that country, met with him along with the head of their aerospace industry; and this lady, who is the head of their aerospace industry, is the daughter of the fellow who used to be the head of the People's Liberation Army and a member of the Communist Chinese hierarchy, the Politburo. They met with Johnny Chung and they gave him $300,000 to give to the President's Reelection Committee and to the Democrat National Committee. Part of that was delivered; part of it Mr. Chung kept. How could the President stand beside President Jiang in 1998 and say this? When President Jiang said that they were not giving any money, he says, I do believe him, President Jiang, that he had not ordered or authorized or approved any such thing and that he could find no evidence that anybody in governmental authority had done that. The President said that at the same time that he knew espionage had taken place at Livermore and at Los Alamos, because he had been briefed by Sandy Berger. He knew that illegal campaign contributions had come into the United States from Communist China, and he said he believed President Jiang. Why was that said? Again, in April of this year, how could the President listen to Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji deny any Chinese involvement in spying and espionage? President Clinton said, ``China is a big country with a big government, and I can only say that America is a big country with a big government and occasionally things happen in this government that I don't know anything about.'' Talk about a disingenuous statement. In China, in Communist China, if you are involved in this kind of activity and the government does not know about it, they put you in prison or they kill you. Especially nuclear espionage. Yet the President said, ``Well, that's a big country and maybe they didn't know about it.'' Espionage at our laboratories, giving them nuclear technology that could kill 50 to 60 million Americans? Mr. Speaker, our leadership cannot continue to blindly accept each and every denial that comes out of China. Newsweek recently reported that a team of U.S. nuclear experts practically fainted, these are our top scientists, they practically fainted when the CIA showed them the data that was obtained from its sources in China. What did this data show, Mr. Speaker? It showed Chinese scientists routinely using phrases, descriptions and concepts that came straight out of our weapons laboratories. One of the officials close to the investigation said, the Chinese penetration is total. They are deep, deep into the lab's black programs. That means the nuclear technology that we have spent decades developing, that have cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars, that ensured our national security against a first strike by a Communist country or an adversary, Saddam Hussein or whoever it might be, has been compromised and jeopardized; and the Chinese Communists are deep into every one of our top nuclear missile programs. Now, they say that we are the only superpower in the world. I can tell you that the Chinese Communist government is advancing their nuclear technology with this espionage that has taken place to such a degree that, if they are not on a par with us yet, they are getting very, very close; and we are going to be in jeopardy if we ever have a conflict with them. They have 1.2 or 1.3 billion people. We have 225 or 230 million people. In a nuclear exchange, they could sacrifice 200 million people. But we could not sacrifice 50 million. Yet they now have the technology with this espionage to really cause our economy and our country severe problems, and I am talking about 50 to 60 million people killed with a first strike and our economy to be in a complete shambles. We need to have the answers to this. We need to make sure that this kind of espionage never takes place again. And we need to make absolutely sure that those who were responsible, either through neglect or intentionally allowing this to happen, be brought to justice and be held accountable. I intend to come to this floor every week until we get through this mess for 5 minutes or for an hour to bring this information to the attention of the American people. Right now, we are all paying attention to Kosovo, halfway around the world, an area where we do not have any vital national interest. And while we are talking about Kosovo and our heart goes out to those people over there who are suffering, while we are talking about that, espionage has taken place in the United States that endangers every man, woman and child, and nobody is even paying any attention to it. It is a darn shame. It shall not continue if I have anything to do with it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This was after he was under surveillance.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one other thing. Just a few weeks ago the President denied he had knowledge of any of this, and yet we know that he was briefed by Sandy Berger as far back as 1997. I can not understand why he is saying that. This chart, which I did not get to today, but I will get to in a future Special Order, and I hope the gentleman from Florida will once again join me as I get additional information for people regarding this espionage.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.