J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Fact is stranger than fiction as my colleague from Georgia is pointing out. Another oddity, the aforementioned National Security Adviser, one Sandy Berger, when informed of the breach of security at Los Alamos National Laboratory by Notra Trulock, in that same month, the Vice President of the United States went to California for what was first described by his staff and by him personally, if I am not mistaken, as a community outreach event. Subsequently, it has been discovered that this was a fund-raiser where substantial amounts of foreign cash from China were pumped into the Clinton-Gore reelection effort. Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask the American people, what price victory? We take an oath of office here to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is this same Constitution that says in its remarkable preamble that one of the missions of our Federal Government as we the people have formed this union is to provide for the common defense. Yet Vice President Gore in meeting the press offered an endless chorus of justification for contribution irregularities. He said, now in an infamous line, ``My legal counsel informs me there is no controlling legal authority.'' How sad, how cynical, and ultimately how dangerous that those in whom the American people have placed their trust, in those who have taken the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, of one who aspires to become our Commander in Chief would so callously disregard the safety of our constitutional republic, the national security of every family, every child, every citizen of this Nation, to win political advantage. Or to soft-pedal, to silence because of political implications. The design is there. It is said that one of the criticisms of our society is that we have become cynical. Mr. Speaker, how could we not grow even more cynical with the revelations that have appeared, some that have come out in dribs and drabs with the delay of the release of this report, despite the fact that there are national security concerns, we do have our own counterintelligence efforts, it appears that in this city, politics is preeminent. Again let me state this. I take no joy in this. It is mind-boggling, it is disturbing, but every American should ask themselves this question: Have our leaders in the administration been good custodians of the Constitution? Have they provided for the common defense; or, in boastful claims of reinventing government, claiming drawdown, a reduction in government employees, eviscerated our military to the tune of a quarter million personnel, put American lives at risk, and brought us to this? A question not of personal conduct in terms of relationships but of actions taken that jeopardize and threaten the security of every American. That is the juncture at which we find ourselves now. No one takes joy in this but the strength of the American people is in understanding once a problem has been confronted through our constitutional processes, through the fact that we must all stand at the bar of public opinion and let the public render a judgment, that we can rectify the problem. Jefferson spoke of it, that the vitality of this country would eventually overcome those who would follow mistaken policies, for whatever reason, and that is the challenge that we confront, not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans, because nothing less than our national security and our national vitality in the next century is at stake. This is the stark reality that we confront. That is why all of us who serve in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, as constitutional officers to provide for the common defense, to provide for our national security, must have answers to these hard questions. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of the United States should tender her resignation immediately, the National Security Adviser should tender his resignation immediately, and those who are elected officials will have the verdict of history decide but that history and history's judgment will not be a century away, it will be forthcoming and in short order.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would point out and I would challenge my former colleagues in television at the various networks and the 24-hour cable news services to show the American people the videotapes of the communist Chinese business people in the Oval Office with the President of the United States now knowing in the fullness of time that those same communist Chinese business people contributed massive amounts of cash to a reelection effort. There is a disturbing tendency in this country to succumb to the cult of celebrity. And if one has a clever enough rejoinder or simply returns to the school yard taunt that everybody does it and it is unfair to criticize one party or one administration for their actions, to do so is to willingly be blinded to what is staring us in the face. Mr. Speaker, I made the comment to some of my constituents over the weekend that Washington today is wrapped up in what is an Alan Drury novel come to life. It is so mind boggling, it is so far afield to ever think that an administration would out of incompetence or blissful ignorance or for political advantage allow the transfer of technology, allow espionage from a foreign power to jeopardize the security of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States came to this podium in one of his recent State of the Union messages and boasted that no longer were United States cities and citizens targeted by Russia. Well, of course, technically that was true, although the missiles could be reprogrammed in a matter of minutes. But now we face a situation where the Chinese have the technology, they have made a quantum leap because of the stolen information, because of the aforementioned legacy codes and computer models. Because of their ill-gotten gains in terms of hundreds of supercomputers that can provide the simulations of nuclear explosions, now the Chinese have the same technology that we have. Indeed in some areas, for example, the neutron bomb, often maligned and lampooned by late night comedians and pundits in this town as the weapon that kills people, but does not destroy property, the United States never went into production of a neutron bomb, and yet the Chinese are moving full tilt ahead. They have acquired that technology, they have expounded upon the technological advancements of this society and our constitutional Republic, and our leaders of the time decided not to pursue that particular weapon, but the Chinese have it. And soon they will have small, more accurate thermonuclear warheads. And make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, those warheads will be targeted at the United States. We say this not to inspire fear but instead, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the American people to check the facts available on the Internet.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Florida amply pointed out just one threat to our national security. Mr. Speaker, I would go further in the realm of Chinese espionage to say to this House and to the American people that we face a clear and present danger. Mr. Speaker, the report released today, available on the Internet, and I am sure many responsible publications across the United States will carry it in detail tomorrow, outlines a traumatic, devastating loss to this Nation in terms of national security, and that is why I describe it as a clear and present danger. My colleague from Georgia pointed out the fact that this bipartisan report was drafted and really completed in January of this year, and only now, some 5, almost 6 months later, has this report at long last been released to the American people. It has been a strength of our society that once we as a people recognize a threat, we deal with that threat in a responsible manner. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to do so at this juncture in our history because of what has been called, in common parlance, ``spin''; what some used to call in the past ``smoke and mirrors.'' And while my colleague pointed out that espionage is nothing new, that different countries observe and conduct surveillance on one another, the fact is that the disturbing information is something that this House and this Nation must deal with and should deal with immediately. A point that should be addressed is the inevitable spin echoes from sympathetic pundits and indeed from the spin machine at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that, oh, this has happened before and previous Presidents are to blame. Let me offer this simple analogy: Mr. Speaker, suppose you contemplate a vacation and you take reasonable precautions in your house. You will lock your doors. You lock your windows. If you have an alarm device, you activate it. And yet thieves are aware that you have left your home. They disable the alarm system. They gain entrance to your home. And they begin to take your property. Your belongings. Now, that is one thing. But contrast it. If someone is sitting at home in the easy chair and these same thieves pull up and the person in the home says, ``Well, come on in. And you might want to look in this area. And by the way, let me offer to show you where my wife keeps her jewelry. And here are our stocks and bonds. And let me help you take these and load up your van. And listen, we will just keep this between us because it would be very embarrassing to me if I allowed this information to get out, if I chose to stop this. So I will take minimum action to stop what has gone on.'' That analogy, however imperfect, essentially sums up what has transpired. It is important to note, as my colleague from Georgia capably points out, that, sadly, our national security advisor, with the responsibility that that title in fact describes, has aided our national insecurity, compounding that, the curious actions of the Justice Department and our current attorney general. My colleague from Georgia mentioned Wen Ho Lee, the suspected spy at one of our national labs, still not arrested. And indeed the Justice Department asked for wiretap authority when there was a preponderance of evidence and more than reasonable suspicion that it should be checked.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for correcting the record. I misspoke. The FBI asked the Justice Department for the ability to wiretap this individual because of the threat to our national security. And in all the wiretaps issued following our constitutional procedures, this particular wiretap was denied. This special surveillance was denied. Couple that with the curious case of a Chinese arms merchant suddenly gaining clearance for the import into this country of 100,000 weapons to be used on the streets of our inner cities where again the agency in charge looked the other way. Couple that with the disturbing reality of the fact that the communist Chinese through their business operations controlled by their so-called People's Liberation Army actually contributed to the Clinton-Gore effort in 1996 and, sadly, to the Democratic National Committee in that same year, and we have a compelling devastating case that should cause concern for every American. Before I yield back to my friend from Georgia, just so we can clear this up, this is not a matter of partisanship. It is a question of patriotism. Because we confront a clear and present danger, we must avoid the temptation of engaging in personalities and instead deal with policies and change those policies. But regrettably, to this date, this administration has been more interested in spin and preening and posturing and offering the clever retort or the by now familiar rejoinder that ``everyone does it.'' Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell my colleagues again that not everyone does it, but sadly all too many people within this administration have not fulfilled their responsibilities to the citizens of this country to maintain vigilance and to take actions against those who would steal our secrets. Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the findings are chilling. In the overview, just to repeat from the Cox summary, China has stolen design information on the United States' most advanced thermonuclear weapons. The Select Committee on Intelligence, the bipartisan committee, judges that China's next generation of thermonuclear weapons currently under development will exploit elements of stolen U.S. design information and China's penetration of our national weapons laboratories spans at least the past several decades and almost certainly continues today.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida again for his leadership and for bringing this problem to the floor. And again I would say that this is a question of security, personal security and the security of our families and our communities. Because, as my colleague pointed out very graphically and very tragically, the cost in human lives, with the incredible violence that accompanies illicit drug distribution and use, is ultimately a question of our national security and the security of our borders. And, indeed, on the geopolitical stage, the consequence of those who would or who have traditionally been our friends is now sadly changing, if not to foes, then certainly not aiding us in the traditional sense as allies have in the past. And again, from the State of Arizona, from my constituents in the Sixth District, and indeed all across America, because this is a problem that transcends our borders, that transcends State lines, that sadly goes virtually into every community in the United States, it is a question we must address. This is one of many vexing questions that now have come into our purview and that have gained the prominence and attention necessary, and again the gentleman is to be saluted for offering a clarion call to this House, to this government and, more importantly, to our people in terms of the tough choices that loom ahead for this House and for this Nation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Florida, and representing a border State, as I do in Arizona, I share my colleague's concern, Mr. Speaker, because as my friend from Florida has capably laid out for us this evening, the time has come for a reasonable, sober reassessment of our relationship with our ally, Mexico. That is something I do not say lightly, given the fact that the history of Arizona, indeed the history of this Congress of the United States has been one of cooperation with our neighbor to the south. But part of being a good neighbor entails a reasonable interchange and expression and ability to achieve common goals. As my friend has pointed out, sadly Mexico has devolved into a leading distributor and source of illegal drugs in our society, and because of that we must have this reassessment. It is especially vexing to a State like Arizona with a vast border area, with many problems that entail this situation in terms of border security, and let us not forget that it is our constitutional charge to protect the borders of the United States. As compelling as the facts and figures are, I think both my friends from Florida and Georgia, Mr. Speaker, and indeed everyone in the House, knows there is a very real human equation at work that these threats come to Americans, and while this is not warfare in the traditional sense, still, it is an assault and an attack on the very fiber of our society. We talk about increasing drug usage. We talk about a cavalier attitude expressed, sadly, by this President in an appearance on MTV when asked by one of the young people in the audience, if you had it to do all over again, would you inhale, and the President said, yes, I would. To use that cavalier notion toward drug usage sets a pattern that is very difficult to break. Now our friend tells us of the soon-to-be expected departure of Mr. Constantine from his role and indeed, one who has observed this administration and tried to work on common goals, those of us in the Congress cannot help but note that it is incredibly ironic that many of the capable, effective people in a variety of different posts leave, and those who should bear the responsibility for a number of misadventures and maladroit steps insist on staying on the job in a variety of different areas. Indeed, I think we are not far afield at all when we point out that this is a threat to our families, to our citizenry; indeed, this is a threat to our national security. As much as we want to be a good neighbor, and I have participated in the U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Conference in the past, the State of Arizona has a very strong relationship with the Mexican State of Sonora first established by a former Governor of Arizona much earlier, now almost 30, maybe in excess of 30 years ago when we look at the panorama and the march of time, and yet the words of my colleague from Florida are compelling, because they insist that this House and this government reassess the relationship with Mexico, reassess our relationship with these States that export narcoterrorism, and that is something we do not say lightly. Because, as my colleague has pointed out, in the past Mexico has been a strong ally of the United States. As my colleagues have also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the United States has been a good friend to Mexico. I can recall in the first days when I arrived when the now departing Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, came to new Members of the 104th Congress, asked us to step up to the plate and essentially bail out the Mexican economy, prop up the currency there, and of course the President found almost what could be called an executive end run to provide those loan guarantees because they knew it would be very rough going in the Congress of the United States. So I share my friend's concern. I salute his determination and his dedication to bringing this issue to light, and more than just bringing the issue to light, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida, in his committee jurisdiction, has also worked, as we did in the 105th Congress on the Drug Task Force, to find credible solutions. For that, I salute him, and from a border State like Arizona, and indeed across the whole phalanx of the Southwestern border of the United States, this becomes a major concern. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. Just as we see threats from around the world, threats as relevant as tomorrow's headlines in view of bipartisan work in other areas, so too do we confront a threat to our families, to our children and, sadly, directly in our hemisphere, and it is a threat that has gone unabated. It is a threat that has increased, and this House is compelled, I think, by the work of our colleague from Florida, to take a closer look to deal with the security of our homes, the security of our families; indeed, our national security in this very important area of rising drug abuse and a cavalier attitude that has been expressed.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) points out yet another way in which the Clinton-Gore team says one thing and does another. Indeed, to use the rhetoric of Mediscare from 1996, in essence Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore and their liberal allies have cut Medicare by $20 billion by refusing to spend the money. I suppose it will come as no great surprise to the pundits and those in town here engaged in spin, because we have a credibility canyon of people saying one thing and doing another. That is why, Mr. Speaker, not only in terms of defending our seniors, but for all Americans in terms of national security, this House should release the Cox Committee Report so that we can get to the bottom of Chinese espionage and transfers of technology, not to engage in spin and double-talk, as some do at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, but because the American people deserve the facts, and free people in a constitutional society have the right to a common defense and a sound national security. Let us end this breach of credibility. Let us heal that breach and give the American people straight answers.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. The district is that size. Although a rancher in Show Low said, here is a perfect slogan, a big man for a big district, I do not exactly think that is the case. Even I cannot get all the way around all the time. So several broadcasters in the area are willing to set up programs and quite often on a Monday or Tuesday will set them up where constituents from the comfort of their home or at work or via mobile phone, if they are out on the streets and byways, can call in and we can discuss issues and it actually invites everyone into the townhall. The past several townhalls I have had, Mr. Speaker, again and again and again and again, the question of national security comes up. It evokes evidence that we have heard from Dr. Owens that people are concerned. They believe that our national security has been frittered away. Indeed, we have read in the press that the technology transfers and the espionage carried out by the communist Chinese rivals that of the Rosenbergs in the 1950s. While we see the drips and drabs and the old spin game going on at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we must move as a House, if there is reticence in the executive branch, to release this report. I would point out for the record, Mr. Speaker, that President Clinton, following receipt of the report from the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), in a bipartisan fashion, could have released the report immediately. While there are legitimate national security concerns in terms of not exposing our sources and means of procuring our own information through counterintelligence, there are still serious concerns that the American people need to know about. Again Mr. Speaker, I would renew the call that this House, if the reticence, if the stonewalling, if the dribs and drabs and endless spin continue from the administration, that this House should take every action necessary, including meeting in a closed session, if that is necessary, to vote out this report so the American people can understand the extent of the problem we confront. Because whether we worry about security in the home, security in the school, Social Security for our seniors in generations yet to come, undergirding all of that is our very existence as a constitutional republic and our national security. This House took steps tonight to bolster our national security, not bullet-for-bullet or bomb-for-bomb in the Balkan theater, but to try and avert the danger of returning to the days of the hollow force, and it is in that spirit we continue to work in this House.

Mr. HAYWORTH. The challenge in representing a district, really in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is trying to get everywhere all the time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Colorado is right. I would just amend this. We are looking, and I think we should reemphasize this, not at billions but trillions of dollars, and it is amazing to see what is locked up because of the disincentive to inject those funds into the economy, the disincentive to invest in businesses because of the excessive taxation. In fairness, Mr. Speaker, we should be prepared and indeed, Mr. Speaker, there may be many within the sound of my voice or within this television signal who ask the question, but wait a minute; do not your friends on the left always offer the rejoinder, tax cuts for the wealthy? I would say to them, yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the tired rejoinder we hear. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it is all in how one defines who is wealthy, because the rhetoric has become so incendiary and so predictable that if there is a tax cut at all it must go to the wealthy. I would invite my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at an estimate that was prepared for all of us by the Joint Committee on Taxation. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked for this and, Mr. Speaker, this is not something that deals with the trillions of dollars, as my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado, pointed out earlier. This is something that deals with the very human equation of average families in America. We should also point out that this process does not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, I was glad my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, joined me in his first term here in the 105th Congress, my second term but the first term on the Committee on Ways and Means, as we actually offered tax relief to families with first a $400 per child tax credit that increases to $500 and indeed we have found that a family of four earning $30,000 a year, in essence, pays really no income tax if they take advantage of the different deductions and tax credits available to them, an average family of four. Yet, Mr. Speaker, just raise that income by $10,000 again a family trying to succeed, trying to get ahead, in raising that income to $40,000 for a family of four the tax bill is in excess of $2,000 for that family. So, again, Mr. Speaker, it is curious to hear the tired rhetoric of tax breaks for the wealthy because the sad fact is, apparently our friends on the left define wealthy as a middle income earner and a middle income taxpayer earning $40,000 a year. So that is one of the ironies and that is real life, the very human equation, not lost with mind-boggling figures of billions and trillions but just the simple challenge of an annual income for a middle income family. That is what we reiterate here, that this money belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats. The first three words of our Constitution are very instructive and they are as instructive as they are poetic. We, the people; not, they, the government, but we the people; all of us, Mr. Speaker. It is that responsibility which we find uppermost in our minds.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I do, indeed. I would also make the point that one of the ironies of serving here in Washington is that especially sadly on the left, a number of the special interest lobbyists are subsidized with taxpayer funds, which is one of the incredible ironies, something we have tried to change but the institutional inertia here, it is an uphill battle dealing with that. It is one of the curiosities. The gentleman mentioned the voice of the people and in addition to letters, and I brought a couple down tonight, but I just think about a variety of radio townhall meetings we have held lately and the subject that comes up time and again, Mr. Speaker, is our national security; for even as our Founders in that wonderfully practical and poetic preamble to our Constitution delineated that one of our constitutional responsibilities was to provide for the common defense. Again, we have serious problems here. Almost everyone I speak with during these radio townhalls in a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, say the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has been working to prepare a bipartisan report. It was prepared in January or February. When will the House move to release that because the White House is reticent? We must move quickly to release that report.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding. I am pleased that Flat Stanley joins us on the floor tonight. Usually people leave out the ``L'' when they describe me, although I am working on the diet. In all sincerity and seriousness, echoing the comments, though not in complete agreement with my friend from New York who spoke on the floor here earlier, even tonight as we speak, Mr. Speaker, a group of concerned citizens making up a citizens committee on juvenile violence meets in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. The committee includes clergymen, school administrators and former school administrators, current educators, teachers in the classroom, students in the classroom and parents together as they take a look at the Sixth District of Arizona. If there is one difference that typifies the two schools of thought here in the House of Representatives, it is that our friends on the left tend to look to Washington for solutions and put a trust in the Washington bureaucracy. I believe if given a choice between Washington bureaucrats and the people at home, I would choose the people at home. It is in that spirit that our friends meet, not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans concerned looking for practical solutions to the problems they face. I think we would all concur that one thing we learn in our time here, whether it is through letters that we receive, and I have a few tonight, or through town hall meetings or just in our everyday lives when we return home to our district, I think we are all impressed and reimpressed with the fact that the people whom we serve in our respective districts have a lot of good ideas, and so it is the intent of our citizens committee on juvenile violence to take a look at the vexing problems that have plagued us and the recent tragedies at hand. I might also point out that I continue to receive e-mail, phone calls, faxes and letters concerning the extraordinary and disturbing transfer of technology and nuclear espionage carried on by the Red Chinese in this country. Indeed, there are those in my district who have said that it is as if we are living in a real-life Allen Drury novel, that there are those in this city and on the editorial boards or in the assignment editor chairs of various television networks who steadfastly refuse to take a look at the serious problems we have. Yet through investigative reports, such as those by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times and the new book that has been produced, the partial title being ``Betrayal'' which details what sadly has transpired and, according to the author, how some in the current administration have undermined our national security, that continues to be a main concern. And, of course, again the topic to which we always return is the notion of this government serving the people rather than the people serving the government. We have seen a disturbing reversal, if you will, in this century in terms of the fact that this government, it would seem, both in attitude and in the action of reaching into the pockets of hardworking Americans seems to ask for more and more and ask working Americans to get by with less and less. I received a letter from my friend Ryan in Apache Junction, Arizona, just on the border of Maricopa and Pinal Counties there at the foot of the beautiful Superstition Mountains. Ryan writes, movingly and with conviction: Every corner an American turns today has a tax waiting for him or her. It's ridiculous and it's time that it was stopped. I'm tired of paying income tax, property tax, license plate taxes, sales tax, inheritance tax, Social Security tax and capital gains tax. I find all of these taxes unfair, oppressive and unAmerican. Does anyone remember why we left our oppressors in England? Because of high taxes and religious constraints. Where do we go now? When is enough enough? Forty percent of one's wages taken out in taxes? Fifty percent of someone's check taken out in taxes? Make me proud and allow my family and I to live a better life through tax relief.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Speaker. As I hear him speak, I think about another tax that I continue to hear about, the death tax, what has been called by the Washington bureaucracy, the estate tax. That really seems to suggest something rather placid and pastoral when, in fact, it is the death tax where this government taxes you literally upon your death. My good friend from Colorado summed it up very succinctly with echoes of history, not unlike when Ryan pointed out the genesis of our Nation in opposition to our English cousins imposing taxation, my friend from Colorado, and I will quote him again because many an audience enjoys this statement, I am pleased to offer him the proper and full credit, unlike some others in American politics who take lines from time to time, Mr. Speaker, but according to my good friend from Colorado, ``There should be no taxation without respiration.'' I think that is especially appropriate. I think I have related the story in times past, recently in Winslow, Arizona, we were not standing on the corner but we were on the corner where the police station and the city hall is located and we were having a town hall meeting. It was in the middle of the day and a couple of young men from the high school who aspired to attend one of our Nation's military academies came to that town hall meeting. A few more honored citizens, senior citizens, if you will, were there and they were talking about the egregious nature of the death tax, how it affected their small businesses, how it affected their family farms and ranches, how it was driving families out of business. One of the young men heard us talking about this and then, with almost a military bearing, I mean the very flower of American youth, he stood there, ``Congressman, sir, do you mean to tell me the Federal Government taxes you when you die?'' And the assembled citizenry there started to chuckle, knowingly, almost like our good friend Art Linkletter and now Bill Cosby with the television segment ``Kids Say the Darnedest Things,'' but, Mr. Speaker, that laughter soon faded, because there was nothing funny about the question. The sad fact about the death tax is this. For all the rigmarole, for all the hunting down and contacting heirs and business partners, the Federal Government procures roughly 1 percent of its revenue from the death tax. Yet almost three-quarters of that 1 percent goes to tracking down the people who apparently owe the taxes through the convoluted structure that we have here. I have remarked in the past, Mr. Speaker, and I think it bears repeating, this country has been blessed with an outstanding group of individuals at its birth, Catherine Drinker Bowen made mention in her great work in 1966, ``The Miracle at Philadelphia,'' the assemblage of so many great thinkers and true patriots. One of those patriots, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, incredibly well-versed in a variety of different subjects, a man of letters, a printer, a diplomat, a scientist. Yet even Dr. Franklin, with all his prescience, I believe would be shocked to realize today that the republic which he helped to found would literally tax people upon their death, even with his saying in Poor Richard's Almanac, ``There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.'' Understand that Dr. Franklin did not say there was a certainty that one would be taxed on their death, and this is one of the absurdities we see in our tax structure that my friend Ryan points out, that others point out, whether it is the death tax, or the marriage penalty, or other tax policies that seem to do their best to disrupt the family unit and continue to ask Americans to sacrifice more and more so Washington can allegedly do more. Those of us in the new majority and people in the Sixth District of Arizona, Mr. Speaker, say the opposite should be true. Washington bureaucrats should sacrifice so that individuals and families can do more with their hard-earned money in terms of saving, investing and building for the future.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, and I can certainly sympathize with his constituent. And I receive many letters, and they are not confined to April 15, by the way, because some folks get their extension to try and work out their taxes on through October 15, and it has become a particularly vexing problem for a lot of Americans. But let us address my colleague's constituents' concern because, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know that these comments are not falling on deaf ears. Indeed, as the first Arizonan in history honored to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means, the committee with primary jurisdiction over the Tax Code and ultimately over tax relief, I am pleased to point out that it is our intention in July to sit down and write a massive bill of tax cuts, because again we believe this is very true, as the preceding letter my friend read from Colorado. We understand that in most American families both parents work not out of choice, but out of necessity, one parent working essentially to pay the incredible tax obligations that befall many families. Essentially for one salary in essence to be almost free and clear, the other spouse, the other parent, must work quite simply to pay the taxes. My colleague's constituent pointed that out in her letter. The subsequent letter that he read from the gentleman is a call to action, and it is our intent to move forward with a tax bill that is expansive because we believe over 10 years time we need to reaffirm the fact that this money does not belong to the Federal Government, that the tax burden and bite should not be so excessive as to force parents out of the home and into the workplace not because of career aspirations, but because of the necessity of paying the tax bill and dealing with the tax burden. And our notion is over 10 years time to return almost $800 billion to the American people because it is their money to begin with. It does not belong to the bureaucrats here in Washington.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Federally Impacted School Improvement Act with my good friend from North Dakota, Congressman Earl Pomeroy. This bipartisan legislation seeks to address the urgent school construction needs on federal lands, an issue I have championed since I was first elected to Congress. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has jurisdiction over schools in three cases--Indian reservations and military installations, which are funded through the Impact Aid program, and the federal enclave of the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, the federal government has failed to live up to its obligations to federally impacted schools, especially in Indian country. Nearly one in four of my constituents are Native American and approximately 50 percent of the land mass in my district is tribal land. On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to visit my Native American constituents. Virtually everywhere I go, I find one common problem on the reservations: the schools are antiquated, overcrowded, and in dire need of repair or reconstruction. The Federally Impacted School Improvement Act begins to address this desperate situation by authorizing $50 million to be spent on repair, renovation, and construction in our federally impacted school districts. As you may know, Impact Aid school construction is currently funded through Section 8007. This program received a paltry $7 million in fiscal year 1999, which could have built the equivalent of one school. There is certainly a need for more than one new school in my district alone. In fact, I testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education in 1998 about the importance of school construction funding for federally impacted schools and included documentation of nearly $180 million in needed school construction funding in just five of my 23 federally impacted school districts. This problem is not isolated to my district. Almost every federally impacted school district faces similar problems. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a start in improving the schools on military and Indian lands. But this is only a beginning. We need to show our commitment to our military and Native Americans, who have long been neglected by the federal government. We must live up to our obligations to educate children on federal land. I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Impacted School Improvement Act.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I think there are goals that all Members of this House share in terms of public health policy. But when the gentleman from Massachusetts starts talking about campaign finance, the gentleman from Massachusetts and many on that side of the aisle would do well to heed the testimony yesterday of one Johnny Chung and would do well to connect the dots because of the relationship of the People's Republic of China to the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996. Mr. Speaker, there may be those who smile wistfully, but I do not believe our national security is something to be toyed with and to fiddle around with while this Nation is in danger of burning. The fact is we should stand up, remain vigilant, have the Cox committee report released and get to the bottom of Chinese influence for sale to the highest bidder, sadly, it seems at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) adds to the litany of compelling, provocative questions that confront us as we prepare to enter the next century. I mentioned earlier in this special order that this has been referred to as the American century. Some around the world might claim that is a bit jingoistic, but it is a label that for better or worse has been given the 20th century. History does not occur in a vacuum. All of the questions outlined by my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, are undergirded again by this notion: To have security here at home, to have economic security, to have the security that promotes domestic tranquility, undergirding all of that is the notion of our national security. In the beautiful preamble to our Constitution, those who gathered in Philadelphia for what Catherine Drinker Bowen called the miracle at Philadelphia wrote that it was their purpose, in ordaining and establishing a constitution for the United States, to provide for the common defense. That challenge continues even more in this world today. Mr. Speaker, I began this hour speaking of an invitation I had received for commencement exercises at the United States Military Academy at West Point. I might also add, and I know my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, shares this sentiment, there is no greater honor than calling a young man or woman to congratulate them upon their appointment to one of our fine military academies. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to do that for a young lady in one of the high schools in the northern part of our district, and a reporter from the White Mountain Independent was there, as the phone call was patched through on a speaker and this proud academy nominee and her family gathered along with her friends, and the reporter asked me, what does this mean to you to be able to nominate this young woman to the academy? I said to him, you have to understand what this young person is doing. Yes, she is given a tremendous opportunity to receive an unparalleled education but it comes at a price because she and her family understand in no uncertain terms that quite literally her life will be on the line. Those of us who are constitutional officers, whether in this legislative branch or at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the executive branch, have first and foremost a duty to the men and women in uniform and the people they protect that we unapologetically pursue our own national interest and that through oversight we allow the sunshine to come in to expose unsavory relationships, to get to the bottom of espionage scandals and to preserve our constitutional republic.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And it boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Georgia points this out, there is of course a larger context both to the Balkan theater that is transpiring in Kosovo and the other challenges we face around the world, and, Mr. Speaker, there is a legacy of modern conservatism and a common train of thought reflected in the notion of peace through strength, which President Reagan was so dogged and devout in pursuing, and indeed earlier this century by our former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, later President of the United States, General Dwight David Eisenhower. In his book Eisenhower, The President, William Blake Eweld sets forward the components that Eisenhower used, the criteria upon which Eisenhower based any notion of military involvement by our Nation. No. 1, said Ike, define the compelling national interest that would prompt us to act militarily. No. 2, Eisenhower said, let us have a clearly definable military objective. General Eisenhower, subsequently President Eisenhower, went on. No. 3, understand that there is no such thing as a little force. Once the decision to use force is made, force must be applied overwhelmingly and, yes, even brutally to achieve the desired ends. And, No, 4, once the objectives are achieved, there must be a clear exit strategy. Mr. Speaker, I must lament the fact that whether it is in Kosovo or simply the notion of state craft and diplomacy confronting the challenges as we do today with Communist China how bereft and bankrupt and totally removed from the criteria Eisenhower outlined in what came to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, how far afield this administration is both in the conduct of our foreign policy and in the use of American fighting men and women around the world. Unapologetically we should stand for our national interests and our national security, and to those who come to this floor and offer what they believe to be a humanitarian argument, I notice very seldom do we hear about the almost 2 million people who have died in the Sudan, or the tribal warfare that has gone on in Rwanda, and that is not in any way to diminish the suffering in Kosovo, but let me suggest this, Mr. Speaker and my colleague from Georgia: If we are to change and enlarge the definition of our national interest to include every atrocity that occurs somewhere around this world, we would be asking for the conscription of American men and women for almost a 10-year tour of duty, and this constitutional republic would look more like the ancient city state of Sparta in terms of our citizens under arms. No, we must have a logical, sober, reasonable definition of our compelling national interest clearly and unapologetically, and that is the foundation upon which we must base all of our actions in the field of diplomacy and certainly in the introduction of our military forces.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would point out as Wesley Pruden, editor-in-chief of the Washington Times pointed out in a column about a month and a half ago, the same month when Vice President Gore had his self-described community outreach event at the Buddhist temple in Los Angeles, later proven to be a fund-raising exercise again involving nonAmerican citizens, that same month the aforementioned Mr. Berger, the National Security Adviser, we understand, was informed of the security breach at Los Alamos. There are those in this city, in fact, Mr. Chung was part of the spin today, if you heard some of his comments, and I have heard them rebroadcast on some of the cable news outlets in the 30-some seconds they would devote to the story as opposed to gavel-to-gavel coverage, where he impugned the American political system in terms of fund raising. I must tell you, that tradition is in keeping with the curious reaction of many others in this city about financing campaigns and having people involved. In fact, to me the historical analogy would have been for Bonny and Clyde at the height of their crime spree to suddenly call a press conference to invite the leading newspapers and newsreels of their era and come out publicly for stiffer penalties against bank robbery. It is asinine to see some of the spin going on here. Now you have the desperate attempt by Secretary Richardson, our former colleague, my neighbor from New Mexico, saying, ``Well, now we're going to get tough. Now we're going to appoint a security czar at Los Alamos.'' Friends, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The nuclear horse has left the barn. To continue to mix metaphors, the nuclear chickens are coming home to roost. And it is a little late, after the fact, for Mr. Berger, Secretary Richardson, Attorney General Reno or, as described in various accounts, the hustler named Johnny Chung to purport to lecture the American people about the conduct of campaigns, to attempt to lecture the American people about how now, once these ills have been exposed, ``Oh, now we're going to get tough.'' It leads to cynicism and distrust on the part of the body politic.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, you are quite right. To offer another analogy, it would be like someone speeding and have an officer stop the speeder and the speeder say to the officer, oh, gee, I was going over 50 in that 35 miles per hour zone, but you know that is such a hazard at just 35 miles an hour, you ought to lower that speed limit to 25. And because I had the moral suasion to make that observation to you, officer, just let me go along on my way. Because, after all, I cared enough, officer, I cared enough, to tell you that the speed limit is excessive even though I broke it many times over. This asinine reasoning and this cynical spin that permeates this town is both sickening and cynical and it needs to stop, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia. And to the American people, Mr. Speaker, who join us tonight, we need to move beyond spin for some straight talk with the American people. And whether it is campaign finance reform or these emerging scandals that threaten our very national security, Mr. Justice Brandeis was right, Mr. Speaker, when he said, sunshine is the best disinfectant. That is why, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I renew my call for this House, if necessary, to go into closed session as soon as possible and to vote the release of the Cox committee report, because we know that our colleague from California has worked in a good-faith effort to negotiate with this White House. We also know that the President of the United States has within his power under existing law the ability to release the select committee report today if he would take it up. I would, Mr. Speaker, invite our President to release the report forthwith, if he is to deal with us in candor and to serve effectively as our Commander in Chief as he sends American men and women into harm's way in the Balkan theater. He owes no less to the American public so that we understand what exactly is at stake across and around the world in terms of our defense capabilities.

Mr. HAYWORTH. As my colleague so capably points out, Mr. Speaker, it is time to address this, not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans. This is a situation which confronts us with reference to our national security and the safety of all our citizens, and the future of our country with reference to the rest of the world and most specifically to that giant nation in the East, Communist China. We must be resolute, rational, sober-minded about this, but it is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, and the frustration seeps over in the constant spinning and cajoling and cynical remarks that emerge in a very defensive fashion. I believe my colleague from Georgia used that well-worn chorus, ``Everybody does it. Oh, people spy all the time. What's the big deal?'' Mr. Speaker, here is the big deal, as has been reported in the mainstream press. While many in this town very publicly search for what they call their legacy, the irony is that their legacy quite literally is our legacy, the legacy codes to America's nuclear arsenal that were transferred, downloaded into unsecure computers, where the Communist Chinese and others could have access to the width and breadth and majority of our technological know-how that American taxpayers subsidized in our national interest to protect this American Nation. That sadly is the legacy. Our national security has been squandered and jeopardized, and we must get to the root of that very vexing problem.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I have not been invited to the Oval Office nor to the White House to discuss policy with the President or any of his immediate advisers on a single occasion. The visits to the Oval Office I have made, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia, the old goose egg, zilch, zero, nada.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not presume to speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle but, based on my own observations, I would think even with, pardon the pun, the most liberal interpretation, the ranking member and some of the leaders or my friends on the other side of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means have probably been there maybe a dozen times, two dozen if we want to be very charitable, but certainly not 50 occasions to my knowledge.