J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman from Florida will yield for a second, this is very interesting because once again we see the gulf between rhetoric and reality because our President and liberal Members of this House come to this floor, and indeed the President of the United States stood at this rostrum a couple of months ago and told us how important education was and how we should put our children first. And of course now we find that our children, as they go to sleep at night, are within the target range of Chinese missiles, and, moreover, that the liberal minority in this House actually does not want to utilize a great civics lesson and participation in understanding the role constitutionally of the decennial census, that as its name implies, comes but once every 10 years, and to miss this historic opportunity when the claims constantly are of concern for the children and wanting to improve education. And again, it is yet another sad piece of evidence in this credibility canyon which is come to exist in Washington D.C., certainly not as splendid as our Grand Canyon, but one that we will have a long time trying to reconcile.

Mr. HAYWORTH. So it is as if we had the scales and the thumb rather than, well, perhaps the heavy hand of government is going to rest on that scale to produce the desired outcome based on political pressure from the White House and the marching orders that the Director of the Census has been given to maximize numbers in such a way, devoid of actual enumeration, to produce a desired outcome.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for yielding. And I would likewise thank the chairman for his willingness to come to the youngest of the 48 contiguous States, the great State of Arizona, which did not enter this Union until Valentine's Day of 1912 in the administration of one William Howard Taft. I might also point out that the Sixth Congressional District, which I am honored to represent, is an area in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from the hamlet of Franklin in the south just there alongside the New Mexico border in southern Greenlee County, from Franklin north to Four Corners, the only point geographically common to four States in our Union, west of Flagstaff and south again to Florence, a district that continues to grow with a sizable portion of metropolitan Maricopa County. And indeed, according to the latest studies of population there, last year Maricopa County, Arizona, welcomed 86,000 new residents, second only to Los Angeles County, California. So it is a growing area, experiencing much the same growth that my friend from Florida can attest for his sunshine State. But in the Grand Canyon State and indeed throughout the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, there are grave concerns. I certainly yield to my colleague from Florida in terms of his knowledge of statistics and his background as a man of science and an educator in talking about statistics. And I am reminded, I believe the line was from Mark Twain, ``statistics do not lie but liars occasionally use statistics.'' I would echo the observation of my friend from Florida that is seriously disturbing. It has been frustrating enough to see the lack of personal responsibility on the part of this administration, certainly personal conduct of the President of the United States, the misguided, if not arrogant, admonition of the Vice President of the United States when discussions of his own misconduct came up when he said, ``my legal counsel informs me there is no controlling legal authority,'' not only an absurdity but close indeed, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, to an obscenity in terms of its arrogance. And moving past that, recent revelations involving the unlawful transfer of technology to the People's Republic of China, resulting today in a vote by this House to at long last approve a missile defense. The committees of this Congress must continue their vigilance and their oversight of serious matters involving the lack of propriety in terms of soliciting campaign donations from the People's Republic of China and subsequently action taken to transfer technology to that nation's military, putting Americans at risk. But now my colleague from Florida has pointed out the latest outrage. My colleagues, we all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States; and when we raise our right hands and take that oath, that oath means something. It means that we all recognize the Constitution and the wonderful tools our Founders gave us to make us a Nation of laws and not of men, sadly, events of this past year which seem to indicate the opposite, that we are a Nation of one man's whims and not of law. I would refer us to article 1, section 2, quoting now the actual enumeration. ``Shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States and within every subsequent term of 10 years in such manner as they shall by law direct,'' speaking of this legislative prerogative. We should also point out with our constitutional republic, our system of three separate and coequal branches of government, there is an arbiter, an interpreter. The judiciary branch. And the ultimate authority is, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States. And as my colleague from Florida pointed out earlier, and as we must continue to reiterate, the Supreme Court of the United States, in January of this year, banned sampling, banned this hocus-pocus, indeed in a phrase that General Eisenhower used for a lot of scientific ledger domain, he called it sophisticated nonsense, the Supreme Court banned this type of inventive counting or projections or sophisticated nonsense and said to all of us, whether the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, or a Member of Congress, or any citizen in this country, and most specifically, he who is directed to in fact be the director of the census, that, no, there will not be sampling. Instead, there will be an actual enumeration, as the Constitution calls for. And yet the arrogance and, by any fair measure, dare I say the lawlessness, is so rampant that they would have a director of our census essentially thumb his nose at the Supreme Court of the United States, at the Congress of the United States, and then say to the American people, well, the Constitution may call for an actual enumeration but, gee, that is just not good enough. Because to fit our partisan designs, and let us speak plainly, Mr. Speaker, in a town enshrouded, as I have said before, with almost a perspective borrowed from that Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale dealing with the emperor's new clothes, when people fail to understand realty or fail to square up to it, let us understand this: Sadly this administration, it would seem, can only measure its so-called legacy, to use the term of the punditocracy, its so-called legacy in political terms and somewhere along the line something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. Because, in our constitutional republic, honest convictions deeply held articulated in this chamber with free debate are held amongst political adversaries or opponents. But somehow, sadly, some folks in this town have changed that to start to think of the majority in Congress as their sworn enemy. How else are we to interpret the provocative action of the director of the census, who says to the Supreme Court, well, you may have told us that the Constitution says sampling is banned based on your opinion, but we are going to double count. Mr. Speaker, if the double-talk were not enough from this bunch at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, now we are treated to a double count. And what they are saying, in an arrogant and dangerously partisan fashion, is that an actual enumeration of citizens mandated by the document to which we all swear our allegiance when we take our oath of office and validated, amplified again by the findings of the Supreme Court of this Nation in January, somehow that is not good enough. And they, in their arrogance and in their desire to shape a legacy born of any means necessary politically, will invent people, will invent numbers, will supplement their double-talk with a double count. It is tragic that we have reached such a stage.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I would like to take advantage of his expertise and his study of this issue and his leadership as the chairman the subcommittee most accountable for the census and in terms of Congressional oversight and execution of such account. We have established the sad realty that, for a variety of reasons, starting and in fact ending at the top, that is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with our chief executive and his already well- established lack of regard for the statutes and the laws of the land, that this is going to continue apace. I was wondering if my friend from Florida in laymen's terms could explain the deficiencies of sampling. It has been described to me as almost inventing people, or projecting numbers based on a count and then to actually cease a count and start an extrapolation. Could he put it in laymen's terms so those of us who join these proceedings and our citizenry from coast to coast could understand this a little better?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me see if this analogy works, because from time to time, the attorneys might say, there is a preponderance of physical evidence that I battle with my physique, the scale. This almost sounds like in lieu of weighing myself on a calibrated scale, that I take my two youngest children, aged 8 and 5, because, after all, they possess DNA, which is a part of me, and they have my hereditary characteristics and to achieve a desired weight, I would put them on the scales and then extrapolate based on statistical samples such as the ideal height and weight charts, the actuarial tables we see from different life insurance companies, and rather than take an actual number from the scale, through statistical legerdemain, we would project a desired outcome. Is that an apt analogy?

Mr. HAYWORTH. To have this opportunity, I salute the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and while there may be some questions of jurisdiction and some details to iron out with the Nation's governors and the respective States and the whole notion of TATNF, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and what we are doing here, if we can vet those concerns and make a workable proposition come out, well, then this is to be welcomed. Let us seize on this aspect. Salute our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, from the other side of the aisle and say that example should be followed because it is inevitable that we may not agree on every jot and tittle of policy but that is the example of true bipartisanship, to work together to try to solve a problem, not to try a maneuver for political advantage or to say we are going to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Constitution somehow does not count. So my friend is right to give credit where credit is due and that should be an example of true bipartisanship and civility. I look forward to working with the gentleman to try to iron out some of these problems of jurisdiction.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for filing that rule so that that debate can take place on this House floor tomorrow. The world remains a dangerous place. Even as media outlets such as the capable news network offer their, at times, controversial documentary treatment of the Cold War as if it is and anachronism or a relic, the fact is the world does remain a dangerous place. The rogue states, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) pointed out, the avowed enemies of this country who make no bones about their yearning, their desire to deploy weapons of mass destruction against the world's lone remaining superpower and the very ideals this constitutional republic embodies. So, again, in full view of the oath we take to the Constitution of the United States and our trusted responsibility with the American people as their constitutionally elected representatives, we must answer this clarion call and make provisions for a missile defense system. Because, sadly, again, as shocking as it may be to the American people, despite some flowery phrases, there is currently no such system. This Congress will have to take steps tomorrow. I would also point out to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), as he is well aware, the developments again echoing through the headlines of the major newspapers, the unlawful transfer of technology to the People's Republic of China, and the fact sadly that reports indicate the Communist Chinese have been only too eager to share this technology with rogue States. Mr. Speaker, this time on the floor affords us not only the responsibility and opportunity to communicate with all of our constituencies, and indeed with the American people, but, Mr. Speaker, this also affords us the time to speak to those who monitor the proceedings on these floors who, quite frankly, wish us ill or fail to understand that the very freedoms we cherish in this society are not, in fact, weaknesses. The despots of this world look at free and open debate as a form of weakness, a form of inertia, of immobilization that would somehow prevent or abridge our proper responses. I think particularly of the Communist Chinese. I think of the bellicose threat from the Chinese defense minister of a couple of years ago with reference to the Taiwan question when the Chinese, in provocative fashion, as the Taiwan government was holding free and fair elections, the Chinese conducted exercises and shooting missiles just off the coast of Taiwan, and the provocative statement, Mr. Speaker, by the Chinese defense minister with reference to our great Nation, saying, oh, well, we believe the Americans value Los Angeles more than they value Taiwan. How are we to interpret that statement, Mr. Speaker? How can we interpret that but as a threat to this Nation? As I explained to the consul for the Chinese government from Los Angeles, who visited Phoenix and sought me out for a meeting expressing his goal of friendship, I said, Mr. Speaker, to the consul, then let us speak as friends. And let there be no mistake, none of our adversaries around the world, in any regime, in any place, should ever confuse the will and the resolve of the American people once fully informed and rallying to a cause. This is such a cause. This is such a moment, to take legitimate steps to protect our Nation. And though at times, because of previous actions and whatever reluctance on the part of this administration to follow through effectively in dealing with foreign governments and others, make no mistake this Congress takes seriously, Mr. Speaker, its constitutional role and its oversight of the executive branch and the need to protect the American people. And this constitutional republic will prevail because we understand that in a free society the eternal price of liberty is vigilance. I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and others, including our very good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who lead the delegation to the former Soviet Union, the Russian Federation. Again, I think it is important to underscore the unprecedented nature of such a visit, American legislators meeting with their Russian counterparts to explain and cut through the haze of disinformation and other impulses that may linger from the Cold War that, in the situation which we find ourselves, there is a legitimate stake in self-defense for this constitutional republic, for our American Nation, and for the American people. I might also point out, as genuine as the threat is from North Korea, the area in and around the Persian Gulf remains an area of grave and great concern. Given the proximity of Israel to that region of the world, indeed given the Scud attacks on Israel, this administration proposed a few years ago that the Israelis might want to have a missile defense. That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, if it is good enough for the Russian people, and as my colleagues have pointed out, some 70 percent of the Russian population is effectively covered with this type of missile defense system, if our own administration and State Department, Mr. Speaker, would say it is good enough for the Israelis and they should work on a comparable system, then certainly the American people deserve such protection. We must underscore the fact that it currently does not exist. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the fact that there continues to be a somewhat curious debate in the realm of international law about enforcement of a treaty such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or ABM Treaty, from more than a quarter century ago ratified by the United States Senate. In our new world situation, we call that entity with whom we dealt at that time now today the former Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist and, indeed, in everyday parlance, just as marriage vows customarily end with the term ``till death do you part,'' when one entity is dissolved, it is my belief, and I believe a reasonable test and a reasonable assumption and assertion, that that treaty likewise or at least the involvement with the Soviet Union and the strictures of the ABM Treaty ceases to exist because now we are dealing with a new Russian federation. But, again, I want to salute my friends who took the time and had the courage to go talk to our Russian counterparts in a spirit of candor. We might also point out, Mr. Speaker, as relevant again as today's headlines, there have been reports of the possibility of a similar computer crisis that we hear about in this country under the guise of Y2K. There are concerns about Russian computers. We welcome the chance to break down the barriers and ensure that there would be no unintended launch from any type of computer malfunction. But if it were to happen, is it not the role of this Congress and the American people to make sure that this Nation is adequately protected? Sadly, on this day, at this hour, in this Chamber, we have to point out that, for the American Nation, no such missile defense exists.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for sharing that message from his constituent in Fort Collins. Mr. Speaker, it points out the unique nature both of this special order and the ability that our constituents have, not only from our individual districts, but indeed from coast to coast and beyond to e-mail, fax, phone their Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, Republican or Democrat, we are all Americans, to ask their Member of Congress to move forward with this missile defense system. It is vital. It is necessary. It is long overdue. There is nothing better than the input of those concerned citizens rising to this cause, Mr. Speaker, and alerting their respective Member of Congress in much the same way as I would take this time, Mr. Speaker, again to invite Members from both parties tomorrow to listen to the classified briefing on this floor from former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and others who join him on the Commission.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, and I would echo the sentiments of both the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in the beautiful preamble to the Constitution, a Constitution we have sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, there is the mission statement, if you will, to use the parlance of the late 1990s, that it is the role of we, the people, to provide for the common defense. And there is no clearer mission and no clearer mandate than the current world condition as explained by the Rumsfeld Commission. The gentleman from Mississippi is quite right. Republicans and Democrats, acting foremost as Americans, evaluated the threat of rogue States such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and came away with the chilling evaluation, as widely reported in the press, though perhaps not with the emphasis in hindsight that should have been required, that within 5 years time, these rogue nations would have at their disposal weapons of mass destruction; specifically, intercontinental ballistic missiles, that could strike at the heartland of the American Nation, and this is what we confront. My colleagues also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the assumption and the false impression that exists in the minds of many that the continental United States and Alaska and Hawaii are already protected from such an attack. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that is not yet the case. I should pause here, especially given the tenor of the times and the revelations of unauthorized transfers of technology to the Chinese government, and sadly, the alleged political misconduct of the Clinton-Gore administration, to underscore what has happened, because in the parlance of the politically correct, sadly, our commander in chief from time to time is factually challenged. Mr. Speaker, he stood here at the rostrum 2 years ago in his State of the Union message and said to the American Nation, who looks to its President for reassurance and truth, two qualities, Mr. Speaker, that sadly have been sorely lacking, the President offered a classic Clintonian statement when he said, quote, Tonight, no Russian missiles are aimed at America's heartland, or words to that effect. That led the distinguished Democratic Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey, in a subsequent appearance on NBC's Meet The Press to say well, yes, that is true, but those missiles can be reprogrammed in a matter of minutes. I acknowledge that reality not to cast aspersions on the Russian Federation or members of the Duma with whom my colleagues met this weekend, but to point out that sadly, in this age of presidential leadership, all Americans have to parse the statements of our commander in chief. So we are faced with this dilemma: How best to provide for the common defense and protect our citizenry from attack from any quarter, but especially the threat of rogue nations. And indeed, the headlines today ring out the irony of a curious state of conduct with the outlaw Nation that is North Korea. Indeed, as the gentleman from Mississippi will recall, before we were sworn in to the 104th Congress, as part of this new common sense conservative majority, the then Secretary of Defense William Perry came to brief us at a breakfast sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I was privileged to ask the first question of then Secretary Perry, and I asked the Secretary why the Clinton administration was insistent on sharing any form of nuclear technology with the North Koreans. And to sum up the Secretary's reply to me: I needed a further briefing. No, Mr. Speaker, I did not need a further briefing. It is common sense that if the stove is on, one does not put one's hand on the eye of the stove or one will get burned. One does not play with matches, one does not play with fire. And continuing this curious indulgence of the North Koreans is now the announcement heralded by this administration that the U.S., at long last, will be granted inspection of sites in North Korea. But, there is a caveat there, because the grand leader of the North Koreans, Kim Jong-il, has a Nation wracked with famine, and while this great constitutional republic has proper humanitarian impulses to help feed people of the world stricken by disaster inside that closed and sadly retro Stalinist state, Kim Jong- il and his military leaders continue apace their development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and as my colleague from Mississippi pointed out, now the North Koreans possess technology that can strike America's heartland.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let my say to my colleague the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and my friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), Mr. Speaker, that we welcome this intellectual elasticity within the administration. We saw it a couple of years ago with reference to historic welfare reform. We saw it last year when it came to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and cleaning up through oversight the Internal Revenue Service that indeed 30 minutes prior to the Secretary of Treasury coming to our Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, that the administration changed course. And we welcome it. We understand that the burden of international leadership rests uneasily on the shoulder of this President. Perhaps it is because so often his rhetoric fails to square with reality. But we welcome this change of heart, even if it is what is in essence the last nanosecond of the eleventh hour. But while we welcome that, let us also reassure the American people, Mr. Speaker, that we offer these grim realities not to promote panic or fear but a policy change and a conviction that we must adequately defend our Nation against all threats but especially the growing threat of a rogue state or an accidental launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. And so it is in that spirit, even given the dramatic changes in attitude from the administration, perhaps also prompted in the wake of media revelations about the problems in China, we welcome this change and we look forward to working with all Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats, to act first and foremost as Americans and provide for the common defense of.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, the outrage continues to grow over the campaign cash and espionage scandal involving the Chinese and this administration. Quoting the lead editorial from this morning's Wall Street Journal, ``Bad enough that the Chinese have stolen the technology for a nuclear warhead that will make their own missiles more threatening to U.S. national security; far worse is the casualness with which the White House greeted the news. Sandy Berger says he was briefed on this in April of 1996, which happens to be the same month Al Gore traveled to California for his infamous Buddhist fundraiser.'' And from the lead editorial in this morning's Washington Times. ``It is clear that Sandy Berger has no credibility. Rather than cooperation, he offers blame shifting. Rather than credible explanations, he offers excuses.'' Mr. Speaker, we say to the President, Sandy Berger must go.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I wear on my lapel just above the pin signifying that this is the 106th Congress a pair of black horn-rimmed glasses representing the memory of the late great Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Goldwater brought a simple, plain-spoken candor to public life, and, Mr. Speaker, I think it was typified by his straightforward declaration that as an American, people should have the right to join a union but they should likewise have the right not to join a union if they so desire. And mindful of some perilous trends in public policy, I rise on this occasion this afternoon. California is the next-door neighbor of Arizona, and the Los Angeles Unified School District is contemplating a move that portends great cost to the citizens of Los Angeles and portends a trend that should be fought by all means at the Federal level. I speak of project labor agreements. This is what is being proposed in Los Angeles. This comes to school construction. ``The contractor recognizes the council and its affiliated unions as the exclusive bargaining representatives for the employees engaged in project work covered by this agreement.'' Mr. Speaker, in the LA Daily News on the editorial page, it is noted that ``even a school board member who often sides with the teachers union can't turn a blind eye to this outrage.'' What is outrageous? Well, quite simply this fact, Mr. Speaker: The estimates are that this plan could increase construction costs by 10 to 15 percent in the district. Now, lest you think this is only something that Los Angelenos should be concerned about, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to your attention something this House once saw in April of 1998, the Vice President of the United States, he who last week claimed that he was the father of the Internet, he who infamously claimed 2 years ago that there was no controlling legal authority given the outrage of alleged campaign donations to the Clinton-Gore team from foreign governments including the People's Republic of China, well, this selfsame Vice President announced that the Clinton-Gore team would aggressively pursue linking Federal projects to union construction firms. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that everyone should have the right to apply to do work and if a union shop is the bidder that is accepted based on its quality of work, that is well and good. But here is the problem with union-only agreements as the Vice President promised to Boss Sweeney and others: Not only is the blatant payoff, Mr. Speaker, but in fact it will end up costing the American taxpayer across the width and breadth of our annual budget an additional $5 billion a year. Now, mindful of the florid rhetoric and the feel-good attitude that the President brings when he steps to this podium annually to offer his State of the Union message and mindful that sadly his rhetoric does not always square to reality, I would invite the President and the Vice President and others who claim that project work, or union-only agreements, would somehow be beneficial to step up and defend spending an additional $5 billion of taxpayers money. Because, you see, Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, indeed to use the President's term, there is a third way, but that would involve truth and merit rewards. And again I say, lest there are those who misunderstand, if it is a union shop that steps forward with the best ability to do the work, well, then God bless them and they should be awarded a contract on their merits. But to restrict or to claim that this government or indeed any other governmental entity will deal only with union shops is to circumvent freedom of choice, freedom of association and fiscal responsibility. For to paraphrase Goldwater and perhaps change his phraseology, I believe that union firms have a right to bid on a contract but I also believe that open shop firms should have that same right. And if an open shop can do the work better, then they should be selected.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I wish that I did not have to rise this morning on this topic, and yesterday I am shocked by the emperor's new clothes mentality that engulfs our Nation's Capitol on issues as vital as our national security. For, indeed, Madam Speaker, from the same crowd who would have us believe that there is another definition for the word ``alone,'' from the same bunch who would say, well, that depends on what the meaning of ``is'' is, today, Madam Speaker, we have a new definition of ``swiftly''. For according to the weekend talk shows, to hear Secretary of Energy Richardson and National Security Advisor Berger talk, they claim that this administration acted swiftly to try and counteract the intelligence breaches and espionage at our national laboratory at Los Alamos. Yet, this is the same crowd that, in the previous year, in an afternoon was able to clear out the White House Travel Office on a spurious charge of messing with the petty cash drawer, and yet it took this administration 3 long years to react to the first reports of an intelligence breach, Mr. Berger, notified in 1996 of the problem, apparently failing to take action. Indeed this morning, Madam Speaker, on the front page of the Washington Times the report is as follows, ``Security remains weak at U.S. nuclear labs despite the uncovering in 1995 of Chinese espionage efforts, says a recently retired U.S. counterintelligence official. His detailed firsthand knowledge contradicts President Clinton's claims that security has been tight.'' Quoting now, ``Security at the Department of Energy has not improved.'' This former official told the Washington Times, indeed. In yesterday's New York Times, columnist Bill Safire asked this question, ``Why, if Secretary Bill Richardson were so `seized of' this secret issue last August when he was named, did he demote the expert, Trulock, and put in charge a CIA man from his UN embassy staff, Larry Sanchez, who knew nothing about the agency's worst problem?'' Safire also writes, ``It would be outrageous indeed to suggest that American officials were consciously betraying our national interest. But the confluence of these facts in election year 1996, combined with the urge to disregard or derogate any intelligence that would stop the political blessings of a `strategic partnership' with China, led to Clinton's denial of a dangerous penetration.'' Madam Speaker, indeed, the distinguished senior Senator from my home State, Senator John McCain, in a major foreign policy speech yesterday spoke more on this topic, this curious timing of illegal campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996. My senior Senator said, and I quote, ``Sadly that charge grows more credible every day. And if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt it will bring more of history's shame upon the President than his personal failings will, indeed greater shame than any President has ever suffered.'' Madam Speaker, we acknowledge the obvious. We acknowledge that, sadly, in this town at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, there are some people who are beyond shame. Madam Speaker, our Vice President who last week claimed that he was father of the Internet also gave us a very curious interpretation when he claimed that, because this espionage may have started in the 1980s, someone else was to blame. Madam Speaker, if we are to use that as our standard, then I suppose we should blame Lyndon Johnson for the Navy spy ring that began its espionage in 1968. No, Madam Speaker, espionage is a serious charge and is a serious problem that we deplore at any time. But the challenge is not when it started but when we chose to do something about it once we had the knowledge. Again, our President speaks of a strategic partnership with China. We know now in the fullness of time exactly what his strategic partnership meant. Take a look at the record. Take a look at the videotapes. Leaders of the People's Liberation Army and Chinese business interests giving to the Clinton-Gore campaign? Madam Speaker, even though, in this environment of the emperor's new clothes, let me step forward as did the young girl in that tale by Hans Christian Andersen and say this, it is illegal, it is unpardonable, it is unconscionable for an American administration to take money from foreign governments.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of shocking revelations of Chinese espionage, and the unlawful and unauthorized transfer of nuclear technology from our Nation to the People's Republic of China and the curious coincidence that the Clinton-Gore campaign took Chinese money in the 1996 presidential campaign, let me propose four immediate steps that this House should take. Number 1, Mr. Speaker, let me call on the President. If he wants to get to the bottom of this scandal, as his spinners suggest, this President should release forthwith the report of this House's select committee headed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) into the entire episode. Number 2, I should point out, Mr. Speaker, 60 colleagues have joined me in signing a letter to the chairman of our Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), urging him to conduct his own hearings since the Cox committee will soon lapse. Number 3, I would call on this Congress to close our national laboratories to these so-called cultural exchanges because what they are are pilfering--our technology. And Number 4, Mr. Speaker, Sandy Berger must go.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, we just received two instances of the MO of the liberals on the Hill. It is fear and smear first, scare the elderly about Medicare, then come back and attack the new Speaker of the House. Very interesting. We have been down this road before. But as my colleagues know, Madam Speaker, there is a reason to have grave concerns about the stewardship of foreign policy by this administration, especially Madam Speaker, when this administration, the Clinton-Gore team, took campaign cash from the Communist Chinese and then ignored the warnings of the intelligence community with reference to nuclear espionage. Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon this House to exercise its oversight capabilities to make sure that our genuine interests are, in fact, protected, because Madam Speaker, if the administration is more susceptible to Chinese campaign cash, then this House must protect the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as my friends on the left continue to try to scare senior Americans, perhaps they should heed developments that are truly terrifying to all Americans. I speak of the unlawful transfer of technology and espionage by Communist China against our government and against our people. In today's Washington Post, the senior Senator from Indiana writes, and I quote, ``Complicating matters are the campaign abuses involving China that have been attributed to this White House. Some of these abuses involved extraordinarily bad judgment by the President himself. It is imperative that the administration not yield to its impulses to place damage control above all else. We need the truth about what has happened and a program to repair our national security.'' Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. That is why this Congress, if this Commander-in-Chief will not unilaterally release the report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial concerns with the People's Republic of China, this Congress should go into closed session and vote to release that report so the American people can know the truth.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, as my colleague I am sure will agree, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon this House, if no one else, especially at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, will act as a steward of national security, it is incumbent upon this House, if the White House will not release the findings of the Cox Select Committee in its report, it is incumbent upon this House to go into closed session and to vote out that report so that every American can understand the extent to which our security may have been compromised.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding, and, Mr. Speaker, I would point out the comments of the majority leader in the other body on this Hill, Senator Lott saying in a televised interview this weekend that in the wake of these revelations concerning China, and technology transfers and espionage in the nuclear field that it is entirely reasonable, prudent and proper for this Congress to reevaluate whether the People's Republic of China should gain admission to the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, what should be understood by the Communist Chinese is that provocative actions carry consequences. If my friend would indulge me, a personal recollection in my first term. The Counsel General of the Chinese Embassy from Los Angeles paid a visit to Arizona, and he said, paraphrasing: ``We want to be friends.'' And I said to him, ``Good, let us speak as friends.'' It is extremely disturbing to hear the bellicose statements of the Chinese defense minister who threatens our mainland in the wake of a crisis involving Taiwan and Formosa by saying, quote: We believe the Americans value Los Angeles much more than they value Taiwan. I asked him, and I would ask all in this body and all within the sound of my voice, especially our friends, Mr. Speaker, from the PRC who may be monitoring this, how else do we interpret those remarks other than a threat?

Mr. HAYWORTH. What it should be considered at the very least is outrageous behavior that sacrifices the legitimate national and security interests of the United States to political designs, and political campaigns and of public relations effort, quite apart from policy indeed, as my colleague from California is aware, and, Mr. Speaker, as you, too, are well aware. There is a very interesting book that has been published and appeared on the scene entitled Year of the Rat which talks about allegations, allegations that now have been borne out by independent press inquiries that sadly, Mr. Speaker, this administration sought campaign cash not only from American citizens, as is their want under the law under legal circumstances, but apparently sought campaign cash from officials affiliated with the Peoples Liberation Army, so the accounts have been reported. ``Curiouser and curiouser,'' said Alice about such developments, but this is not Wonderland, this is the real world, and the future of American security is at stake.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would simply add, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, that those who watch around the world, Mr. Speaker, would do well to remember that ours is a constitutional republic with a Chief Executive who is, quite correctly, our commander in chief. But they should understand a lesson that ofttimes escapes them in terms of the nuances of the big picture, and it is this. This Congress constitutionally is charged with oversight. When it comes to our national security, when it comes to the well-being of this American Nation, when it comes to our legitimate concerns overseas, it is this Congress which maintains oversight of the Executive Branch, and those who feel they can inject themselves into the American political system with campaign contributions and other forms of influence and somehow change our policy, while there may be evidence of that occurring sadly, it will change. The American people deserve nothing less than a government that deals with them honestly and protects them.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, and he addresses concerns that have been on the minds of the American people in the wake of revelations that we first saw, Mr. Speaker, on the pages of the New York Times, because as my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) knows, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, as you full well know, given the culture of this particular town and the way in which certain revelations are sometimes labeled, it almost seems as if on the part of some folks in this town there is a little box that reads: in case of emergency or a public relations meltdown, break glass and say everybody did it and everybody has made mistakes. But let us reiterate for the Record from the pages of the New York Times what was reported this weekend. Quoting now at the Energy Department: Officials waited more than a year to act on the FBI's 1997 recommendations to improve securities at the weapons laboratories and restrict the suspect's access to classified information. And even more tellingly, Mr. Speaker, the article continues, quoting again now: The department's Chief of Intelligence who raised the first alarm about the case in 1995 was ordered last year by senior officials not to tell Congress about his findings because critics might use them to attack the administration's China policies.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, while it is true I did not have the opportunity to serve concurrently with Mo Udall, the fact is, evidence of his service in this institution abounds, not only in family members who have joined us in the 106th Congress and family members who are here to celebrate Mo's memory, but also in constituents from my district. I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of coming to this Chamber this afternoon with young people from the Navaho nation, from Pinon, Shonto, who are here to learn more about Washington. Their presence here and the comments of a colleague from this floor just the other day in an informal setting really, I think, served to provide a tribute to Mo Udall, because a congressional colleague said, ``You folks from Arizona really stick together.'' Indeed, as we look at the rich legislative legacy offered by Mo Udall, it is worth noting that members of my party, John Rhodes, Barry Goldwater, others got together to ask, ``What is good for Arizona and good for America?'' Now lest my colleagues think that we sing from the same page of the hymnal on every occasion, of course not. But we champion those differences. That is what Morris K. Udall embodied, an ability to clearly and candidly express differences, unafraid. He was able to use the gift of humor to make those observations all the more eloquent, although, even today, I might take issue with some of those observations. We champion that freedom when we remember Mo Udall. Many Americans remember that, in the wake of his quest for the White House in 1976, he authored a book entitled, ``Too Funny To Be President.'' It was that typical self-deprecating wit even inherent in that title. But if he might have been too funny to be president in his own words, he was not too humorous to not be an effective legislator and to offer the people of Arizona and the people of America a clear, consistent philosophy, though not one of unanimity on all points, one that he had the right to champion, and he championed so very well. I made mention of the fact that two kinfolks of the Udall clan are now here in the Congress of the United States. I have a staffer back home who is part of the Udall family. The joke is that Mo and Stu took a left turn out of Saint John's, and some of my folks took a right turn out of the Round Valley, and that was the beginning of some of the political differences as reflected on these sides of the aisle. But, Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting, and I thank the two senior members of my delegation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), for taking this time to remember Morris K. Udall, his life, his legacy, and the challenges he would confront even as we confront today.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, did you hear the one about the liberal who markets the politics of fear? I am reminded by the previous speaker that in this Chamber, 2 years ago, we heard that the elderly would be thrown into the streets and that schoolchildren would be starved. That just was not true. And yet in the name of political hyperbole and fear, the liberals pull out the only card they know to market, to try and scare the H-E-double-hockey- sticks out of seniors. The fact is, less than a year ago, our majority in Congress moved to save 90 percent of the surplus for Social Security. We currently are working on plans to save all of that surplus for today's seniors. Sad to say, the other side offers fear. We offer hope, opportunity and reality. There is a clear difference in America, and that is why together, as Americans, we can solve problems, if we avoid the partisan temptations of fear.