J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado as well as those from Montana and California for this very informative special order. As my colleague raises the question of our relationship with China, I would invite my colleagues to rejoin me, Mr. Speaker, and those American citizens who watch these proceedings on the House floor in 1 hour's time, thereabouts, commensurate with the rules of the House in special orders, as we graciously provide time to our friends, the minority, and then return with majority viewpoint on what is transpiring in the world. But I want to thank you for the letters, the points of reference and the fact that our national security is at risk and we have to take steps to provide for the common defense. I look forward to furthering that discussion in about 1 hour's time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for his remarks and his very salient observations. I would also point out for the record, Mr. Speaker, that even while we have American fighting men and women placed in harm's way in an air campaign above Yugoslavia dealing with the challenges confronted by Kosovo, nonetheless, it is the Constitutional responsibility of this Congress to exercise oversight and to ask some important questions. And my colleague from Georgia outlines many. I would offer another. It is worth noting that our national security advisor, one Mr. Sandy Berger, prior to his employ in this administration, was a paid lobbyist for the People's Republic of China. Indeed, according to Dick Morris, the political advisor who conducted the bulk of the 1996 reelection campaign for the President, he said in a publication here on the hill, fittingly titled ``The Hill,'' quoting now: ``Sandy Berger has about as much business being national security advisor as I do.'' My friend from Georgia brought up the curiosities of the conduct of our attorney general. And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this House and our colleagues take a look at a commentary by this same Dick Morris appearing on the pages of the New York Post today where he outlines some very curious conduct and speculates on the reasons why the attorney general has been so reticent to take up these investigations and to exercise her constitutional authority to ensure that laws are being obeyed and, I might add, the same constitutional charge that we take on in an oath, that our friends in the executive branch take on, when we raise our right hand and swear to faithfully execute and protect and uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a very troublesome situation on our hands. My colleague from Georgia also mentioned the testimony today of Johnny Chung. I must, Mr. Speaker, confess to this House and to the American people at large how dismayed I am with my former colleagues in broadcast journalism, even now with the advent of 24-hour news networks, how noticeably devoid the cable cast and the broadcast fair was of coverage of the testimony of Johnny Chung today before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Contrast that with the gavel-to-gavel coverage in 1987 of the Iran- Contra hearings during the Republican administration. And please do not misunderstand, because I know the temptation of some on the left is to engage in cat calls and to say this is simply whining. But when we have observers from partisan think tanks, both left and right, saying that the news judgment of the major networks and the cable networks is sadly askew when they refuse to offer gavel-to-gavel coverage I think again, in our free society, sadly, some purveyors of information choose not to highlight issues that go to the very core of our national survival and our national security.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, ofttimes I have the privilege of visiting elementary schools in the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, the folks whom I represent, and enjoy reading to elementary schoolchildren a book entitled ``House Mouse, Senate Mouse'', and it tells the story in bipartisan, or nonpartisan, fashion of the legislative process. It is written in verse, and it follows a letter sent to Capitol Hill by a group of schoolchildren. And as I point out to the students, if they ever want to receive a lot of mail, they need only be elected to the Congress of the United States, and they will receive mail on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, this time of year, I am sure my colleagues would concur, among the pieces of mail we get are a variety of commencement announcements and graduation invitations, and I received one such invitation today from one of this Nation's foremost institutions, the United States Military Academy at West Point. The announcement reads as follows: ``Congressman Hayworth, after 4 years, I wanted to write and thank you for the appointment to the United States Military Academy you obtained for me in 1995. I am graduating and will be a commissioned armor officer stationed in Germany. I look forward to this exciting challenge. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve my country and fulfill a childhood dream.'' And the young man about to be commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the United States Army sent his graduation picture along. And, indeed, as a previous Member of this Chamber long ago reflected upon this job, indeed one man in American history, the only man thus far to serve as President following the service in that same job of his own father, John Quincy Adams, who, following his service as President, was asked by the people of Massachusetts to return to government service in this role, as a Member of Congress, said, ``There is no greater honor than serving in the people's House.'' And I would only add to that, Mr. Speaker, by saying one of the great honors of service in this House is the opportunity to appoint outstanding young men and women to our military academies because their sense of duty, honor and country serves as an example to us all. I have also had an occasion to travel around the width and breadth of the district I represent here, a district in square mileage that is almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Across the width and breadth of eastern Arizona, from the small hamlet of Franklin in southern Greenlee County, north to Four Corners on the sovereign Navajo Nation, west to Flagstaff, and south again to Florence, including portions of metropolitan Phoenix, North Scottsdale, Central Mesa, and what we call the East Valley, a district of incredible contrasts and diversity. And yet the stories remain the same, stories of proud service to our country. In Pinal County last month I had occasion to speak at the dedication of a new city hall in Casa Grande, Arizona. And that city hall is a unique design for it is a renovation of the historic Casa Grande High School, and the city hall dedication almost served as a mini reunion for the proud alumni of Casa Grande High. One of those who joined us that day was a member of the class of 1941, and he brought his school photograph, not unlike the West Point cadet who I mentioned earlier. This year, this alumnus of Casa Grande High School, brought his high school yearbook picture; and he related to me the story of how his dreams were deferred because of his sense of duty and the ominous and momentous acts, acts that have been recorded in history by our late President Franklin Roosevelt, who stood not far from this spot and proclaimed December 7, 1941, as a day which would live in infamy. That proud member of the class of 1941 at Casa Grande High School spoke of his commitment to our Nation and his realization that the freedom we enjoy is never free. It comes at great cost. And I mention my two constituents this evening, Mr. Speaker, one preparing to graduate, to become a commissioned officer in the United States Army; the other, now an honored senior citizen who gave the flower of his youth, the prime of his life, indeed, as one Hollywood motion picture of the 1940s was entitled ``The Best Years Of Their Lives'', to preserving the freedom of our constitutional republic. And I am reminded of Mark Twain's observation, which I have shared with the Speaker many times on the floor of this House, that history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Challenges remain, but we should thank our Heavenly Father that there are those who are willing to step forward to meet those challenges. And a recurring theme throughout the history of this constitutional republic is the resiliency and the resolve of the American people. When confronted with a crisis, when put in harm's way, when our very national survival is threatened, the American people instinctively understand that to have economic security, that to have security in one's home, in one's community, we must also have a strong sense of national security. We have been willing to step forward. And, Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I come to this floor tonight to relate and bring to the Congressional Record and highlight different articles that have appeared in prominent national newspapers reporting on a crisis that we face today, a crisis which we need not shrink from, which we dare not shrink from, which both history and duty compel us to confront. Joyce Howard Price writes in yesterday's Washington Times, and I quote, ``Energy Secretary Bill Richardson admitted Sunday that the Chinese government has obtained nuclear secrets during the Clinton administration despite the President's claims to the contrary. There have been damaging security leaks. The Chinese have obtained damaging information during past administrations and the current administration,'' Mr. Richardson said on NBC's Meet the Press. The Energy Secretary's comments contradict President Clinton's statement of March 19. Mr. Clinton was asked about a classified congressional report detailing leaks at the nuclear weapons laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico. The initial disclosure of the congressional report, published in The New York Times, said the spying began in the 1980s but was not discovered until 1995. ``To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the labs during my Presidency,'' the President said. According to The New York Times, counter-intelligence experts told senior Clinton administration officials in November that China posed an acute intelligence threat to the weapons labs. The counterintelligence report, purportedly distributed to Mr. Richardson and others in the highest levels of the administration, and I would parenthetically add here that would include the President of the United States, warned that China was constantly penetrating computers at the nuclear weapons labs. ``The document revealed that the Energy Department, which has authority over nuclear weapons labs, recorded 324 attacks on its unclassified computer systems from outside the United States between October 1997 and June 1998. China was the worst offender. But there were others as well,'' the report said. Mr. Speaker, from today's New York Times, William J. Broad writes: ``Secrets that China stole in 1997 about a space radar that can expose submerged submarines could aid it in finding subs from commercial satellites or airplanes and might also help it hide its own undersea weapons, intelligence experts say. ``For two decades, seeking to protect its submarine fleet from such surveillance, the Pentagon has tried to monopolize the radar. When it made its debut in 1978 with surprising powers of discernment, military powers blocked public release of satellite photos that showed deep, normally invisible wakes of speeding craft. Last year the military had the Federal Government set strict limits on the visual powers of proposed commercial radar satellites. ``Now it turns out, according to Pentagon officials, that an American scientist gave radar secrets to China in 1997, forcibly easing the Pentagon's grip. The implications of this disclosure are unclear because the size of the breach is unknown publicly and because the secret method is reportedly difficult to put into practice even after years of study. But at worst, experts say, American subs are now in danger of losing some of their cover. Among the vulnerable are missile subs, the most important part of the Nation's nuclear arsenal because of their stealthiness. ``Publicly, the unanswered questions include how deep submarines must go to elude radar prying, and sea currents and temperatures can help restore visibility, and how advances with submarines, satellites, and computers will most likely affect such probing in the future. ``Today the radar technique is believed to be able to uncloak submarines hundreds of feet beneath the waves but not thousands of feet. Experts say that recent trends have already hurt the Pentagon's game and the Chinese espionage, at least in theory, has made things worse.'' ``As for China, it can use the stolen technology not only to hunt foreign subs but also to better cloak its own submarines finding ways to reduce the deep wakes that produce subtle clues of stealthy movement.'' Mr. Speaker, these two articles from two prominent national publications today and yesterday compel this House to again renew the call, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the bipartisan Select Committee on Unauthorized Transfers of Technology to China, informally known as the Cox committee, that the report of that Select Committee be released at once to the American people. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time, at least 4 months, indeed just after the convening of this 106th Congress the Cox committee, in a bipartisan fashion, completed its report. Its findings are available to Members of the House once Members of Congress are willing to submit to a classified briefing. But, Mr. Speaker, I must again say that, with each passing day, the American people are deprived of the full knowledge they deserve of the extent to which China has penetrated our nuclear labs, stolen our nuclear secrets, and left this country with what euphemistically can be called a challenge with what, Mr. Speaker, must more realistically be called a clear, present threat. Mr. Speaker, the articles appearing in our major newspapers have given way to opinion columns. William Safire, a syndicated columnist, in this morning's Mesa Arizona Tribune in a column entitled ``Connect the Dots on China,'' has this to say: Mr. Safire relates that he called three friends in the Department of Energy, Defense, and Justice and asked them to turn on their office computers and read the first banner that came on their screens. ``Anyone using this system expressly consents to monitoring,'' is the message. ``Government employees using Government equipment on Government time thus waive privacy claims. ``Wen Ho Lee, the scientist who downloaded millions of lines of the nation's most secret codes to a computer easy to penetrate, also signed a waiver consenting to a search of his computer without his knowledge. And yet the Reno Justice Department denied the FBI's request for permission to search Lee's government computer. ``Eric Holder, Janet Reno's deputy, decided that a court search warrant was necessary but then refused to apply to the special foreign surveillance court to get it. Of more than 700 such FBI requests a year, a surveillance official admits that a flat turndown is extremely rare.'' ``Why?'' Mr. Safire writes and asks, ``why this one?''

Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

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

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas, detail a genuine problem. And as the citizen honored to represent the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, home to many of America's seniors who endured a Great Depression, who took part in World War II, who built our American economy into the envy of the world, and who now, in their golden years, have time to enjoy a quality of life unparalleled, I still understand that for many there are genuine problems. How unfortunate it is, then, Madam Speaker, that when those of us in our commonsense, conservative majority move in a bipartisan manner to offer real choices to help the neediest seniors in our society, to offer alternative plans out from the auspices and away from the auspices of big government and bureaucratic solutions, how unfortunate it is that those who claim to want a bipartisan remedy turn a deaf ear, Madam Speaker, I think particularly to the latest effort to help us save and strengthen Medicare: to a bipartisan Commission, with noteworthy Americans from coast-to-coast, and in particular representatives of both parties, the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, and my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who took a long, hard look at Medicare, especially in the wake of the courageous steps this Congress took in the face of withering propaganda which the press accurately described as Mediscare, intent on scaring our seniors and obscuring the choices, and yet, despite that, we came back, we saved Medicare, and yet we want to strengthen it in additional ways. How interesting it was, Madam Speaker, to observe the labors of that bipartisan commission, and how wonderful it was to see Senator Breaux and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) truly fashion a bipartisan solution. How sad it is to report, Madam Speaker, the unfortunate efforts of some to avoid a solution, to avoid helping the neediest seniors, and instead, attempt to invent an issue. Madam Speaker, in a few short days a Star Wars prequel will be released, it may already have been in the theaters, with wonderful flights of fantasy and fiction, but Madam Speaker, we have not a prequel but a sequel about to be unfurled, Mediscare II. Because in the wake of the bipartisan solution that Senator Breaux, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and others from both sides of the aisle fashioned, the word went out from the White House: A supermajority of 11 members of this Commission had to vote to approve the Commission's recommendations to take those good ideas and move them into the realm of sound public policy. Sadly, Madam Speaker, the word went out from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, from our president, that by actually embracing the bipartisan solution, some in this Chamber of the liberal persuasion would be deprived of an issue, an issue to drive a wedge among Americans, an issue to again scare seniors. Thus, Mediscare II took flight, because 10 members of the Commission voted for this commonsense solution to help the neediest seniors, but the presidential appointees from this body refused to vote for the program. How ironic it was, Madam Speaker, that our president, one who has come to this Chamber again and again and offered words of reconciliation and the term ``bipartisanship,'' how sad it is that he sent those instructions, and how unfortunate it is that our president, the afternoon the Medicare Commission's recommendations were voted down, had the audacity to appear on television and say again, we have to solve the Medicare question in a bipartisan way. Madam Speaker, we spoke yesterday of teachers, and our first teachers are our parents. A fundamental lesson most Americans learn is that we should do what we say, live up to our words, and mean what we say. How unfortunate it is that our president continues to be engulfed not in a credibility gap, but sadly, in a credibility canyon, where his words and his deeds, whether personal, political, or in terms of policy, fail to reconcile with his actions; the latest example, of course, being this Mediscare II. And I appreciate the words of my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas. But let me also say that we should really work in a bipartisan fashion. I would welcome my friends on the left to truly embrace a bipartisan solution. But as we have heard from pundits in this town and nationwide, some folks here are not interested in solving problems. Some folks here do not want to embrace a solution that would strengthen Medicare and save social security. Some folks would rather have an issue that they believe can hang like a sword of Damocles over the commonsense, conservative majority. Madam Speaker, we all confront many challenges in Washington, and we are thankful for the give and take on this floor. But Madam Speaker, to those who would embrace the cynical politics of overpromising and failing to truly live up to their mission, I believe history will render a harsh verdict. I believe the very people they claim to want to help are the people who will suffer the most. We will hear more Orwellian speeches from the left in the days to come. How mindful it is of George Orwell's novel 1984, and the phrase, ``Ignorance is strength.'' I do not believe that is true. I believe the facts will reign, and I look forward to working in a truly bipartisan fashion to save Medicare and help our neediest seniors.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the special order time of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon, and first let me offer a debt of gratitude to my friend from Ohio who, in very Orwellian fashion, has offered the rhetoric of fear rather than facts that we will hear in Campaign 2000. Indeed, it is very revealing to now hear the ``Mediscare'' tactics of the left, to deny the fact that the very reason the Medicare trustees say that Medicare's life has been lengthened was because of the new majority's plan to save Medicare that we successfully enacted after the jihad that was waged against us, politically speaking, in 1996 with a liberal Mediscare plan. It is also worth noting, while we are in the neighborhood, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan commission, headed by the gentleman from Louisiana in the other body, and the gentleman from California with whom I am pleased to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means offered a variety of avenues that give seniors, our most honored citizens, a variety of choices. It is revealing that there are those who would like to limit the freedom of Americans to make choices in their own interests. But I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to speak of another matter that goes directly to the core of our survival as a constitutional republic. It is, Mr. Speaker, the people's right to know. Mr. Speaker, in the very near future, it is my understanding that Johnny Chung will testify before the House Committee on Government Reform about contributions, political contributions the Communist Chinese Government made to the Clinton/Gore campaign and to the Democratic National Committee in 1996. It has been interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note the coverage, or perhaps lack thereof, of this important issue in the Nation's press. Now, to be sure, Mr. Speaker, I understand full well the nature and the scope of the first amendment to the Constitution, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press, nor would I ever advocate such a dereliction or disruption of our first amendment rights. But it is fair, Mr. Speaker, in the marketplace of ideas to ask my former colleagues in television, where will they be when Johnny Chung comes before the congressional committee to testify about these contributions? We should also say in passing, a tip of the rhetorical hat is necessary to many publications, whether the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, many mainstream publications who have chronicled the abuses. But now, Mr. Speaker, it is time for my former colleagues in television to step up, specifically those news networks that are available via cable with 24-hour-a-day coverage. Without trying to set their agenda, but in the spirit of constructive criticism and open dialogue in a free republic, I would challenge the cable news networks, I would challenge public broadcasting, to follow the example of C-SPAN. And from this vantage point I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we congratulate C-SPAN on 20 years of service to the American people, bringing to the people of our Nation an unvarnished, straight conduit of what happens in the halls of Congress, what happens on the floor of this House and what happens in the many committee rooms. But I would welcome far more exposure of these hearings. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one is tempted to look at the recent promotional campaign of the Public Broadcasting Service and the rhetorical question that is asked: ``If PBS won't do it, who will?'' Indeed, I think of the recent past when I was a private citizen in the 1980s, the mid- to late-1980s, seeing on public television gavel- to-gavel coverage of the confirmation hearings of Judge Bork, the confirmation hearings eventually of Mr. Justice Thomas, and all the mainstream media scrutiny. How much more important it is then, Mr. Speaker, that the media devote its considerable energies and its agenda-setting ability to checking into these disturbing allegations that go to the very fabric of our constitutional Republic. For, Mr. Speaker, if there are those both within and outside government who seek to influence decisions and policy for another government that wishes us ill, the consequences for our national survival are grave indeed.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is important for this House to note, and for those who are citizens of this constitutional Republic to note, that what we are talking about today is other people's money. The money spent in our Treasury is not the money of the government; it belongs to the people. And yet what we have found over the years is that it has been easy time and again for those in this body to raise taxes. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that one of the reasons I am now here in this Chamber, representing the good people of the Sixth Congressional District, is that they would not stand idly by when a previous House levied on the American people the largest tax increase in the history of the world, to quote the senior Senator from New York, who happens to be a Member of the Democratic party. So this amendment simply says when we are going to raise taxes, we will make it more difficult. We will require a supermajority. As my colleague from Pennsylvania noted, it will take a supermajority to pass this amendment. And as American taxpayers know, this is the right thing to do. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that my colleagues on the left want to posture in the name of reform. After all, they, and to tell the truth, all the American people, have been embarrassed by an administration that took campaign donations from the People's Republic of China. That is despicable. So we would ask in a bipartisan fashion that they join with us to get to the bottom of Chinese influence on our government and on our political system, and that is the real step to reform. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friends on the left to give the working men and women of America who happen to belong to unions the right to devote their union dues directly to collective bargaining, instead of going into the campaign coffers of liberal interest groups. That is another real step for reform. Let us have true bipartisanship and true reform, quit the preening and posturing, and stand up for America.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Is it appropriate when announcing the orders of the day to provide certain editorial comments?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I must lament the fact that there are those who feel they must come to the floor and, amidst partisan vitriol and venom, misrepresent what was done for the Nation's veterans. Because, Mr. Speaker, I too have the honor and privilege of serving on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and it is time for some facts. President Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' It is important for my friend from California and all those who would lampoon and lambast this budget to understand this: An additional $1 billion was added for the Nation's veterans. $1,000 million, $1 billion, was added for our Nation's veterans. That is a fact. The sad fact is the President of the United States came to the well of this House a few months ago and in the span of 77 minutes made over 80 promises, but he failed to answer to the call of the Nation's vets. That is why a version of his budget today received only a handful of votes. And I would just hope, Mr. Speaker, that my friends on the minority who say they want to help veterans will extend that help to young men and women in the service now, giving them the proper equipment and training. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on a day when American men and women in uniform may go into harm's way, headlines scream of Kosovo. That is a concern, but there are also concerns this morning in North Korea. The Washington Times reports this morning, and I quote, ``Vital parts of a 50-megawatt North Korean nuclear reactor have been missing since international inspectors first visited the site under the terms of a 1994 nuclear-freeze pact with the United States. ``The absence of the reactor parts, which could be used to construct another reactor, was known by some State Department officials but was never disclosed to Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, on a morning when people may go into harm's way, the State Department did not notify us of this Korean breach. The Energy Department did not notify us of an espionage breach. We need straight answers from our administration and from our commander in chief.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to bring you news from home. In my case home is the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, a district in square mileage almost the size of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and now with the explosive growth in the Grand Canyon State a district that is home to well nigh one million Americans. From the pages of the Holbrook Tribune-News, indeed from the editorial page of March 19, the headline reads, ``This Story Needs More Attention.'' Paul Barger, the publisher of the Holbrook Tribune-News, writes, and I quote, ``For some time there have been reports circulating regarding the possible theft of highly classified missile secrets from Los Alamos since the 1980s. The thefts were apparently discovered in 1995, and the person allegedly involved was allowed to resign recently. The matter has been kept quiet for what seem to be political reasons.'' Paul Barger concludes, ``It is sad that so much attention is given to issues of no real import while serious matters of our national security and America's future are glossed over.'' Thus, the headline from the editorial, ``This Story Needs More Attention.'' Among those who curiously seem to want to adopt a public posture of glossing over or indeed gloating in a sophomoric way about this troublesome, threatening and dangerous story, among those sadly includes the person who is the President of the United States. At a radio and TV correspondents' dinner the other night, our own President joked that one of his favorite movies this year was, quote, Leaving Los Alamos; humor as it is defined in the last days of the 20th century. It boggles the mind. Other matters glossed over, the past associations of the President's national security advisor. From yesterday's Washington Times on the op- ed page, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett, II, who coauthored the book the ``Year of the Rat,'' setting forth the ample evidence of Chinese involvement in the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in 1996, I read from their op-ed piece, headlined ``Leaks on Berger's Watch,'' quoting now: ``We believe that, for the national interest, President Clinton's national security advisor Samuel Sandy Berger should resign immediately. ``For the past 6 years, Mr. Berger has presided over a failed and ultimately corrupt policy toward the Chinese military that betrays both the democratic standards of the American people and the national security of the United States. He is the classic example of the wrong person in the wrong job at the wrong time. ``Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.'' Let me repeat that. ``Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office. ``Having once had a personal financial stake in the promotion of pro- Beijing policies raises an immediate question of his present judgment and decision-making. If only for appearances, let alone personal ethics, he should have recused himself from anything connected to Beijing and its military ambitions. ``Instead, Mr. Berger seems to be around whenever, in our opinion, Clinton administration decisions are made that favor People's Republic of China trade ties over American national security interests.'' Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most compelling indictment comes from one Dick Morris, the President's one-time top political advisor, and curiously a man whom the wire services often referred to as the disgraced Dick Morris back in the old days of 1996, when an illicit affair that violated one's marriage vows was something that brought disgrace on a person rather than added to their public opinion polls. Here is what Dick Morris writes in his column last week in The Hill. Quoting now, ``Sandy Berger is about as qualified to be national security advisor as I am. He's a political operative who had virtually no foreign policy experience before he became Tony Lake's deputy.'' Mr. Speaker, this story need not be glossed over. The first constructive step is that Sandy Berger must go, and we must release the Cox Select Committee Report.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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. As we discovered in working with Native American groups and other concerned constituencies in the field hearings in Phoenix, we have many Indian communities. While some enjoy an economic boom and take advantage of new economic opportunities, I was meeting earlier today with a group of high school students who came to see me from the Close-up Foundation, from the Navajo Nation and understand, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment on the sovereign Navajo nation, an area in geographic size almost the size of the State of West Virginia, transcending the boundaries of four of our sovereign states, unemployment on the reservations can top and exceed 50 percent in some cases. So jobs, be they temporary, are welcome and indeed there would be a lot of people. This is one of the topics we addressed today, what happens for economic empowerment because as we all know and as I remarked to the Navajo Tribal Council when I was honored to address that assembly in Window Rock, Arizona, the Navajo Nation capital, the greatest social program in the world is a job.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, my friend from Florida has cleared up one mystery. There are many citizens around this country that really wondered about the function of the Commerce Department to begin with. So at least now we know that the Commerce Department is the Cabinet level agency that has authority over the census. So, that is important to know, that there is that very important and vital function, but my colleague from Florida is quite right. I can recall in our hearing in Phoenix and in our visit to the Gila River Indian community and meeting with the school kids and the citizens of the health clinic and those who are involved in the tribal council that here are people who appreciate the notion of self government and sovereignty who are willing to count and willing to meet those challenges and eager to do so. And then you have the situation like just occurred in the committee where actually one has to pull teeth with the minority side to move to reasonable, rational positions to bring about the desired goal of a full count or at least what should be the desired goal of a full count.

Mr. HAYWORTH. It is interesting because it evokes another visit to the political dictionary and the lexicon of terms that we find in vogue in our Nation's capital. We hear a lot of talk about compassion. When we stop and think about it, Mr. Speaker, how best can we define compassion? We hear a lot of rhetoric on the left about it. I think a lot of us would view compassion with two words; an attitude rather than a definition. True compassion means everybody counts. So if everybody counts, why not count everybody? Why not live up to the standards of our constitution in Article I Section 2? Why not follow the decision of our Supreme Court? Why not employ true compassion and make sure everybody counts by counting everybody?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I just have a thought, if my friend from Florida would yield. We hear so much talk in this city about civility, and, of course, we should recognize that the first rule of civility is telling the truth. But apart from that, we also hear how there should be bipartisanship. Indeed today on this floor at long last, despite the best efforts of liberals in this Chamber to drag their feet and delay and oppose a strategic missile defense system, at long last this Congress had a bipartisan vote saying it will be the mission of this country to act in its own self-defense for a strategic missile system. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be good for our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in true bipartisanship. Now, of course, Washington, and sadly members of the press corps here have a very interesting definition of what is bipartisan. In this town, to hear the liberal community speak, whether from the printed page or from the political rhetoric of the other side, bipartisanship means the majority abandoning the goals for which it was elected to be made malleable and reshaped by the whim of the minority. I do not believe that definition of bipartisanship, as prevalent as it may be in some Georgetown parlors and down the street at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, is really an operative definition of bipartisanship. Far better that our friends who seek civility opt for the truth and join us in an intellectually rigorous, honorable and honest count, enumeration for the census as called for in our Constitution and as reaffirmed this past January by the Supreme Court. I think that would be a step toward true civility. That would be a step toward true bipartisanship. I would say tonight that we reach out and extend our hand to say, let us preserve the Constitution. Here is another chance to stand up for the rule of law, here is another chance to act like statesmen. Join us in following the edicts of the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I should make the point, Mr. Speaker, that just yesterday I was contacted by members of the Arizona legislature concerned about this. Indeed, in recent weeks, officials of county government nationwide and from the various cities have visited Washington. All of the mayors and the county executives and the State legislators with whom I have spoken have expressed grave concerns about the machinations of this administration and its apparent willingness once again, quite frankly, to disobey the law of the land. So, Mr. Speaker, again in our constitutional republic, given the magnificent ability to freely express ideas, and mindful of this free flow of information from coast to coast and to Alaska and Hawaii, once again, Mr. Speaker, we have to call the American people to action. There are those when I first came here, Mr. Speaker, who spoke of some sort of revolution. Our Vice President, the same Vice President who claimed just last week he was the father of the Internet and he has cleared all sorts of new ground with a double ax in his farming days, that selfsame Vice President speaks of a reinvention of government. Mr. Speaker, I believe quite frankly both of those labels miss the mark. I believe what we should be about in this Congress, whether conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, what we should be about is a restoration, not a revolution, not a reinvention but a restoration, and that is to say that we should take quite literally what our Founders said to be the law of the land. We stand here at the outset of every congressional session, those of us who have been honored with election, and we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. It calls for enumeration, counting of citizens. The Supreme Court has upheld it, and yet this crowd on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue wants to ignore it. I think my colleague from Florida is correct to point out the concerns of the cities, the counties and State governments in this regard, and, Mr. Speaker, I would call on the great grassroots of America to let their thoughts be known. There is one other question I have for my colleague from Florida. I have heard talk, again from what I call the punditocracy, all the folks who show up on television to offer their opinions of the day and offer them in a variety of columns on the opinion-editorial pages of papers around the country, I have heard that again this political mission is so important to our current President that he may be willing to shut down the government over this issue. Is there some veracity to that possibility?

Mr. HAYWORTH. In fact, since we are dealing with a crowd, of course, who give us different definitions for the word ``is'' and the meaning of the word ``alone,'' who tell us that China should be our strategic partner although we know now in the fullness of time that strategic partnership dealt with a particular presidential campaign, this Clinton-Gore team's reelection effort in 1996, now we have a new definition of counting and a new definition of what the census should be. So we are getting all of this double talk and followed by a double count from this crowd down at the Census Bureau.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And moreover, my colleague from Florida made mention of the fact that I am also honored to represent more Native Americans than any other Member of Congress in the United States; indeed almost one quarter of the population of the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona is American Indian; and, as was pointed out in the hearings held in Phoenix, many of those Native Americans live in remote areas, areas where they are known, for example, on the great and sovereign Navajo Nation, in areas with a lack of population density; but those in the chapter houses, in the local units of government, tribal government at its most basic, know where the people live, you see, because it is where they grew up. But what a metaphor for the two different attitudes that exist now in the final days of the 20th century in Washington, D.C. You have the new majority, which believes that one size does not fit all, that our policies should not be Washington bureaucrat driven, that we should not check common sense or the power of observation at a department level door or a cubicle in Washington, D.C., that instead we should turn to local experts, to those who are living their daily lives in their locales, in their communities, with special challenges who acknowledge that Phoenix, Arizona, is a different place from Phoenix City, Alabama. And then on the other hand, we have our friends on the left who continue to embrace this outmoded notion that only Washington knows best, that somehow inside this Beltway, within the parameters made possible by the Potomac, that only those who sit here and work at a desk in a cubicle for the Federal Government have the answer, and how dare mayors, and city councilmen, and county executives, and State legislators and those closer to the situation and the true meaning of federalism, how dare they, as duly elected officials, weigh in knowing traffic patterns, knowing housing patterns, knowing their cities, towns, boroughs and counties, how dare they step up when instead we can have people in Washington who can guess and guess through statistical legerdemain of the very clever way to produce a desired political outcome. Indeed, as our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio and chairman of the Committee on the Budget (Mr. Kasich) says, this common sense majority is all about transferring money, power and influence out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and back home to people who live their daily lives and now again in a most reckless transparently political and lawless fashion the crowd on the left wants to say: Washington knows best, we are going to continue the double-talk, have a double count and twist and shape the equations and numbers for our own desired ends. It is sick, it is cynical, and, Mr. Speaker, I reflect on a term that was coined when I was growing up in describing another liberal administration in this town in its conduct of foreign policy and a variety of other issues. In the late 1960's there was talk of a credibility gap. Mr. Speaker, how sad it is that in the case of this crowd we have a credibility canyon. Indeed rhetorically it rivals the splendor of the Grand Canyon within the boundaries of my great State. In Washington, D.C. there is this credibility canyon whether in terms of personal responsibility, or boastful claims or arrogant assertions that someone is above the law or, in another fashion, there is no controlling legal authority. Now again we are confronted with the incredible swath and distance, the gulf between the objective truth and the sick, cynical, political manipulation of victimhood and arrogance that says: We are above the law. We are not going to listen to the Supreme Court. We are not going to listen to the American people. But in a most cynical fashion we will twist the numbers and come up with account that achieves its desired ends, and that is basically the debate in full flower we are seeing. The question is one of trust. As my colleague from Florida says: Who do you trust? At long last, Mr. Speaker, who can you trust? Good people can disagree. This is not about the merits of disagreement. This is about the designs of a sick, cynical scheme and a bald face grab for power.

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.