J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we return from district work periods where we have heard the wisdom of the people. Lincoln said, the American people, once fully informed, will make the correct decision. I heard some very interesting things from my constituents this week. I would refer this House, Mr. Speaker, to the comments of the President of the United States and one of the more senior Members of this institution from Massachusetts. The President of the United States earlier this year in Buffalo, New York, said, ``We could give it, the budget surplus, all back to you and hope you spend it right, but,'' ``but.'' Mr. Speaker, that speaks volumes, because given a choice, our president, sadly, believes that Washington bureaucrats need our hard-earned money more than we do. Then, a senior Member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), yesterday said, speaking of the liberals, ``It is not our responsibility to legislate anymore. It does not make sense for us to compromise.'' Mr. Speaker, a legislator refusing to legislate? I hope we do not see a lot of preening and posturing and politics instead of policy.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my committee chairman and the dean of our delegation from Arizona for yielding me this time; and, indeed, as I see him manage the time on our side of the aisle, I cannot help but note his record of service not only in this institution but in wearing the uniform of this country. He is far too modest and self- effacing to speak of his war record. There was a job to be done and, as a younger man, he stepped forward to do it. But, Mr. Speaker, our chairman bears living witness to the sacrifice of so many comrades in arms who fought in history's largest war and, indeed, in our greatest struggle to preserve our constitutional republic. And for those veterans and for those of us whom history has not called upon to sacrifice, this legislation provides a suitable, common-sense way to fund and expedite construction of a monument to remember all veterans of World War II. It is perhaps a comment on Washington, Mr. Speaker, that, as our chairman very capably pointed out in passing, it has taken longer to get to this point in terms of funding this wonderfully proposed monument than it took for us to fight and win that war. Washington, Mr. Speaker, it seems, has a marvelous way of complicating matters. We can step into the elevator here that brings us to the floor and see 16 rules for House elevator operators. That, Mr. Speaker, when the Lord our God only gave us Ten Commandments to follow. So again we are trying to cut through what that wonderful acronym of that war brought us, a snafu. I will not elaborate any further, Mr. Speaker, noting the decorum of this floor, and move to get this monument in fact created and realized. But there is something else we should realize. No matter the conflict, no matter the time when men and women have worn the uniform of our country, this legislation also provides a much-needed cost of living adjustment for those veterans who have a service-related disability, for those veterans who depend on those benefits. Indeed, as our Constitution points out in its beautiful preamble, we are to provide for the common defense. But with this legislation, a common- sense, well-crafted, bipartisan piece of work, we help to provide for those who have provided for our common defense. I would ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2280 as amended.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, no matter the issue, no matter the arguments, there is one principle which undergirds the proceedings in this House Chamber and one principle which we should rise to uphold. It is enshrined forever in the three opening words of the living document that we swear allegiance to, our Constitution, as our Founders had the great and good sense to use the words, ``We, the people.'' President Lincoln offered validation of that perspective over 100 years later when he spoke in Gettysburg of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Mr. Speaker, today, shortly, as we take up legislation on this floor, we will consider measures to help provide for those who have provided for our common defense. Whether the issue is veterans' health care, health care for all Americans, or our fiscal responsibility, we would do well to be guided by the words of our Founders.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, for the time. I salute Members on both sides of the aisle who have brought forth this common-sense, bipartisan legislation, and I would simply direct the committee's attention to the special needs reflected in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona and indeed throughout a portion of our Nation that has come to be called Indian country. As the Representative of the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona, one in every four of my constituents is Native American, and during consideration of this bill, our committee adopted a tribal welfare amendment that would aid tribal communities in fulfilling their duty to serve Indian foster children and the underprivileged. In the initial language of H.R. 1802, a requirement was that States inform tribes of the services available, and that is an improvement over current law that remains silent with reference to the role of tribal governments, but our amendment strengthens the provision by requiring States to consult with tribes about the development of independent living services rather than simply informing tribes of such services. It also requires that the States make an effort to coordinate with tribes in providing these services. This reaffirms something that we have come to acknowledge as basic truth here in the last part of the 20th century, that those closest to the problem can help identify it and help solve it. Tribes are in the best position to know the needs of Indian children and of possible local resources available for assistance, and this amendment is a first step in recognizing the level of communication and coordination that is necessary for the provision of independent living services. One other point. Under current welfare law, States have unlimited authority to carry over unobligated funds under the heading of temporary assistance to needy families, the acronym known as TANF, and the second provision in my amendment would allow tribes likewise to carry over unobligated tribal TANF moneys, and this would allow tribes greater flexibility and is very important that the foster children of the first Americans not remain forgotten, and I salute the committee and those on both sides of the aisle who have taken that step. Again I ask for passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will reform the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and mitigate its devastating impact on America's industries. My bill, which would help all types of businesses that are locked in the AMT, has attracted the support of firms in the mining, steel, oil and gas, paper, coal, building, and printing industries, among others. The corporate AMT was conceived as a way ot ensuring that companies with economic income also paid some income tax. Unfortunately, the AMT has a perverse effect on companies that make large capital investments in plants and equipment but suffer from low prices for their output. Frequently, these businesses make commodity products that have small profit margins and are subject to intense international competition. Start-up businesses and rapidly growing companies whose profit margins may be slim in relation to their investment are also affected by the AMT. Extractive industries are another example of those locked into the AMT. And companies in a loss position must routinely borrow money to pay their AMT, even though they have no economic income. Once in the AMT, a corporation often has problems getting back into the ``regular tax'' and then using up the AMT credits accumulated during its time in the AMT. My legislation aims to end this vicious cycle by allowing companies that have AMT credits that are more than three years old to use their AMT credits to offset up to 50 percent of their tentative minimum tax. For firms that are currently of of the AMT but carry AMT credit balances, the bill would increase the amount of credits they are able to use currently, Finally, for companies in an AMT loss position in the current and two prior years, the bill would permit a 10-year AMT loss carryback. As Congress moves forward on tax relief legislation, it is imperative that we keep in mind the fiscal problems of our nation's basic industries. AMT relief is crtical for long-term AMT taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to join in this important and timely effort.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of working Americans and every American, because we have reached a milestone on the calendar. Today, June 22, 1999, ranks as Cost of Government Day. Now, it is true that yesterday, with the summer solstice gave us our longest period of daylight, the longest day of the year, but, Madam Speaker, I believe all Americans, especially those who work so hard to feed their families, need to know that today marks the day, 170-plus days into the calendar year, when Americans can finally go to work for their families instead of paying the cost of our bloated bureaucracy and government. What does it mean to working families, Madam Speaker? What does it mean to every American? Well, simply this: According to Americans for Tax Reform, Madam Speaker, Federal regulations during 1998 cost American taxpayers over $1 trillion. That translates to over $3,800 for every man, woman and child this year. Americans for Tax Reform estimates that working American will work in excess of 1 month, almost 40 days, in excess of 38 days, to pay for regulatory costs. Madam Speaker, that is why today I am pleased to come to the floor to announce that I will reintroduce on this, the Cost of Government Day, the Congressional Responsibility Act. It is being sponsored in the other body by my good friend, the senior Senator from Kansas Mr. Brownback. The Congressional Responsibility Act requires that new Federal regulations cannot take effect until Congress approves them and the President signs them, or until his veto is overridden. Madam Speaker, in the weight of this compelling, overwhelming evidence that our government has grown too large and costs working Americans too much, I say it is important to restore what our Constitution said and our Founders, following the beautiful Preamble which serves as more than just a mission statement for our United States; in our Constitution, the very blueprint of our Republic, says this: Article I, section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. In other words, Madam Speaker, all lawmaking authority. But as historians look back upon the 20th century, Madam Speaker, they will talk about the unintended rise of, in essence, a fourth branch of government, the regulatory branch, because to deal with emerging industries, to deal with trying to control so many sectors of our economy, the Congress ceded, delegated its authority to an alphabet soup of acronymed agencies in the executive branch, where, Madam Speaker, unelected, unaccountable Washington bureaucrats, in essence, make law. Madam Speaker, a personal indulgence. J.D. in my name does not stand for juris doctor. I am not a lawyer; I never played one on TV. That is considered an asset in Arizona. But one need not be a lawyer to recognize that when Washington bureaucrats make law, the unelected, the unaccountable suddenly have great power in our society, to the point now where we work 170-plus days every year just to pay for the cost of government; where all Americans work in excess of 1 month, in excess of 38 days to pay for regulations. What we say with the Congressional Responsibility Act is quite simple. Those regulatory agencies can continue to promulgate and formulate regulations, but, Madam Speaker, men and women of goodwill from both sides of the aisle, constitutionally elected by their constituents, are sent to Washington to make tough choices, and what the Congressional Responsibility Act would simply do would be to say this: Once a regulation is promulgated, have it sent to the Congress for an up or down vote. That way, Madam Speaker, accountability, responsibility, authority is restored where our Founders wanted it to be: with those elected to the Congress of the United States, with those who are accountable to the people. Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join Senator Brownback, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and me in sponsoring and voting for the Congressional Responsibility Act.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the honored chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to me. I would simply address my colleagues by reminding them of the situation we find ourselves in the Sixth Congressional District in Arizona, an area in square mileage almost as big as the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a district of many contrasts, part of urban Phoenix, and a sprawling rural area in which the counties are actually larger than many States on the East Coast. While in the past, and as my colleague from California capably pointed out, while urban areas we often associate with gang violence and the rise of street crime and gang activity, we also see it in the rural areas of States like Arizona. Just yesterday a young man from Winkelman, Arizona, there on the Pinal-Gila county line came to see me. He spoke of incredible activities in his rural community, concentrations of gangs, concentrations of drug activity. That was followed up with a visit from another rural county by a narcotics officer saying the same thing. What we are doing in this amendment is allowing local law enforcement agencies to use some of the $1.5 billion in Federal assistance that is set aside over the next 3 years to help combat juvenile crime. As my friend, the distinguished subcommittee chairman from Florida just pointed out, this allows a portion of those proceeds to go to anti-gang activities which are so essential to combatting youth violence, so essential to combatting the scourge of drugs, and so essential to rural law enforcement, where we have seen the incredible rise of gangs along the interstates now in Arizona, even going into what we would consider more pastoral and placid scenes. There crime is rising, gang activity is up. This amendment allows flexibility, and the underlying principle is this: That those closest to the problem, those who have to fight the problem, should be given maximum flexibility to do so. That is why I am so pleased to join my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules and my other colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), as well in offering this amendment. I urge its passage by this body.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), Mr. Chairman, although I do wish with parliamentary decorum she would address her remarks through the Chair. As former President Reagan said, facts are stubborn things. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, 300,000 convicted felons have not been prosecuted under the Brady law. Project Exile and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is a common-sense solution to say that criminals who commit crimes with firearms and with firearms in their possession will go to jail.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I wish you and my colleagues in this House a good morning, although reports that have reached us this morning from far places on the globe are not so present. We awakened today to hear of a growing crisis off the Korean Peninsula in the Yellow Sea as the respective navies of North and South Korea clash. Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that in the prerecorded comments that one of our government spokesmen offered dealing with this situation, this spokesman said, well, in the past when there has been this type of confrontation, the North Koreans retreat or back off, and, quite frankly, we are surprised that the North Koreans did not follow that action this morning. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to that government spokesman and to my colleagues precisely why the North Koreans failed to back off. See, Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is the outlaw nation of North Korea is now for all intents and purposes a nuclear power. That is the cold, grim, stark reality. Proliferation of nuclear technology, technology stolen by the Chinese Government and given to other nations like North Korea, has now borne its bitter fruit. Moreover, shockingly, surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, this administration has engaged in the willful, naive transfer of technology. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when I first arrived in the Capital City for my first term, prior to taking the oath of office I had occasion to then meet with the Secretary of Defense at that time, Secretary Perry. I asked him why this administration was so intent on giving, giving two nuclear reactors to North Korea. The Secretary responded that I needed a briefing, a briefing that, by the way, was never forthcoming, Mr. Speaker. A couple of points that we should bring out. We do not need a briefing to know that one does not put their hand on the eye of the stove when it is turned on and not expect to get burned. Now, the sad fact is that of those two reactors which this administration supplied to North Korea, within the last 6 months the U.N. inspection teams finally went in. The first thing they found out was that one reactor was intact, but the core of the second reactor was missing. Couple that with the fact that the North Koreans have developed what they call the Taepo Dong missile, an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States, and, Mr. Speaker, we begin to understand full well why the North Koreans continue to act provocatively. Add to that the extreme famine that the North Koreans find themselves in, documented cases of cannibalism; a totalitarian Communist state that does not view peace as its logical means of existence, that will have to turn to hostilities, and we see the situation that has been set up. How sad it is, Mr. Speaker, that there is such a radically different interpretation from my left-leaning friends in the administration when it comes to providing for the common defense. How sad it is, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the United States 2 years ago stood at the podium behind me here and said that our children no longer faced the threat of annihilation by nuclear missiles, that nuclear missiles were not targeted at the United States. Mr. Speaker, the President was, to be diplomatic, sorely mistaken in that evaluation. Mr. Speaker, this House and those of us who serve in the legislative branch cannot continue to allow this type of drift and uncertainty in our foreign policy and in our national security situation. We must take seriously our role to provide for the common defense. That means steps to cut off the theft of our secrets by China. That means a realistic, not a socialistic utopian view, but a realistic assessment of the threat offered by an outlaw nation like North Korea and that also entails an honest assessment of our friends, the Russians, in the Balkan theater.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, June 14, 1999, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 204, passage of H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak of a challenge and a threat that has not diminished, but indeed has grown more apparent with each passing day. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as this legislative day began during morning hour, I came to the well of this House to discuss disturbing reports that appeared on the international news wires and in various publications and in the electronic media earlier today concerning trouble in yet another dangerous location in this world, news that there had, in fact, been a naval confrontation between South Korea and the outlaw nation we know as North Korea. I was astounded, Mr. Speaker, to hear a spokesman for our government recount the action this morning by saying, well, typically when there has been a confrontation at sea between two vessels involving North and South Korea, the North Koreans in the past have chosen to not engage in any way, and we do not know why the North Koreans chose to engage in this particular instance. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at that expression of amazement on the part of one of our government spokesmen, because it has become readily, painfully, dangerously apparent that the outlaw nation of North Korea, short as it is on food for its people, confronting of famine, depleted as it is from any notion of freedom, ruled by a despot, but ironically empowered as it is by the proliferation of nuclear technologies, all these factors come together to show us why North Korea as an outlaw nation is no shrinking violet on the international scene. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we catalogue the state of affairs confronting our national security, and as we are mindful of our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, there are some disturbing realities: A bipartisan commission of this House exposing the unauthorized, unlawful transfers of technology to Communist China; subsequent reports and investigations indicate that the Chinese theft of our nuclear secrets and that the espionage is ongoing; coupled with the proliferation to other nations; the nuclear genie out of the bottle; the sharing of technologies with Pakistan; and the aforementioned rise of North Korea also through the sharing of information. But more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, than the espionage, if that is possible, is, once again, the tragic dereliction of duties that this administration has engaged in, and perhaps that is a term that works at cross-purposes for what I want to discuss tonight. Mr. Speaker, I can recall in the days following my election to this institution, prior to being sworn in to the 104th Congress, I had occasion to meet with the now former Secretary of Defense, William Perry. Secretary Perry was an apostle of a notion of strategic partnership, constructive engagement, and ultimately, the transfer of technology to North Korea. I was disturbed as a private citizen, reading even then in the early days of this administration that it was the intent of this administration to share nuclear technologies, albeit ostensibly for power and peaceful purposes, with the outlaw Nation of North Korea, the insistence of this administration to give the North Koreans a pair of nuclear reactors. My question of the Secretary that morning is a question that every American should ask: Why indeed would our Nation be so willing to give nuclear technology to the North Koreans? The upshot of the response from then Secretary of Defense Perry was that I was new to government and I really ought to get a briefing. I subsequently saw former United Nations Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick at another seminar for new Members of Congress, and she concurred with my analysis that no further briefing was necessary, that it did not take a great deal of expertise, nor a list of academic credentials a mile long, or even the length of my arm, to ascertain if someone has turned on the eye of the stove, it is not a good idea to place your hand there because you will be burned. That rather simple observation perhaps does not do justice to the threat that confronts us now in North Korea where this administration continued, Mr. Speaker, in what I believe to be incredibly dangerous, breathtakingly naive, in an almost indescribably irresponsible action, insisting upon giving the North Koreans nuclear technology, and ultimately giving the North Koreans two nuclear reactors. Mr. Speaker, I came to this House several weeks ago to report a story that has appeared in some quarters in our free press, but strangely, the major publications, Newsweek, cable news networks, broadcast networks have not followed up on the story, which is the subsequent fate of the two nuclear reactors given by the United States to the outlaw Nation of North Korea. U.N. inspectors finally were granted access to North Korea, finally got a chance to check on those two reactors, and Mr. Speaker, one reactor had its core intact, but the core of the second reactor was missing. Even more disturbing, the report in the Washington Times went on to state that a State Department official who accompanied U.N. inspectors on this visit to North Korea was called in front of congressional committees, and that State Department official was instructed by higher-ups at the State Department, Mr. Speaker, not to inform the Congress of the United States and its committees of jurisdiction of the missing reactor core. Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy as a private citizen wrote an historical account of what transpired in England in the days prior to the outbreak of World War II, or at least British involvement in that war. The title of the book was Why England Slept. At this hour, in this place, for compelling reasons we might also ask, can this constitutional republic fall into a slumber? Can the health of our economy somehow obscure the clear and present dangers presented by those who oppose us overseas? Can defining deviancy down, to use the phrase first popularized by the senior Senator from New York State, can defining the presidency down, can defining State craft and foreign policy down, to a method of spin control somehow obscure the clear and present dangers we confront? That is the situation we must face as a constitutional republic in the closing years of the 20th century. There are many pundits, many who willingly engage in what has been popularized as a spin cycle in this town, many who believe that State craft is now a matter of stage craft; that it is how one manages the public relations of embarrassing disclosures, how one feigns inattention in the wake of incredible derelictions of duty, how one somehow laughs off the stunning revelations that either through naivete or conscious, deliberate actions, those charged with defending our Constitution, providing for the common defense, and those at the very highest levels of our government have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to incredible abuses, or worse, Mr. Speaker, have actively engaged in some of those abuses. Mr. Speaker, I have observed before that at times, our Capitol city appears to be somehow transported part and parcel into an Allen Drury novel come to life. The accusations are so disturbing, the findings so compelling, the threats so real that it is as if we engage in a collective form of deception to avoid them. Mr. Speaker, I would call to my colleagues' attention and, by extension, to those who may join us a work pending by Bill Gertz, the defense of national security reporter for the Washington Times. Mr. Speaker, the book is accurately, sadly entitled, Betrayal. For whether through naivete or a distorted sense of self-interest, our secrets, our defense capabilities, our national security has been betrayed. Perhaps because the findings are so disturbing, we choose to avert our eyes. It is true that through American history there have been good and great leaders; there have also been, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, our share of scalawags and scoundrels, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have seen elected constitutional officers willingly and, by some descriptions gladly, share sensitive information or create conditions in which sensitive information can be shared with foreign powers whose goals and aims are diametrically opposed to the national interests of the United States. That is the sad juncture at which we find ourselves in this late part of the 20th century. It is unbelievable, in one sense, and sadly, as the reports continue to emanate of nuclear proliferation, as the instability infects Korea once again, as the Russian republic acts provocatively now during peacekeeping operations at Pristina, as Chinese leaders continue to act cavalierly, indeed, with the spectacle in 1995 of a Chinese leader basically threatening the United States, saying, with reference to what was transpiring on Taiwan, oh, we don't believe that you value Taiwan more than you value Los Angeles, with that type of threat we must act. For if there are those who, for whatever reason, fail to take their oaths of office seriously, fail to understand the almost reflexive, what I believe to be almost instinctive need and desire to provide for the common defense, if there are those who, for whatever reasons, find themselves incapable of that action, we must move ahead and provide that leadership in this Congress, and provide those policies which in fact provide for our common defense. Bill Gertz, in his work ``Betrayal,'' not only offers accounts of an incredible dereliction of duty, but also offers solutions that he believes and I believe, Mr. Speaker, our constitutional republic must seek in the days and years ahead if we are to protect every American family, if we are indeed to provide for our common defense. I read now in part from Bill Gertz's work, ``Betrayal.'' The first area is leadership. ``The United States must find and place in key position leaders who have two fundamental characteristics: Honesty and courage. The fact that no single senior U.S. official, with one possible exception . . . resigned to protest the national security policies of this president has revealed a crisis in leadership at all levels of government and the military. Military leaders should abandon the ``business mentality'' imposed on them by this administration's corporate-government axis. Instead, leaders must be found who do and say what is right, not merely what their superiors want to hear. The military must instill in its leaders a renewed spirit of ``attack and win'', not the vague, flabby corporate concepts of dominance and conflict prevention and peacetime activities that are common today.'' Secondly, Bill Gertz suggests missile defense. Again quoting from his work, ``The greatest strategic threat to the United States is not instability in southern Europe, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or even international terrorism. It is the danger of long-range strategic missiles. Unless this most serious danger is handled, the military and civilian national security bureaucracy will have no incentive to tackle'' those other problems. ``Military power: For America to continue acting as a force for positive change, U.S. military capabilities--naval, airborne, spaceborne, and ground-based --must be strengthened and missions refined and limited to being used when vital American interests are at stake. ``Business and foreign policy: The United States has to end this Administration's mercantilism by separating the too-close ties between government and the private business sector. The focus on free trade should be continued, but it cannot come before protecting U.S. national security interests. When it comes to China, ``America must treat China as a rival for power and not as a strategic partner. Dismissing current and future threats posed by China is dangerous and could lead to devastating miscalculation and war. The 1995 threat,'' I mentioned prior to reading this text, ``The 1995 threat by'' a Communist Chinese general ``to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles if the United States came to the military defense of Taiwan should be taken as a clear warning of things to come.'' With reference to Russia, ``The United States must promote true democratic reform in Russia with economic incentives for opening up a true free market economy. But with that carrot should be the stick of harsh sanctions for selling weapons of mass destruction to rogue States. ``Defense and foreign policy make for serious business.'' Mr. Speaker, I would define that in even starker fashion: Defense and foreign policy make for national survival in the nuclear age. Mr. Speaker, it gives me no glee to speak of these things, but I am mindful, even when confronted with what at once seemed to be insurmountable problems and difficulties, it has been the strength of the people in our constitutional republic, the reverence for our laws, the reverence for our Constitution, the resolute nature of our people, once informed, to stand together and work to correct the problems; Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I come to the floor tonight to elaborate on these prescriptions to remedy the current sad state of affairs in foreign affairs and national security that confronts us. At long last, Mr. Speaker, after insistence from day one when I joined this House and the new commonsense majority emerged in the 104th Congress, at long last, in the wake of revelations that the Chinese communists had stolen our secrets, we were finally able to achieve a bipartisan consensus on the need for strategic military defense. How sad it was to soon discover that the President took a very legalistic interpretation of that stated goal by the Congress of the United States when he sought, through back channels, to reassure the Chinese government that no actions to establish a strategic missile defense system would really be taken on his watch. Amazing and stupefying though it may be, there were accounts that the President reached out through back channels to do exactly that. So this Congress again reaffirmed and put in even stronger language the need to establish a national missile defense. Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but notice the paradox confronting this administration and the American people in terms of national security when our president, during his term in office, has committed more American troops in more venues of peacekeeping than anyone else, and indeed, all his predecessors put together in the post World War II era, and yet, paradoxically, resources for our national defense have continued to dwindle. Real spending for national defense has been cut in essence some 16 percent. To put a face or a human element on what seems to be dry numbers, understand that we are keeping those who wear the uniforms of our country proudly to defend our interests, we are keeping those folks on the front lines for longer periods of time with less ammunition, with less force replacement, asking them to do more with less, asking them to change the essential role of their missions as constituted by the Constitution of the United States and by the time-honored traditions of what our military has existed for, and we basically have strung our military out and not adequately paid, fed, clothed, or equipped the members of our military. That is why, again, this House has moved to make those tough decisions to appropriate such funds as necessary to counteract the dereliction of duty by those who, for whatever reason, naivete or a notion of a socialist utopia, believe that all our secrets should be shared; or more sinister still, Mr. Speaker, that there was political gain, and indeed, there were campaign contributions that awaited them if they would turn a blind eye and avoid any domestic embarrassment while seeking political advantage. When it comes to business and foreign policy, and our disposition vis-a-vis China or the former Soviet Union, now the Russian republic, Mr. Speaker, I would call to mind the words of that great and good man, our Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II and the 34th president of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower, who warned us in his farewell address of the threats to our constitutional republic from the military-industrial complex. There is no doubting the dedication of Eisenhower as a warrior and then as our Commander in Chief. There is no doubting his devotion to the military he helped command. But what Ike was warning us about we see the conditions and the symptoms of today, for we see a situation in which business interests and indeed allegiance to the corporation it would seem for many sadly usurps allegiance to one's Nation. I think of the disturbing reports of the bipartisan Cox committee, how Hughes Electronics deliberately sought to circumvent the law, working with administration. As we saw, a change in the evaluation of technological transfers as that authority was transferred from the State and Defense Departments to the Department of Commerce, more business-friendly; as we saw the unique political interactions that worked there; as we saw the aggressive attitudes of the Hughes CEO at the time, C. Michael Armstrong; as we saw the provocative actions at Loral missile defense, and Bernard Schwartz, who ironically was the number one contributor to Democrat campaigns in the 1996 cycle, how those two firms in fact supplied the Chinese communists with technology that has improved the guidance systems of the Chinese nuclear missiles, and how this is no longer a remote threat. Mr. Speaker, everyone within the sound of my voice in the continental United States and, indeed, in Alaska and Hawaii, and in other American possessions in the Pacific, the sad fact tonight, Mr. Speaker, every one of us is vulnerable to a missile attack from Communist China. Words and statements have consequences. I can recall a night a few years ago when the President of the United States entered this Chamber for a Joint Session of Congress and spoke from the podium behind me here. The President on that evening boasted that on that particular night, no longer were our children targeted by foreign nuclear missiles. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can forgive the American people if they have grown calloused and cynical to those breathtakingly incorrect observations offered by one who constitutionally must provide for our common defense as Commander in Chief. Again, to be diplomatic, I suppose the President was sorely mistaken. At any rate, whatever the interpretation, events have overtaken us and we stand at a crossroads. Will we protect the American nation? Will we act in our national interest? Will we rebuild and revitalize our military, taking seriously our constitutional charge to provide for the common defense? Will we adopt a trade policy that is realistic, that is built not on dreams and desires and esoteric wishes but a trade policy predicated on the harsh realities that we confront? Will we distinguish between widgets and weapons? Will we understand the difference between consumer goods and technologies that can threaten our own people? We must stand ready to protect the American people, even if we wish this burden to be passed to others because of the cynical nature of the spin cycle, because of the personal comfort it might provide, because of the temptation of false reassurance to those who seek solace in the Dow Jones Industrial Average rather than stark realities of the threats we face. We cannot turn our backs. Again, it gives me no glee to speak of these things, but we must. It is our duty, as Americans, and this transcends political philosophy or partisan stripe. Indeed, we are our strongest, Mr. Speaker, when we approach problems and meet challenges head on, not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans, and that is the task at hand. However, to understand the best way to address and offer solutions to the threats we confront, we should also stand ready to understand the full extent of the problems presented. The allegations are that Wen Ho Lee, a Chinese scientist, gave unfettered access to communist China of our most crucial nuclear technology and know-how, the legacy codes that in layman's parlance offer the width and breadth of our knowledge of how to defend our Nation from nuclear attack, the technological advancements that we had that most defense observers believe at least gave us a generation separating us in sophistication from the communist Chinese. Those technological advantages were gone with the stroke of a computer key and the downloading of that sensitive information into unsecured computers. In the fullness of time, we understand that it has been demonstrated that the Chinese pilfered that knowledge, but more disturbingly, Mr. Speaker, is the knowledge that on an unsecured computer basically open season existed. We do not know the full extent of just who may have pilfered that know-how and knowledge, and so the threat is there. There were those, Mr. Speaker, who sadly were engaged in, at the very least, derelictions of duty. Our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has been a leader in calling for the establishment of a national missile defense. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) on his web site, as well as on my web site, has chronicled the relationships and the time lines of those ostensibly in the service of our government who at the same time either for political considerations or other concerns chose to turn a blind eye, those who through naivete or other motivations chose to open our national labs and invite unfettered access to those who may not have the national interest of the United States at heart, and we as a people need to understand the full implications and the possible consequences of such actions. Mr. Speaker, in the days ahead I look forward to working with my colleagues in this body in a bipartisan fashion to address these very genuine concerns to rebuild our national defense and to provide for our national security. After all, Mr. Speaker, when we raised our right hands to take the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, we were not paying lip service to this document. It is true that in today's body politic there are those who would take the Constitution of the United States and put it on a shelf to gather dust, to be offered lip service from time to time in a sanctimonious, pseudo-patriotic fashion, but when one raises their right hand to take an oath, it is not an oath of political convenience. It is an oath of personal conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I call on all of our colleagues to join us, people of goodwill who may have legitimate disagreements but who understand, whatever the temporary political embarrassments, our very national survival depends on a sober, rational reassessment of how we provide for the common defense and how we ultimately provide family security for our constitutional republic through our national security. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if anyone else engages in that annual rite known as spring training, or spring cleaning, and pardon me for the Freudian slip but in the great State of Arizona we also have many major league baseball teams who join us for that annual rite known as spring training, but in this instance I was away from the ball park and instead ensconced in my garage at the behest of my life's partner, my dear bride, involved in spring cleaning. In going through my belongings, I found something that I regard as a treasure. It is a textbook of American history written in 1889, published in 1890 by the American Book Company of Cincinnati. Mr. Speaker, what is compelling about this work is that my home State of Arizona literally does not appear in the text of this history until the next to last page. As one takes that book and reads through it, they cannot help but realize that over a century has passed. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the book was written almost a quarter century prior to the Arizona territory becoming the 48th state. One reads the words of that book and they are acutely aware that they were written before a President Roosevelt of either major party, before what was called the war to end all wars, World War I, before a Great Depression, before World War II, before a space race, before a so-called war on poverty, before men on the moon, before an Information Age, before a nuclear age. As one reads those words, one cannot help but wonder what will those who follow 100 years from now say of us? Will they say that sadly in a cynical age they succumbed to a cult of celebrity and personality that led them to owe their allegiance not to the Constitution but to the opinion cycle of the media; that they chose to focus on a false prosperity and security that was offered by economic indicators while ignoring the clear and present dangers that confronted them? Or will they instead say that despite the rhetoric of revolution and reinvention, Americans in the late 20th Century and early 21st Century engaged in restoration, to rally around their constitution, to take into account legitimate political and philosophical differences of people of goodwill but at the same time responded, mindful of their constitutional obligations, whether a citizen or an elected official, to provide for the common defense, to ensure our liberties for ourselves and our posterity? Mr. Speaker, I pray that it is the latter that our descendants will remember us by. For, I dare say, Mr. Speaker, if we fail to follow that latter course of action there may be no opportunity for any reflection on the former. So in the best spirit of what makes us Americans, Mr. Speaker, let us unite to deal clearly, calmly but rationally and rapidly to the threats that confront us. Let us do so not out of weakness, not out of embarrassment but out of the most basic goals and highest ideals that those who have gone before have presented to us. Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I come to the well of this House tonight with entreaties to the Almighty to continue to bless this constitutional republic and those so fortunate to live in it.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my neighbor from New Mexico offer a point which I think cannot be stated enough. You see, it is not enough to pass laws in Congress. The fact is, prosecutors and those who would uphold the law need to enforce existing laws and need to obey existing laws. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things I heard time and again visiting with my constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. I know that different Members of this body spent their district work periods in different ways. For example, the minority leader of this body, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), spent time in Philadelphia bragging about how my friends on the left might take control of this institution in the year 2000. Here is what the minority leader said: ``You've got to have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and raising revenue. We can argue about how to do that. We can close loopholes or even raise taxes to do it.'' There is the candor attack, the honesty episode from the minority leader. Cut defense and raise taxes. That is their prescription for the future? Mr. Speaker, there is a better way.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to me. I also thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for her remarks, such as they pertain to this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to come together as Americans, not as Democrats or as Republicans but as Americans, to pass an important piece of legislation that will make it easier for economically-challenged communities to provide educational facilities for our children. The title of this bill says it all: The Education Land Grant Act. This act would allow school districts around the country to apply for conveyances of small tracts of Forest Service land at nominal cost to build, renovate, or expand their educational facilities. Currently only school districts near Bureau of Land Management land can apply for conveyances under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, or R&PPA. Modeled after the R&PPA, my legislation simply adds Forest Service lands to this equation. Mr. Speaker, the idea for this legislation grew out of work I was honored to do in the 104th Congress during my first term here representing the Sixth Congressional District of Arizona. At that time the Alpine School District in eastern Arizona was in desperate need of new school facilities. This district lies within Apache County in the eastern part of the State, near our border with New Mexico. Eighty-five percent of Apache County, Arizona, is federally- controlled land. That limited what could be raised in property taxes, so the school district was dependent on proceeds from timber harvesting. However, due to lawsuits, logging had been halted. Consequently, the timber receipts that had gone toward funding the schools all but dried up. The Alpine School District faced a dilemma. It could not afford both the cost of land, estimated to be $225,000, and the cost of new school facilities. So I introduced legislation which was signed into law that conveyed 30 acres of Forest Service land to the Alpine School District so that the people there could use that land for the construction of new school facilities. Construction of those facilities proceeds, and I am pleased to report that when the children of Alpine return to school this fall, the facilities will be completed. The legislation we consider today sets up a national mechanism for school districts to apply to the Secretary of Agriculture for Forest Service land without having to come to Congress to draw up a specific bill for a special remedy, as the people of Alpine did. However, the Education Land Grant Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey Forest Service land only if certain specific conditions are met: First, the entity seeking the conveyance must use the land for a public or publicly-funded elementary or secondary school. Second, the conveyance must serve the public interest. Third, the land cannot, cannot be environmentally sensitive or needed for purposes of the National Forest system. Finally, the total acreage to be conveyed will be limited to the amount reasonably necessary for the proposed use, but not to exceed 80 acres. It also provides that conveyances under this legislation shall be made for a nominal cost using guidelines established under the R&PPA for approximately $10 an acre. The bill would provide expedited review of applications by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to acknowledge the receipt of an application within 14 days. A final determination about whether to convey the land must be made within 120 days unless the Secretary of Agriculture submits a written notice to the applicant explaining the delay. Passage of this bill will be a boon for rural areas throughout our Nation, but especially in the West and in the South, where there is a large amount of federally-controlled land. For example, Gila County, Arizona, a county in my district which is approximately the size of the State of Connecticut, only finds 3 percent of its land mass privately owned. In other words, 97 percent of Gila County, Arizona, is under the control, the ownership, if you will, of some governmental entity. That is why in the West private land, when we can find it, like in Gila County, only 3 percent, is extremely expensive. Not only that, but the West also confronts the problem and the challenge of rapidly growing populations. In fact, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada are the three fastest growing States in the Nation. This means there will be more demand to build school facilities but less land to do it on. The Education Land Grant Act is one of the ways we can alleviate some of the West's growing pains and at the same time help our children receive the education they need and deserve. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have continually talked about the importance of education and the future of our children. H.R. 150 is a commonsense proposal on which we can all agree because it will allow economically-strapped school districts throughout the United States to put the money where it counts, in the classroom, helping teachers teach, helping children learn. This is a goal I believe we all support, Mr. Speaker. I hope this House will strongly support the rule and this bipartisan, commonsense legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for yielding to me. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) because, as I have learned since coming to this institution, good legislation is often a collaborative process. I would simply say in response to a couple of points raised by the administration and the Forest Service, it is precisely because so many rural communities find themselves enclosed by federally controlled land are so economically strapped, so economically challenged, so economically disadvantaged that we brought this legislation forward. Fair market value in this case cannot apply, nor should it apply; and this bill rectifies that at a nominal cost to allow these communities to concentrate their resources where they are best utilized, in the education of our children, by helping teachers teach, helping children learn, and helping local communities within their discretion use this as another tool to empower parents, to empower these varied communities. The irony of the Forest Service opposition I think speaks volumes, sadly, of the fact that ofttimes there are two Americas. There is the America that is the cause celebre of the news magazines, of the media events, of the cries on our National Mall to remember the children, to care for the children. Mr. Chairman, folks from the Sixth District of Arizona in remote communities, folks from rural America, do not often get the chance to come to Washington and engage in a photo op. They do not often get the chance to have officials from the administration come with hordes of media to cover an hour in a schoolroom. But, Mr. Chairman, do rural children not count as much as those in the city? Do those who find their industry shut and their way of life abandoned not have the same rights as those who are easily accessible by the national media and so many opportune photo experiences? I say yes. Mr. Chairman, I believe Members on both sides of the aisle, rhetoric notwithstanding, understand full well our responsibility to children, whether they reside in a cosmopolitan place such as the Bay area of California or a rural location such as Apache County, Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have often said that Mark Twain had it right. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. With this new Education Land Grant Act, we will reaffirm one of the greatest examples that has gone before. Another Republican member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Justin Smith Morrill, in the 1860s brought similar legislation to the floor of this body. Indeed, in the presidential campaign of 1860, it is often obscured because of the terrible Civil War that followed, but a one- term Member, former Member of this body, a man named Abraham Lincoln, told Congressman Morrill that his land grant act would be one of the pillars of the Lincoln administration. What the Morrill land grant act did for institutions of higher learning, granting back to our States federally controlled land for the establishment of institutions of higher learning with concentration in the agricultural and mechanical arts, what that act did to make higher education available to all Americans is what we seek to do today with this land grant act, for schools K through 12, for those who find themselves embattled and at an economic disadvantage, without the voices of the special interests in Washington, to step up and put them on the cover of ``Time'' or ``Newsweek,'' or speak about the challenges they face, to say to rural America, this Congress recognizes the needs that you have. Mr. Chairman, bipartisan passage of this legislation is essential because the impact of this legislation will literally be ground breaking because it will empower local districts. It will give them the opportunity to have another tool at their disposal to educate their children as they see fit. That is why today I come to the floor of this House and I ask my colleagues to join me, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans, in offering this opportunity so that we can end the days that existed before, so that individual Members of Congress do not have to come with a bill exclusively designed for a school district in their area and hope that it is attached like an ornament on a Christmas tree to a larger piece of legislation and end up with a crazy quilt that exists at the discretion of this House and at the whims of the legislative winds that may blow. This legislation strikes a powerful blow on behalf of America's children, and its impact will be far-reaching and have consequences that the pundits may ignore and the spinmeisters may do their best to sweep aside, but will not soon be forgotten in the classrooms of rural America. I ask my colleagues to join me in passage of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I would thank my colleague from California, who eloquently establishes the dynamic and the challenge which we confront as a Nation. Thank God that we are a constitutional republic with rights guaranteed by the first amendment. To those who would abridge those rights, to those who would turn a jaundiced eye to the abuses of others abroad, to those who would dare describe repressions, totalitarian regimes as strategic partners, it is time for a little straight talk. I know my colleague is familiar with the work of Bill Gertz, the Washington Times national security reporter who has authored a comprehensive evaluation of the extent to which our secrets have been stolen and leaked to hostile Nations. The name of the book is entitled ``Betrayal.'' I would say not only does Communist China present a problem, but North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, those nations with whom the Communist Chinese have shared the nuclear technology reaffirms the fact that even in this alleged post-Cold War era, the world remains a dangerous place. One other note I would point out to my colleague from California, Madam Speaker. When we assemble here in early January of the odd- numbered year every 2 years to take our oath of office, we take our oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. We heard the President and Vice President take a similar oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States; not the U.N. charter, not the NATO charter, not a utopian notion of a strategic partnership, but our allegiance is to our Constitution, to our sovereignty and to our legitimate national interest. How tragic it is that it appears those national security interests have been bartered away for campaign contributions, or naively given away for global considerations.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be given the time until the top of the hour when we have to, by the rules of the House, adjourn.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleagues from California. I thank our new Member of the Congress for his perceptive abilities to go right to the bipartisan report and get to the heart of the matter. And as my more senior colleague from California points out, as I sit and hear my two friends reflect on this obscenity committed against our constitutional republic, I cannot help as a student of history step back and realize how prophetic were the words of our 34th President, Dwight David Eisenhower, in his farewell address when he told us to be mindful of the military-industrial complex, of those whose allegiance to our Nation could be subverted. And we have seen it in the case of Hughes and Loral, in the case of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, the top contributor to the Democratic National Committee, and it is tragic that this transpired. But facts are stubborn things. And to look beyond that, to the words of the bipartisan report, that these companies willfully circumvented American law and, Madam Speaker, this points out an affliction, a cancer that is infecting the body politic, when we have those who have sworn to uphold and execute our laws who refuse to enforce the law and apparently have broken those laws. My colleague from California, in the candor for which he is renowned, pointed a portion of the culpability at the Congress. But the inescapable fact remains that at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, there are those who willfully, willingly sought the contributions of a foreign power, of those who are not citizens of the United States, of those who are not eligible to participate in our political system to gain political victory. At this point, Madam Speaker, we must ask, what price political victory? The betrayal of our most sensitive technologies to put in harm's way the very children the President of the United States spoke of at this podium in his State of the Union address 2 years ago when he came here and bragged to the Congress of the United States that no American child lived or went to sleep that night under the threat of Russian missiles? What price victory, Madam Speaker? What price victory? When those who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and provide for the common defense would allow such a perversion of priorities today to the point where we have not only the Communist Chinese but the outlaw nation that is North Korea and the extremist states of Iraq and Iran and the others who now possess nuclear technology and have within their grasp the ability to harm virtually every American family. These are questions that cause great unease. There is no partisan glee to this. But the strength of our constitutional republic throughout our history has been that we heed the call and understand the threats and understand the dangers. And we stand again, Madam Speaker, at that very juncture. How tragic the circumstance. But how compelling the call to action for this Congress and for the American people.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California and our colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who preceded us in the well of the House. If there have been two among the 435 honored to serve in this chamber, it has been the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from California who, together, have sounded the clarion call to the extent of the threat which affects our national security. Madam Speaker, I was honored earlier today to bring to this floor a measure that deals with the educational security of rural America, and it is worth noting that there was not a single member of this House present who voted against the legislation for the New Education Land Grant Act. Madam Speaker, I said at that time, this is an issue that affects us not as Republicans or as Democrats, but as Americans. Madam Speaker, the full House assembled worked its will in bipartisan fashion. How sad it is, Madam Speaker, to see what transpires in this town via smoke and mirrors and spin, when we are dealing with a problem that threatens the security of every American; to read in the Little Rock Democrat Gazette from one columnist that this is some form of red scare, to have those hurl verbal brickbats at a clear and present danger to the United States. As my colleague from California no doubt experienced during the district work period, Madam Speaker, I heard from countless constituents, from those who had borne the brunt of battle, from those who had worn the uniform of our country in peacetime and in war, from those who were concerned citizens, asking, what is this Chinese connection? What is this notion of a strategic partnership that would involve illegal political donations to those who would occupy our highest offices in the executive branch, what would possess business leaders to so jeopardize American security to grant technological prowess to the Communist China, and why would there be those within the administration who would turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the theft of our most precious secrets? As my colleague from California pointed out, why would there be cabinet officials who had a curious notion of utopia who would open our national labs, expose our national secrets, create an environment in which an employee at Los Alamos could put on an unsecured computer our legacy codes, the width and breadth of American nuclear knowledge and technological knowhow to fall into the hands of any foreign power, but especially the Communist Chinese? And how, Madam Speaker, could we have an Attorney General, given the number of wiretaps for national security that were authorized, fail to authorize the two wiretaps involving one Wen Ho Lee, the accused assailant who would surrender our nuclear secrets to the Communist Chinese? Again, Madam Speaker, as my colleague, the gentleman from California, as our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, so eloquently pointed out, this is not a matter of being Republican or Democrat, this is not a matter of preening and posturing for the latest spin cycle. Indeed, Madam Speaker, this goes to the core of our national security and the security of every American family and our place in the world, and those who would oppose us and use our technology against us. That is what we deal with.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois in the Chair, and I thank her for the adroit manner in which she is administering the rules of the House this evening, and I thank her for the indulgence to continue this conversation with my two colleagues from California until the top of the hour, which will be 9 p.m. in the Western States from whence we hail. But, Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that our words and observations tonight carry to the American people not a paranoia, not a panic, but a clear, strong resolve that at long last those of us who are given the constitutional authority to provide for the common defense understand the clear and present danger that confronts our constitutional Republic. We take no glee in it, we wish it were not so. But as former President Reagan said, facts are stubborn things, and as my junior colleague from California points out and the bipartisan words of the Cox committee report, there are disturbing conclusions drawn that force us to reassess our national security, that force us to reassess our trade policy, that force us to reassess the affairs of state that ofttimes come under the heading of foreign policy. The challenges are real. No amount of spin, no amount of economic prosperity, no amount of lip-biting and empathy can obscure them from any quarter. And again we offer this because, as I was taught again during our district work period when I had the chance to stand alongside veterans in Flagstaff, Arizona, when more than 200 residents of that city came together to commemorate the sacrifices of our war dead, I was reminded that the words of our Constitution are more than verbiage strewn on parchment. They are a living, breathing part of us as a people, and we dare not, we dare not ignore our duties and our responsibilities. And citizen after citizen came to me expressing their real concerns. Oh, we do not hear about them from the 24-hour news networks, we do not hear about them except in scant effort by the three major news network anchors, but the American people understand that Abraham Lincoln, whom history predestined would preside over the most divisive bloody conflict in our history, understood full well that the American people, once fully informed, would make the correct decision; and our role is to fully inform and to answer this threat and this cause. And I am so pleased that our colleague from California joins us in his first term that he brings this report; and I would note, Madam Speaker, that those who may hear these words can gain access to the Cox committee report via my office Web site, and I think my colleague from California has more he would like to share from that report and other observations. I would yield to him at this time.

Mr. HAYWORTH. In fact, I thank my colleague for his comments. Madam Speaker, I would invite every member of this House, with the technological capabilities we all enjoy, to post this unanimous bipartisan report on their individual web sites so that, Madam Speaker, those in this country who are citizens, who are concerned, can have access to this information, full and unfettered, so that they understand the extent to which our national security has been jeopardized. I yield to my more senior colleague from California.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, one can almost anticipate the reflexes action of those who man the spin cycles elsewhere in the sectors of this capital city, those cacophony of critics that we are certain to hear. A couple of notes should be acknowledged as we conclude this time on the House floor. I thank both of my colleagues. Number one, it is not enough to say everybody does this, for, if that were the case, we would blame Lyndon Johnson for the John Walker Navy espionage spy ring that began operation in the late 1960s. No, the analogy may be somewhat quaint, but I think it is appropriate. It is one thing to lock your windows and doors and set an alarm and go on vacation and have folks cut that alarm off, somehow circumvent that system, come into what you thought was your secured home and steal your secrets. It is quite another thing for your neighbor next door to meet the truck of the would-be burglars, to let them in the House, to help them find your most valuable possessions, and then to disavow any knowledge of that action. And that is just how simple and just how sad the current dilemma we face in fact presents itself. A couple of final notes. It is sad that this administration has worked at cross-purposes. It has, on the one hand, deployed American forces to more locations than any other administration in the post World War II era, and, at the same time, it has denied the efforts of this common-sense conservative Congress to provide for our national defense, to provide the weapons systems, to provide the manpower and material. So you have a situation where there is work at cross purposes. Worse still, the actions of this Congress to provide a missile defense system at long last after the news of the Chinese theft, those on the left joined us in bipartisan fashion, and yet this President in subsequent correspondence has, pointed out by our majority leader, sought to reassure the Chinese that we would not mount a missile defense system. Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better. It should be the mission of this Congress to make sure we provide for the common defense.

Mr. HAYWORTH

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

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss at the outset of my remarks if I did not publicly acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has been at the forefront of explaining to the American people and many of his colleagues in Congress the necessity, the imperative of a strategic missile defense, who has been among the leaders in understanding a prospective missile defense system, who has gone many times to the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Republic, to establish dialogue with the members of the Duma there, so, in the words of Dwight Eisenhower, once Americans and Russians get together they can understand what is at stake here. But more compellingly tonight, Mr. Speaker, our colleague at the outset of his remarks framed the question most appropriately and eloquently when he said, Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that does not confront us as Republicans or Democrats; this is a security concern for all Americans. Indeed, as the gentleman points out, the inadequate, shallow and incomplete responses of our former colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson, now the Secretary of Energy; as he points out the misguided, to say the least, efforts, if you will, of former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary; as he points out the curious selective investigations by this Justice Department and Attorney General Reno, as he offers, and, Mr. Speaker, I will move with my staff to make available on my web site as well the China connection that my colleague from Pennsylvania has remarkably put together and the time-line that he also offers. This is something that should concern every American, for what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is a quantum leap in technological prowess by the Communist Chinese, with our know-how, with our expertise. Indeed, I would just say to my friend from Pennsylvania, whatever price it might cost to include those transcripts of the FBI wiretaps in the Congressional Record, it is a small price to pay on behalf of the American people to understand the width and breadth of this scandal. ``Scandal'' is an overused term, we have seen so many, and yet, again, we have this remarkable, troubling, dangerous development in our national security. I have said before, Mr. Speaker, this is as if we are in an Allan Drury novel come to life. But you cannot close the book on this. This is a problem of incredible magnitude that goes to the security of every family. Mr. Speaker, as the President of the United States stood at the podium just in front of the Speaker's Chair and in a State of the Union message bragged that no American child went to sleep a target of Russian missiles, how sad it is that now the Communist Chinese have the technology and have aimed their missiles at America, to the extent that we had the Chinese defense minister in defending a provocative action against Taiwan say, ``Oh, we believe you,'' meaning the United States, ``value Los Angeles more than you do Taiwan.'' The bellicose nature of the threats and, more than rhetoric, the reality of the technology transfer, is inexcusable, and we, not as Republicans nor as Democrats, but as Americans, need to follow the lead of my colleague from Pennsylvania and get to the bottom of this, because it is an outrage. As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, it does not only concern former Energy Secretary O'Leary; it does not only concern Attorney General Reno; it does not only concern the spin offered by our former colleague, current Energy Secretary Mr. Richardson; it goes all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. U.S. News & World Report put that document in, as shocking as that was. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many of the American people have seen the videotapes of the Communist Chinese leaders who contributed to the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 in the Oval Office? People who are part of these front groups. Mr. Speaker, we do not have too many ducks on the lakes in Arizona, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Mr. Speaker, a preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate that it is in fact a duck. What we have here is a serious problem. I would also note the outrageous and curious behavior of our so- called National Security Adviser, Mr. Sandy Berger, a former lobbyist for the Communist Chinese on trade issues. In April of 1996 we know for certain that he was informed of the Chinese penetration of our labs in Los Alamos, and apparently he did nothing. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, April of 1996, that was when Vice President Gore went to Southern California for his campaign fund- raiser, what he first described as a community outreach event at the Buddhist temple in Southern California. The American people have simple questions that need to be answered. Are we safe? Are those who took the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and thereby provide for the common defense in fact being good stewards and good custodians of that trust? As my colleague from Pennsylvania eloquently and substantively explains tonight, that is a serious question for which there may be troubling answers.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). I would say this, this does become a matter of priorities. We need to reach out and save American lives. One way we can do that is by taking a careful, considered look at the problem of domestic violence and school violence, but also at the very real threat the Chinese now present to the American people. Mr. Speaker, nuclear weapons are really big guns. They are not firecrackers. The grim reality is that this administration, the Clinton-Gore gang, took hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from the Communist Chinese, and an arms dealer by the name of Wang Jun provided some of that money. Curiously, the Justice Department waived any restrictions. The result was, 100,000 assault weapons were turned loose in the city of Los Angeles, adding to the violence. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to talk about laws, and it is one thing to preen and posture on convictions, but the fact is, serious results come when people start by obeying existing laws.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for yielding me this time. It is interesting to listen, and our goal is, of course, a bipartisan solution to this challenge of Medicare, and this lockbox simply sets aside all of the funds designated for Medicare and Social Security to that purpose. It is different, if we want to get technical, from what was done in 1990 that dealt with direct reductions. What we have heard throughout our districts, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, and I know there is a temptation to deride any effort made in good faith as some sort of gimmick, but what we have heard, not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans, is that we need to deal with this problem, devote Social Security surpluses to Social Security, keep the trust fund intact. I listened with interest to my friend the ranking member from California, who encouraged our side to bring forth legislation, and of course my good friend from Florida, the chairman of the full committee, had brought forward a plan; others folks have, too. Mr. Speaker, in fairness, my friend, the gentleman from California, also asked that the Treasury Secretary designee, Mr. Summers, where the administration plan was. I think it is important that we work on this. As we know, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This is a profound step. It is not a gimmick. The motion to recommit will be akin to double secret probation. The other side is entitled to do that, but Americans want a rational, reasonable response, and locking up of this fund. That is what it does. It is simple. It is practical. This House should do it.