[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 11, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2988-H2994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    A CRISIS WE MUST NOT SHRINK FROM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  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

[[Page H2989]]

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.

                              {time}  2215

  ``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. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2990]]

  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very curious about this. I was 
participating in a debate earlier tonight where the director of the 
CIA, it was proposed, should resign because of the bombing in Belgrade 
of the Chinese Embassy, quickly looking for a scapegoat.
  Now, I hope that we are not going to be quickly looking for a 
scapegoat and put somebody's head on the chopping block too hastily as 
respects that. But it is interesting that that rumor, which may or may 
not have come from the administration, about let us fire the head of 
the CIA, we do not ever hear that about let us talk about Janet Reno.
  Because, as my colleague knows, the attorney general, Ms. Reno, did 
not go along with Louis Freeh's recommendation for a special prosecutor 
to look into the Chinese money laundering scandal and the things that 
Johnny Chung, the great Democrat donor, testified today for 5 hours 
before a committee on. And yet here we have the same attorney general 
who did not want to proceed with the investigation of Mr. Lee.
  Now, that is very curious to me. Because bombing the Embassy was 
tragic and a huge international mistake. Yet, at the same time, giving 
away our nuclear arsenal, the so-called W-88, which is the nuclear 
technology that can arm a Trident nuclear submarine, that is a huge 
matter. And why this administration and this attorney general drug 
their heels on taking disciplinary action or even investigating is 
beyond me. And I cannot see that.

  And we are already hearing from the folks up at the White House that, 
well, this started with the Reagan-Bush folks. Well, okay, everybody 
does it. We heard that before, ``everybody does it.'' And I am 
appalled. But I know this, that the Reagan-Bush team did not know of 
spying and did not have the reason to believe that apparently this 
administration did that this was going on and yet totally ignored it. 
Nothing was going on. And for months and months and months reports of 
what was going on in Los Alamos were apparently forwarded on or 
forwarded up the ladder and they were ignored time and time again.
  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. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
it is interesting that my colleague says that. Because we are both 
members of a communication team that looks at a lot of media numbers. 
The big three networks in percentage of news loss I think have gone 
from something like 60 percent of the market in 1990 to about 25 
percent of the market now. Because Americans are turning on cable and 
they are watching Fox News, which did give gavel-to-gavel coverage of 
the 5-hour Johnny Chung, which this is an outrageous issue.
  Here is a person who gets money filtered to him through General Ji of 
the People's Liberation Army of Communist China. He gives $360,000 to 
the Democrat National Committee, which they admitted to and they 
returned. He has pled guilty, I think, of $20,000 of it, which has been 
nailed on him pretty solid.
  This is not casual stuff, and China is not some casual country out 
there. It is not like, they came from Luxembourg and we have got to 
watch those folks in luck Luxembourg. This is Communist China, not 
exactly strong American allies right now, particularly under this 
administration. But it is not covered.
  But what is interesting is that each year the network news loses more 
and more of its market share, and I think one reason is people are 
tired of filtered news. They enjoy C-SPAN. And I am sure many of the 
people watching tonight are channel suffering. They may be here 10 
seconds, they might be here 5 minutes, and they are going to move on. 
But that is what Americans want in choice of television and choice of 
coverage right now.
  But this is a huge situation where we have an operative who visited 
the White House 50 different times and he was peddling influence. And 
not all the money that he got from Communist China went to the White 
House or the Democrat National Committee. I am not going to say that it 
did.
  Just like when I was in college and my dad had a little checking 
account for me and he would give me money for gas, some of that money 
found its way to beer.

                              {time}  2230

  But I am saying it was the same account. The man had one account, and 
that money was dispersed to politicians. And 50 different visits to the 
White House. Let me ask you, you are on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, clearly one of the most powerful committees in the United States 
House of Representatives. How many times have you, as a member of that 
powerful committee, gone to the White House? Fifty, 60, 70 times? You 
have been up here 6 years. Eighty times? One hundred times? How many 
times have you been to the White House?
  I am not talking about meeting with the President, but I am talking 
about meeting with the administration as a key committee member during 
the passage of welfare reform, tax reductions, balancing the budget. 
Surely you have been there at least as many times as Johnny Chung.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I have not been invited to the Oval Office nor to the 
White House to discuss policy with the President or any of his 
immediate advisers on a single occasion. The visits to the Oval Office 
I have made, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia, the old goose egg, 
zilch, zero, nada.

[[Page H2991]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, let me ask you this. So you are one of the 435 
Members of Congress and you have never been invited to the White House 
for anything but a social occasion, but let me ask you this. Surely the 
Democrat members, let us get partisan here, the Democrat members have 
probably been there 50 or 60 times. You know a lot of your Democrat 
colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means. Estimate how many times 
they have been over there.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would not presume to speak for my friends on the 
other side of the aisle but, based on my own observations, I would 
think even with, pardon the pun, the most liberal interpretation, the 
ranking member and some of the leaders or my friends on the other side 
of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means have probably been 
there maybe a dozen times, two dozen if we want to be very charitable, 
but certainly not 50 occasions to my knowledge.
  Mr. KINGSTON. So here is a man named Johnny Chung, gives generously 
to the Democrat National Committee, is partially funded through the 
Chinese Communists, and he goes to the White House 50 times. And during 
this period of time we transfer approval of nuclear technology sales to 
China, we transfer that from the Department of Defense, which is very, 
very protective of national security to the Department of Commerce 
which is very, very pro-trade, not worried about security. And during 
that period of time China is not only buying nuclear technology 
knowledge, but they are also stealing it at Los Alamos. Meanwhile, Mr. 
Chung is running around in the White House.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I would point out as Wesley Pruden, editor-in-chief of 
the Washington Times pointed out in a column about a month and a half 
ago, the same month when Vice President Gore had his self-described 
community outreach event at the Buddhist temple in Los Angeles, later 
proven to be a fund-raising exercise again involving nonAmerican 
citizens, that same month the aforementioned Mr. Berger, the National 
Security Adviser, we understand, was informed of the security breach at 
Los Alamos.
  There are those in this city, in fact, Mr. Chung was part of the spin 
today, if you heard some of his comments, and I have heard them 
rebroadcast on some of the cable news outlets in the 30-some seconds 
they would devote to the story as opposed to gavel-to-gavel coverage, 
where he impugned the American political system in terms of fund 
raising. I must tell you, that tradition is in keeping with the curious 
reaction of many others in this city about financing campaigns and 
having people involved. In fact, to me the historical analogy would 
have been for Bonny and Clyde at the height of their crime spree to 
suddenly call a press conference to invite the leading newspapers and 
newsreels of their era and come out publicly for stiffer penalties 
against bank robbery.
  It is asinine to see some of the spin going on here. Now you have the 
desperate attempt by Secretary Richardson, our former colleague, my 
neighbor from New Mexico, saying, ``Well, now we're going to get tough. 
Now we're going to appoint a security czar at Los Alamos.''
  Friends, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The nuclear horse 
has left the barn. To continue to mix metaphors, the nuclear chickens 
are coming home to roost. And it is a little late, after the fact, for 
Mr. Berger, Secretary Richardson, Attorney General Reno or, as 
described in various accounts, the hustler named Johnny Chung to 
purport to lecture the American people about the conduct of campaigns, 
to attempt to lecture the American people about how now, once these 
ills have been exposed, ``Oh, now we're going to get tough.'' It leads 
to cynicism and distrust on the part of the body politic.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me ask the gentleman something. You have been an 
active Member up here. Foreign nationalists, can they give to campaigns 
in the administration? I know they cannot give to Members of Congress. 
What is Mr. Chung saying is the problem with the law?
  As I see it, laws were broken. We do not need to revamp the campaign 
finance law, although there are certain things we can do, but for this 
particular situation, we do not need to revamp campaign laws, we just 
need to follow them. Or am I missing something?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. No, you are quite right. To offer another analogy, it 
would be like someone speeding and have an officer stop the speeder and 
the speeder say to the officer, oh, gee, I was going over 50 in that 35 
miles per hour zone, but you know that is such a hazard at just 35 
miles an hour, you ought to lower that speed limit to 25. And because I 
had the moral suasion to make that observation to you, officer, just 
let me go along on my way. Because, after all, I cared enough, officer, 
I cared enough, to tell you that the speed limit is excessive even 
though I broke it many times over.
  This asinine reasoning and this cynical spin that permeates this town 
is both sickening and cynical and it needs to stop, Mr. Speaker, my 
colleague from Georgia. And to the American people, Mr. Speaker, who 
join us tonight, we need to move beyond spin for some straight talk 
with the American people. And whether it is campaign finance reform or 
these emerging scandals that threaten our very national security, Mr. 
Justice Brandeis was right, Mr. Speaker, when he said, sunshine is the 
best disinfectant.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I renew my call for this 
House, if necessary, to go into closed session as soon as possible and 
to vote the release of the Cox committee report, because we know that 
our colleague from California has worked in a good-faith effort to 
negotiate with this White House.
  We also know that the President of the United States has within his 
power under existing law the ability to release the select committee 
report today if he would take it up. I would, Mr. Speaker, invite our 
President to release the report forthwith, if he is to deal with us in 
candor and to serve effectively as our Commander in Chief as he sends 
American men and women into harm's way in the Balkan theater. He owes 
no less to the American public so that we understand what exactly is at 
stake across and around the world in terms of our defense capabilities.

  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to clarify two things.
  Number one, what the Cox report is; and the Cox report is the 
bipartisan commission report, special appointed committee by Congress, 
Democrats and Republicans, to look into this scandal of Chinese money 
influencing the American election system and taking nuclear secrets 
from America.
  Now, that is point number one, that is what the Cox report is, but, 
number two, it was passed unanimously by the committee, Democrats and 
Republicans, 100 percent passed it. Now it is at the White House 
waiting to get their approval to declassify some of the information, 
and the White House is dragging. What you are saying is, if the White 
House persists on dragging, then it is likely the Democrats and 
Republicans at large in the House of Representatives will vote to get 
this thing out on the floor and so that we can address these problems.
  That is where there is some real hypocrisy by this administration. 
They are saying, number one, well, all administrations have had spying 
at Los Alamos, in the nuclear labs. And then they are saying, but we 
are the only ones to deal with it. That is not quite true, but if you 
were dealing with it, you would put the Cox report out so we could all 
say, what is going on? Do we need more money here? Do we need more 
involvement here? Do we need this nuclear secrets czar which Energy 
Secretary Richardson has promoted now?
  To me, I do not know if we do or we do not. If the Attorney General 
is not going to enforce the law, maybe we do need a nuke czar. I do not 
know. But let us put the Cox Commission report on the table and look at 
it, because we are united that the Communist Chinese were trying to 
influence the election. We are united in the knowledge that the Chinese 
communists were trying to get our nuclear secrets. We are not pointing 
fingers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are pointing fingers at Beijing 
right now. I think that is a very significant and unifying factor.
  Right now China is certainly unified against America. They are 
burning flags. They are rioting. They are protesting. They are doing 
everything they can. They are having bigger protests than Tiananmen 
Square. The Ambassador, Mr. Sasser, cannot even leave

[[Page H2992]]

the American embassy over in China right now. They are on the streets. 
They are demonstrating. As you know, it is morning there right now and 
the three journalists who were killed in the embassy, their bodies are 
returning to China today as we speak, and the Chinese people are all 
unified against America. What is worse than that, they are unified with 
Russia against America. China has become a player now in Kosovo. So our 
Chinese problems are just beginning. We need to go ahead and get beyond 
the Cox report and figure out what we should do.
  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. KINGSTON. One of the things I wanted to point out to you when you 
talk about a country of 1.2, 1.4 billion people, their army is 3 
million strong right now. Now they are downsizing it to a skeletal 2 
million people, but this is a huge army. They have just recently 
purchased 50 Russian SU-27 fighters and are building about 100 more. 
They have plans to install 650 short range missiles on China's 
coastline. This is an army that is being reorganized but it is on the 
move. But perhaps one of the best things they got in terms of stolen 
secrets were these so-called legacy codes.
  I am going to read from a Wall Street Journal article today:

       According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the most 
     valuable data comes in the form of legacy codes. These are 
     computer programs used by scientists at the two U.S. weapons 
     labs to model how a newly configured weapon might work based 
     on digital records of hundreds of U.S. tests that are built 
     into the codes. It can take 5 years for a beginning U.S. 
     weapons scientist to master the codes even with support from 
     veteran bomber designers. Discovering just when China may 
     have obtained these codes may be one of the keys to determine 
     how fast it could develop its arsenal.

  So it is these legacy codes that are just as important as the W-88. 
The W-88 as we have pointed out earlier, that is the nuclear design for 
the nuclear submarine stuff. They also got the W-56, W-57, and I think 
it was W-72 and W-78 and W-87. These are all our nuclear warhead 
secrets, the drafts and the designs and the plans. As one of the 
Pentagon officials said, ``They basically have all the secrets in our 
nuclear arsenal right now.''

                              {time}  2245

  The only question remains is how much, how far they are along in 
applying this information. It is scary.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Small wonder then that a long-time observer of our 
intelligence scene and apparatus described this breach, and it has been 
reported, again in the mainstream press, as the worst breach of 
national security since the Rosenbergs, and, Mr. Speaker, that is 
chilling. But the challenge for us is not to stand mortified or 
paralyzed or irresolute or intent on political gamesmanship. Mr. 
Speaker, the challenge for us is to remember what has worked through 
our history, to have a deep and abiding faith in the American people.
  My colleague from Montana was here earlier tonight along with my 
colleague from Colorado and a colleague from California, and he made 
this point that I have seen time and again, and I am sure my friend 
from Georgia would echo this sentiment. When we return home to our 
districts, when we meet with our constituents, we are reassured and 
overwhelmed by the common sense of the American people who understand a 
clear and present danger and who do not shrink from a threat to their 
family's security and to the national security.
  We have learned through our history, Mr. Speaker, and it appears as a 
paradox, but in fact it is the foundation of our successful policy 
around the world in what has been referred to as the American Century, 
and that is we find true peace through our military strength and we 
seek strength not to dominate or colonize the world, as our detractors 
would say, using the buzz phrase of imperialism. No, we only seek that 
power and advantage in our own national interest so that we may ensure 
the peace in our own legitimate national interests.
  That is why I was pleased to vote one week ago to supplement our 
defense capabilities, to give our men and women in uniform a much 
needed pay raise for the work they do, to recognize their value and to 
refortify our Nation's Armed Forces because, Mr. Speaker, we have a 
situation fast developing that was reminiscent of what we saw 20 years 
ago, the erosion of our capabilities, our manpower, our munitions, our 
material, to the point where our capabilities were described as a 
hollow force.
  Again we face those challenges because even as this administration 
has disagreed with the new majority in Congress while we have tried 
time and again to increase allocations to preserve our national 
security, and the administration said, no, we do not need to spend 
funds in that fashion and put our national security at risk, we have a 
situation where our Commander in Chief has deployed our Armed Forces 
into more than 30 locations, and now we are faced with the vexing 
dilemma of having an Armed Forces apparatus incapable of fighting a 
two-front war or dealing with two regional conflicts.
  That exacerbates the problem today in the Balkans. Whatever one's 
opinion of the course of action that should be followed, and good 
Americans can disagree as to the intent and what should be done, and 
certainly the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and I have weighed 
in with our points of view on this in the past, but incumbent upon this 
Congress and our Commander in Chief is to act in the national interest 
to make sure that we have the manpower, the materiel, the munitions 
necessary to defend our constitutional republic.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it was 
interesting. Yesterday I went to an Air Force base, and I am not sure 
if I should say the name so I will not, but they told me that last year 
they had 11 fighter jets that sat basically on the tarmac because they 
needed spare parts, and they sat there, and, as my colleague knows, it 
is a tragic waste of millions of dollars worth of equipment. They 
finally got the spare parts, and now they are up and running because 
last year, as my colleague knows and he supported some money for spare 
parts; very simple, you just have to do that in the world; but, as my 
colleagues know, the other bad part was the morale.
  As my colleagues know, here we have these trained pilots who say, 
look, you know I work hard, it is very competitive to get where I am, 
and I got here, and now you will not let me fly these jets because you 
do not even spend the money on the spare parts. I am out of here. I can 
find a better job in the private sector. Will not be what I wanted, 
will not be the excitement and the thrill of flying a jet, but there is 
no reason.
  And so also in the bill that my colleague supported last week was 
money for more spare parts for tanks and equipment, and, as my 
colleagues know, maybe it is a little mundane, a little boring, to have 
to spend money responsibly on things like spare parts, but we have to 
have it.
  As my colleagues know, these planes go from Georgia to the Middle 
East. They get sand in the engine. They have

[[Page H2993]]

to be down for two or three days while they clean everything to make 
sure that the sand is out of there because it grinds it down. Then they 
go to another region that has completely different elements, and they 
have to keep up with their equipment. But when we are spending millions 
and millions of dollars on it, it is well worth it.
  But the equipment is nothing compared to the soldiers and the 
soldiers. My colleague mentioned deployments. I believe the rough 
numbers are that from World War II until 1989 there were 11 United 
States deployments of Armed Services, 11 from World War II until 1989, 
and since 1989 there have been 33, and this administration with its 
very peculiar relationship with the military or its view of the 
military seems to deploy them at the drop of a hat, and, as my 
colleagues know, we have fought putting Americans under command of U.N. 
generals. We want our American soldiers under the commands of 
Americans. As we get more into this strange period of when we have a 
defensive coalition like NATO that is acting offensively, when we are 
involved in a civil war where there is no clarified American peril, and 
you know there is an American peril if you back into the argument of 
whether economic stability in Europe is at stake. I am not 100 percent 
sure that it is, but let us say you buy that. Then why out of 19 NATO 
countries is America picking up anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of the 
cost of this war?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, on that observation I thank the gentleman 
from Georgia for raising that because again one cannot help but note 
the contrasts with this latest campaign in Kosovo and the air campaign 
of the NATO forces, and yet the fact that our European allies are not 
paying their fair share of this military involvement, and it almost 
sounds, Mr. Speaker, like a test question for history: Compare and 
contrast the demands of President Bush on the allied nations in Desert 
Storm with the lack of demands President Clinton has placed upon our 
European NATO allies during the Kosovo campaign. Again, good people can 
disagree as to the advisability of having forces in the Balkans, but we 
should be united in the observation that our European allies, who have 
this action in just the fact of geography and of life that the Balkans 
theater is there closer to their homelands, literally in their own 
backyards. They should pick up their fair share of that burden if there 
is to be involvement at all.

  Mr. KINGSTON. And if they decide that they cannot pick up their fair 
share of the military action, let them weigh in on the humanitarian 
assistance.
  Can you imagine 750,000 refugees outside of the country, and tonight 
I saw statistics that said there are 600,000 inside the country.
  Now, as my colleagues know, the numbers are fluid so we are never 100 
percent sure, but these are people who have left their homes with 
nothing, no time to pack, no money, no food, no clothing, no 
transportation, and if they are lucky enough to return, then their 
house may be destroyed, the roads and transportation will be destroyed, 
the hospital will be destroyed, their food system, the distribution 
system, so we are going to need medicine, food, shelter. We are going 
to be committed to this humanitarian part of the war for a long, long 
time, and let us hope that our NATO allies, their European brothers and 
sisters, are going to be on the front line of that because that is 
going to cost us a lot of money for many, many years.
  Can my colleague imagine the rebuilding that we will be involved in?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. And it boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague 
from Georgia points this out, there is of course a larger context both 
to the Balkan theater that is transpiring in Kosovo and the other 
challenges we face around the world, and, Mr. Speaker, there is a 
legacy of modern conservatism and a common train of thought reflected 
in the notion of peace through strength, which President Reagan was so 
dogged and devout in pursuing, and indeed earlier this century by our 
former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, later 
President of the United States, General Dwight David Eisenhower. In his 
book Eisenhower, The President, William Blake Eweld sets forward the 
components that Eisenhower used, the criteria upon which Eisenhower 
based any notion of military involvement by our Nation.
  No. 1, said Ike, define the compelling national interest that would 
prompt us to act militarily. No. 2, Eisenhower said, let us have a 
clearly definable military objective. General Eisenhower, subsequently 
President Eisenhower, went on. No. 3, understand that there is no such 
thing as a little force. Once the decision to use force is made, force 
must be applied overwhelmingly and, yes, even brutally to achieve the 
desired ends. And, No, 4, once the objectives are achieved, there must 
be a clear exit strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I must lament the fact that whether it is in Kosovo or 
simply the notion of state craft and diplomacy confronting the 
challenges as we do today with Communist China how bereft and bankrupt 
and totally removed from the criteria Eisenhower outlined in what came 
to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, how far afield this 
administration is both in the conduct of our foreign policy and in the 
use of American fighting men and women around the world. 
Unapologetically we should stand for our national interests and our 
national security, and to those who come to this floor and offer what 
they believe to be a humanitarian argument, I notice very seldom do we 
hear about the almost 2 million people who have died in the Sudan, or 
the tribal warfare that has gone on in Rwanda, and that is not in any 
way to diminish the suffering in Kosovo, but let me suggest this, Mr. 
Speaker and my colleague from Georgia:
  If we are to change and enlarge the definition of our national 
interest to include every atrocity that occurs somewhere around this 
world, we would be asking for the conscription of American men and 
women for almost a 10-year tour of duty, and this constitutional 
republic would look more like the ancient city state of Sparta in terms 
of our citizens under arms.
  No, we must have a logical, sober, reasonable definition of our 
compelling national interest clearly and unapologetically, and that is 
the foundation upon which we must base all of our actions in the field 
of diplomacy and certainly in the introduction of our military forces.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman has pointed out why America is now 
divided on this war effort. In Desert Storm, as my colleague knows, 
preceding the January bombing, we had a 6 month build-up of the 
military called Desert Shield, and we got our allies on board, and we 
got the American people on board, and that was not done in this case, 
and we went in there, as you and I have heard rumors from the Pentagon, 
expecting a two or three day campaign, and yet there was warning that 
it was going to be prolonged, that we could not achieve the objectives 
without ground forces, but we also understood that people within the 
White House thought it was going to be a two or three day campaign, and 
lo and behold, here we are now with 45th, 46th day; I am not certain.
  But we have not clearly articulated to the American people and the 
administration has not what the peril is, and it is just this vague, 
well, humanitarian assistance and economic stability of Europe.
  But the interesting thing I think right now is that there is this 
overture of if you quit bombing, we will have a peace talk, and I think 
most Americans right now are actually on the side of, okay, let us stop 
bombing and let us get talking again and see what happens.
  Now there are critics who say once you stop bombing you cannot start 
again because the NATO alliance might not stick together. Well, I do 
not think that is that big of a deal based on what they have been 
contributing.

                              {time}  2300

  I think what we need to do is to get back to the peace table and 
start talking. Remember, we did not even start boycotting Yugoslavia 
for trade until 2 weeks ago. We should have done that a year ago, even 
earlier than that, because this has been going on since really 1989, 
1990 and 1991 when the Republic of Yugoslavia started breaking out. 
Slovenia pulled out, and then Croatia and Bosnia.
  None of this stuff has been surprising. Again, the bombing of the 
Chinese embassy, why did the most powerful military alliance in the 
world not

[[Page H2994]]

know that they were bombing an embassy?
  Mistakes happen in war, and I am certainly not going to say that is 
the biggest problem we have right now but that one they should have 
known. Was it the fault of the CIA or is that just a neat little 
package that we are going to put a scapegoat on? Or is it just this 
chain of NATO command where we have too many cooks in the broth? Is 
this a war by committee? That is, I think, one of our big problems that 
we are not even discussing.
  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.

                          ____________________