[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 15, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4336-H4339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NAVAL CONFRONTATION BETWEEN SOUTH KOREA AND NORTH KOREA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brady of Texas). 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, 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.

                              {time}  2215

  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.

[[Page H4337]]

  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.

                              {time}  2230

  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

[[Page H4338]]

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.

                              {time}  2245

  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,

[[Page H4339]]

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.

                          ____________________