[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4479-4480]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I wish that I did not have to rise this 
morning on this topic, and yesterday I am shocked by the emperor's new 
clothes mentality that engulfs our Nation's Capitol on issues as vital 
as our national security.
  For, indeed, Madam Speaker, from the same crowd who would have us 
believe that there is another definition for the word ``alone,'' from 
the same bunch who would say, well, that depends on what the meaning of 
``is'' is, today, Madam Speaker, we have a new definition of 
``swiftly''.
  For according to the weekend talk shows, to hear Secretary of Energy 
Richardson and National Security Advisor Berger talk, they claim that 
this administration acted swiftly to try and counteract the 
intelligence breaches and espionage at our national laboratory at Los 
Alamos. Yet, this is the same crowd that, in the previous year, in an 
afternoon was able to clear out the White House Travel Office on a 
spurious charge of messing with the petty cash drawer, and yet it took 
this administration 3 long years to react to the first reports of an 
intelligence breach, Mr. Berger, notified in 1996 of the problem, 
apparently failing to take action.
  Indeed this morning, Madam Speaker, on the front page of the 
Washington Times the report is as follows, ``Security remains weak at 
U.S. nuclear labs despite the uncovering in 1995 of Chinese espionage 
efforts, says a recently retired U.S. counterintelligence official. His 
detailed firsthand knowledge contradicts President Clinton's claims 
that security has been tight.'' Quoting now, ``Security at the 
Department of Energy has not improved.'' This former official told the 
Washington Times, indeed.
  In yesterday's New York Times, columnist Bill Safire asked this 
question, ``Why, if Secretary Bill Richardson were so `seized of' this 
secret issue last August when he was named, did he demote the expert, 
Trulock, and put in charge a CIA man from his UN embassy staff, Larry 
Sanchez, who knew nothing about the agency's worst problem?''
  Safire also writes, ``It would be outrageous indeed to suggest that 
American officials were consciously betraying our national interest. 
But the confluence of these facts in election year 1996, combined with 
the urge to disregard or derogate any intelligence that would stop the 
political blessings of a `strategic partnership' with China, led to 
Clinton's denial of a dangerous penetration.''
  Madam Speaker, indeed, the distinguished senior Senator from my home 
State, Senator John McCain, in a major foreign policy speech yesterday 
spoke more on this topic, this curious timing of illegal campaign 
contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996. My senior Senator 
said, and I quote, ``Sadly that charge grows more credible every day. 
And if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt it will bring more of 
history's shame upon the President than his personal failings will, 
indeed greater shame than any President has ever suffered.''
  Madam Speaker, we acknowledge the obvious. We acknowledge that, 
sadly, in this town at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, there are 
some people who are beyond shame. Madam Speaker, our Vice President who 
last week claimed that he was father of the Internet also gave us a 
very curious interpretation when he claimed that, because this 
espionage may have started in the 1980s, someone else was to blame.
  Madam Speaker, if we are to use that as our standard, then I suppose 
we should blame Lyndon Johnson for the Navy spy ring that began its 
espionage in 1968. No, Madam Speaker, espionage is a serious charge and 
is a serious problem that we deplore at any time. But the challenge is 
not when it started but when we chose to do something about it once we 
had the knowledge.
  Again, our President speaks of a strategic partnership with China. We 
know now in the fullness of time exactly what his strategic partnership 
meant. Take a look at the record. Take a look at the videotapes. 
Leaders of the People's Liberation Army and Chinese business interests 
giving to the Clinton-Gore campaign?
  Madam Speaker, even though, in this environment of the emperor's new 
clothes, let me step forward as did the young girl in that tale by Hans 
Christian Andersen and say this, it is illegal, it is unpardonable, it 
is unconscionable for an American administration to take money from 
foreign governments.

[[Page 4480]]



                          ____________________