C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today is being offered on behalf of all 52 members of the California delegation who have sponsored legislation authored by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). This amendment is coauthored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and myself as members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We had a chance in committee to consider this amendment, and, as we bring it to the floor, it will apply as a first step only to the State of California, but it is a very important issue for the entire country. Mr. Chairman, since 1990, the Federal Government has specified the recipe for clean gasoline. In 1990, it was thought that adding oxygenates to gasoline was the best way to clean up the air, to reduce something. But a lot has happened since 1990. We in California and people across the country are finding ways to reduce something and toxic air emissions far more significantly than is required by Federal law. We can beat and exceed Federal standards. In addition to cleaner air, California wants new gasoline that will produce cleaner water, because some of the additives to gasoline can pollute the groundwater. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is still stuck back 11 years ago in 1990. We are specifying not only the level of cleanliness that we wish to achieve, but also the recipe for getting there, and this amendment will eliminate a mandate, it will eliminate a mandate that says we have to use, in effect, ethanol or a chemical called MTBE. There is nothing, if this amendment becomes law, that will prevent us from continuing to use those ingredients or anything else in our gasoline, provided that we meet or exceed Federal clean air standards. But California cannot move forward with our cleaner gasoline program under existing law. Without a change in this, by technology standards, ancient rule, California's air and water quality will suffer, and motorists will suffer too, because we will be paying at least 5 cents more per gallon due to the local shortage of oxygenate substitutes for MTBE, which is being phased out in California. We may hear during debate that if we do not have this mandate from the Federal Government on our States, that somehow, environmental quality will suffer, but the language of the amendment makes it clear that the contrary is the case. The language in the amendment states clearly that California will get a waiver from this 1990 rule, the 2 percent oxygenate rule only if the gasoline we use in our State will achieve quote, ``equivalent or greater emissions reductions than are required by Federal law.'' It seems unlikely in the extreme, Mr. Chairman, that were this anything but an environmentally friendly amendment, we would have the endorsements of the American Lung Association, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Environmental Trust, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and dozens of other environmental organizations. We also have the support of governors in the States who are trying to do a better job, and I would like to conclude my brief remarks by reminding at least the Republicans among us of this provision in the 2000 Republican platform: ``As the laboratories of innovation, States should be given flexibility, authority and finality by the Federal Government when it comes to environmental concerns.'' That has been President Bush's policy, that should be our policy. Let us give the governors the tools that they need to clean up our air and water, and let us repeal this Federal mandate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues from across the country for working with us in support of this sensible amendment to give governors and to give States the flexibility they need to meet not just the Federal standards for clean air, but even higher standards. We have had governors of several States making phone calls in support of this amendment: We have had Governor Pataki from New York; we have had Governor Rowland from Connecticut. Many States presently are already working to phase out MTBE or ethanol in gasoline, not only California, but the State of Washington, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and South Dakota. In all of these States, I think the flexibility to handle the problem and the ways that the States find work the best will give us cleaner air and cleaner water. I know that Governor Ventura will want to wrestle with this problem in the future.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. As the author of the amendment, do I have the right to close?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Maria Ema Minon, M.D., who this past weekend completed her term as President of the Orange County Medical Association. Dr. Minon, only the second woman president in the 100 year history of the OCMA, has provided excellent leadership on numerous issues of central importance to the people of Orange County. Her fight for just compensation for physician services provided under Medi-Cal and her dedication to improving the quality of care in Orange County have been exemplary. Dr. Minon was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and immigrated to the United States in 1966. After graduating from the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, she distinguished herself over 20 years as a pediatrician in private practice. Since 1984, she has served in numerous leadership positions to promote public service in medicine, ethics, and health finances. Dr. Minon served as President of my district's American Academy of Pediatrics chapter and was recently named Chair of the Children and Families Commission of Orange County. She is also the Vice President of Medical Affairs at the Children's Hospital of Orange County, and was recognized in 1998 by the CHOC Foundation for Children with the Charlie Hester Philanthropy Award. Although the gavel has passed to a new President, I know Dr. Minon will continue to dedicate her time and knowledge to advancing high- quality health care for all Orange Countians. On behalf of the United States Congress and all of the people of Orange County whom it my privilege to represent, congratulations to Dr. Minon on her successful term as the President of the Orange County Medical Association.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I was seeking to be recognized on the amendment.

Mr. COX. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The effect of this amendment is to abrogate our post-World War II agreement with Japan on reparations to U.S. citizens injured by Japan during World War II. It would bar the Justice Department and the State Department from using appropriated funds ``to file a motion in any court opposing a civil action against any Japanese person or corporation for compensation or reparations in which the plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during World War II he or she was used as slave or forced labor.'' Although U.S. POWs used as slave laborers deserve redress, this amendment may raise serious constitutional concerns. During the Reagan Administration, the Department of Justice regularly advised Congress of its constitutional concerns over the so-called Rudman Amendment, a funding bar annually added by Congress that purported to bar the President from spending appropriated funds to advocate in court the view that the antitrust laws did not bar vertical non-price restraints. The Justice Department believed that the Rudman Amendment represented an attempt to accomplish indirectly through the appropriations power that Congress could not, consistent with the Constitution, accomplish directly through legislation--namely, to tell the President how to ``take Care that the laws [in this case, the antitrust laws] be faithfully executed.'' The Justice Department took this view even though the legal question was simply one of statutory construction, i.e., the proper interpretation of a law wholly within Congress's legislative domain, because it also implicated the Take Care Clause--a grant of power to the President directly under the Constitution, and not a grant of delegated legislative authority. If accordingly represented an unconstitutional condition. This amendment appears to raise a still more serious constitutional question, because in addition to attempting to use the appropriations power indirectly to control the executive branch's interpretation of statutes pursuant to the Take Care Clause, it also attempts indirectly to use the appropriations power to control the President's exercise of the Foreign Affairs Power--a power he also enjoys directly under the Constitution, and not by grant of delegated legislative authority. This is so because the executive branch's position in such litigation could rest directly on the President's foreign affairs power. As a result, it would be better to pursue any appropriate redress through direct executive-branch negotiations with the Government of Japan. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration opposes this amendment. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, there are several additional reasons to oppose this amendment, despite its noble purpose of assisting former prisoners of war. These reasons are eloquently set forth in the following correspondence from the Honorable George P. Schultz, former U.S. Secretary of State: June 1, 2001. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you to express my deep reservations about H.R. 1198--The Justice for the U.S. Prisoners of War Act of 2001. I believe the passage of this act would be a direct challenge to the ability of the United States to make and execute treaties. I express my opposition to the bill against the background of tremendous sympathy for the problems of the United States' citizens who have in one way or another been harmed, many severely, in the course of war and its sometimes dehumanizing impact. But the bill in question would have the effect of voiding the bargain made and explicitly set out in the Treaty of Peace between Japan, the United States and forty-seven other countries. President Truman with the advice and consent of the Senate ratified the Treaty and it became effective April 28, 1952. The Treaty has served us well in providing the fundamental underpinning for the peace and prosperity we have seen, for the most part, in the Asia Pacific region over the past half-century. The treaty addresses squarely the issue of compensation for damages suffered at the hands of the Japanese. Article 14 in the Treaty sets out the terms of Japanese payment ``for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war.'' The agreement provides: 1. a grant of authority to Allied powers to seize Japanese property within their jurisdiction at the time of the Treaty's effective date; 2. an obligation of Japan to assist in the rebuilding of territory occupied by Japanese forces during the war; and 3. waiver of all ``other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals of the war.'' The interests of Allied prisoners of war are addressed in Article 16, which provides for transfer of Japanese assets in neutral or enemy jurisdictions to the International Red Cross for distribution to former prisoners and their families. H.R. 1198 challenges these undertakings head on, as it says, ``In any action in a Federal court, . . . . the court . . . . shall not construe section 14 (b) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan as constituting a waiver by the United States of claims by nationals of the United States, including claims by members of the United States Armed Forces, so as to preclude the pending action.'' I have read carefully an opinion of Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court in California rendered on September 21, 2000, dealing with claims, many of a heart- rending nature. His reasoning and his citations are incisive and persuasive to me. He writes, ``The cases implicate the uniquely federal interests of the United States to make peace and enter treaties with foreign nations. As the United States has argued as amicus curiae, there cases carry potential to unsettle half a century of diplomacy.'' Just as Judge Walker ruled against claims not compatible with the Treaty, I urge that Congress should take no action that would, in effect, abrogate the Treaty. The chief negotiator of the Treaty on behalf of President Truman was the clear-eyed and tough-minded John Foster Dulles, who later became Secretary of State for President Eisenhower. He and other giants from the post World War II period saw the folly of what happened after World War I, when a vindictive peace treaty, that called upon the defeated states to pay huge reparations, helped lead to World War II. They chose otherwise: to do everything possible to cause Germany and Japan to become democratic partners and, as the Cold War with the Soviet Union emerged, allies in that struggle. As Judge Walker notes in his opinion, ``the importance of a stable, democratic Japan as a bulwark to communism in the region increased.'' He says, ``that this policy was embodied in the Treaty is clear not only from the negotiations history, but also from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report recommending approval of the Treaty by the Senate . . . and history has vindicated the wisdom of that bargain.'' I served during World War II as a Marine in the Pacific. I took part in combat operations. I had friends--friends close to me--friendships derived from the closeness that comes from taking part in combat together, killed practically beside me. I do not exaggerate at all in saying that the people who suffered the most are the ones who did not make it at all. I have always supported the best of treatment for our veterans, especially those who were involved in combat. If they are not being adequately taken care of, we should always be ready to do more. If you have fought in combat, you know the horrors of war and the destructive impact it can have on decent people. You also know how fragile your own life is. I recall being the senior Marine on a ship full of Marines on our way back from the Pacific Theatre after three years overseas. We all knew that we would reassemble into assorted forces for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. As Marines, we knew all about the bloody invasions of Tarawa, the Palaus, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and many other islands. So we knew what the invasion of the Japanese home islands would be like. Not long after we left port, an atomic bomb was dropped on Japan. None of us knew what that was, but we sensed it must be important since the event was newsworthy enough to get to our ships at sea. Then we heard of a second one. Before our ship reached the States, the war was over. I have visited Japan a number of times and I have been exposed to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians there were caught up in the war. I am sympathetic towards them. I have heard a lot of criticism of President Truman for dropping those bombs, but everyone on that ship was convinced that President Truman saved our lives. Yes, war is terrible, but the Treaty brought it to an end. The Bill would fundamentally abrogate a central provision of a fifty-year-old treaty, reversing a long-standing foreign policy stance. The Treaty signed in San Francisco nearly fifty years ago and involving forty-nine nations could unravel. A dangerous legal precedent would be set. Once again I would say to you, where we have veterans, especially veterans of combat who are not being adequately supported, we must step up to their problems without hesitation. But let us not unravel confidence in the commitment of the United States to a Treaty properly negotiated and solemnly ratified with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. I submit this letter to you and other members of the House of Representatives with my deep respect for the wisdom of the congressional process, and for the vision embodied in the past World War II policies that have served our country and the world so well. Sincerely yours, George P. Shultz.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Yakov Smirnoff, who will celebrate his 15th anniversary as a United States citizen on July 4, 2001. When Yakov left the Soviet Union in 1977, he arrived in the U.S. with less than $100 in his pocket. But like so many new immigrants, Yakov quickly found a way to put his talents to use in his new country--and in only a few years he became one of America's most recognized comedians. Yakov's brand of comedy appealed to so many Americans because it carried real insight. He poked fun at the daily consequences of Soviet tyranny, while displaying a remarkably American irreverence for our own foibles (``In the Soviet Union, I'd line up for three hours just to get a tasteless piece of meat and some stale bread; but in America, you can walk into any fast-food restaurant and get the same thing right away''). But he also reminded us of how fortunate we are to live in a free and democratic nation (``What a country!'' became his signature line). In fact, Yakov has said that his comedy has helped him ``share his attempts at becoming a real American with the audience.'' Yakov's dream of becoming an American citizen was finally fulfilled on July 4, 1986, in a ceremony held at the Statue of Liberty. Describing his joy at the occasion, Yakov says: ``I suddenly had a new revelation. You can go to Italy but never become Italian. You can go to France but never become French. But you can come to America and become an American.'' When freedom came to the formerly captive peoples of the Soviet Empire, Yakov joked that ``the end of the KGB eliminated 100 percent of the torture in Russia, 50 percent of the spying--and 30 percent of my punch lines.'' But in fact Yakov enjoys continued success in his comedic routines. In 1992, he moved to Branson, Missouri, where he owns his own comedy theater and performs to perennially sold-out shows. Yakov says he will continue to relish having a job that allows him to encourage Americans to cherish the freedom we have to laugh at ourselves--and yes, at our government. ``I've learned that the secret to being happy is discovering your gift and having the opportunity to share it with the world,'' he once said. ``As I found out for myself, it can be quite a ride before your gift defines itself and allows you to realize what it is.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to Yakov Smirnoff on the 15th anniversary of his citizenship. He truly embodies what it means to be an American. As we prepare to celebrate the 4th of July, the United States Congress can all join with Yakov and say, ``What a country!''

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act and in opposition to the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). Markets do not pay taxes; people do. So we are just today attempting to relieve taxpayers, people, savers, retirees, teachers, cops, moms and pops, retirees of a burden on savings and investment, and a significant one. We are doing so only to the extent that it is fiscally reasonable. The fees, the taxes that we are talking about here are meant to fund the SEC but over the past many years, and we have been studying this issue for 8 years, we have seen that the fees are running far in excess of what it requires to operate the SEC. There is a big tax overcharge and it runs into billions of dollars. If we were to adopt the substitute, then the tax overcharge would run to well over $2 billion still. As a result, it is very, very important to reject the substitute and to pass the underlying legislation. The bill that we are considering today will repeal the penalty tax on savings and investment that is represented by these enormous fees. The substitute would maintain the status quo. It will not stop the tax overcharge. It will not deliver the tax relief that American savers and investors deserve. It would allow the SEC to continue to impose fees far in excess of what the agency needs to fund its operations. The substitute is really a great way to stick it to investors and savers. In California, our teachers' retirement, our CALPERS retirement fund, has paid in overcharges, in just the year 2000, $2.6 million. That is for those worthy people's retirement savings. Why should we take it away from them if it is not necessary for the SEC to fund its operations? This is a vitally needed bill. It is very, very good for the country. It is good for savers, and I urge that we reject the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act (H.R. 1088), and in opposition to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce]. Markets don't pay taxes--people do. Before I begin my formal remarks, I'd like to take a moment to commend the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], as well as the Chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], for their hard work on this legislation, and for making passage of this bill a top priority for the Committee. It's entirely appropriate that this legislation follows so closely on the heels of the recently-enacted tax bill, as the legislation before us today provides significant additional tax relief for American investors by reducing the excessive fees now imposed on the sale of Securities: Stocks you own directly, or trust your company retirement plan, or union pension fund, to own in your name. If you're a teacher or peace officer, it's the investments that the trustees of your retirement plan makes. Today, investors and other participants in U.S. capital markets are being massively overcharged by the Securities and Exchange Commission for the services it provides. When Congress wrote the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, we authorized the SEC to impose certain fees to help offset the agency's costs of regulating the securities marketplace. But in recent years the government has been imposing fees on investors and other participants in the securities market that are far beyond what is needed to pay for the SEC's budget. Last year alone, investors paid $2.3 billion in fees to the SEC--six times the amount needed to pay for the agency's $380 million budget. Over the last decade, the SEC has collected $9.2 billion in excessive fees. These so-called ``fees'' are a direct tax on savings and investment. All the excess taxes not needed by the SEC are not returned to retirees, or young workers. Instead they're sent along to the U.S. Treasury, to add to our record-breaking tax surplus. The bill we are considering today, H.R. 1088, will repeal this penalty tax on savings and investment. H.R. 1088 cuts the rate of every major SEC fee. The substitute, on the other hand, would maintain the status quo. It won't stop the tax overcharge. It won't deliver the tax relief that American seniors and investors deserve. It would allow the SEC to continue to impose fees far in excess of what the agency needs to fund its operations. The weaknesses of the substitute amendment are evident: One third the total tax relief. The substitute amendment guarantees that government will continue to collect overcharges of nearly $10 billion. Of course, none of these extra taxes would go to benefit the SEC whose budget is already fully funded under H.R. 1088. Instead, the overcharges will be passed along to the U.S. Treasury to add to the record-high tax surplus. Limited transaction fee relief reduces so-called Section 31 fees, which are imposed on the sale of securities. In 1996, these fees raised $134 million; but in 2000, the amount collected had grown to more than $1 billion. Under substitute, Section 31 fees could cost investors $2 billion in 2006. No registration fee relief. Despite the recent growth in transaction fee collections, Section 6(b) fees--which are imposed on the registration and issuance of new securities--still raise more revenue than any other fee imposed by the SEC: $1.1 billion last year alone. H.R. 1088 reduces 6(b) fees by 62%; unfortunately, the substitute amendment contains no reduction in 6(b) fees. No other fee relief. In addition to ignoring the need to reduce securities registration fees, the substitute also fails to reduce the other tax overcharges covered by H.R. 1088. It contains no relief for hard-working Americans. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute amendment. It fails to provide investors--who have been massively overpaying for the SEC's services--with the relief they deserve from these massive tax overcharges on savings and investments. By rejecting this amendment, and instead approving the tax relief in H.R. 1088, Congress can protect Americans from burdensome taxes on their life savings, on capital formation and on the competitiveness of the U.S. economy.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an unusual community event that takes place in my district each year. ``Irrelevant Week,'' now being celebrated for the 26th year in a row, was the vision of former National Football League player Paul Salata. Founded on the premise of ``doing something nice for someone for no reason,'' Irrelevant Week has inspired generous acts that have made this popular event one of the most relevant altruistic programs held in Orange County. The honoree of the week is, by tradition, the person chosen last in the National Football League draft. Whether first or last in the NFL draft, Paul Salata knows that beyond pure talent, it is the character and drive of the player--even if the last one picked-- that will determine how successful he will be on the field. Proceeds from the week's events are donated to charities in Southern California, including this year's beneficiaries: the Orange County Youth Sports Foundation and Save Our Youth. This year's honoree is future Arizona Cardinal Tevita Ofahengaue. He was the 246th pick in the NFL draft this year. Born in Tonga and raised in Laie, Hawaii, he is a 6'2" 251-pound tight end from Brigham Young University. Tevita, along with his wife and four children, will undoubtedly enjoy celebrating his reign as ``Mr. Irrelevant'' during the week's festivities. On behalf of the United States Congress and the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, congratulations to Tevita, his family, Paul Salata, and everyone associated with Irrelevant Week XXVI.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to more closely conform the spending levels in H.R. 1 to the budget that has been adopted by the Congress and by this House and to the budget that has been submitted to us by the President. In their letter of support for this legislation, the administration, on May 15, 2001, wrote as follows: ``The administration supports House passage of H.R. 1, which reflects the themes of no child left behind, the President's comprehensive proposal to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. ``The administration urges the House to refine the committee bill; to maintain fiscal discipline. The bill,'' the administration says, ``contains excessive appropriation authorization levels.'' Here is what the letter says specifically about that: ``The total appropriation,'' according to the Office of Management and Budget, ``contained in H.R. 1 as reported exceeds the President's total request by over nearly $5 billion for fiscal year 2002. The administration has produced a responsible budget that includes significant increases for key education programs, while also maintaining fiscal discipline government-wide. The administration urges the House to pass a bill that is closely aligned with the President's budget.'' This amendment will implement President George W. Bush's commitment to an 11.5 percent increase in funding for education. This amendment provides that the total of all the funding increases in this bill, in the first year, will represent an 11.5 percent increase over fiscal year 2001. This is a rate of growth proposed for all Department of Education programs by the President. In fact, this amendment authorizes more funding than the President proposed in his budget and certainly more funding than we proposed in our budget. This 11.5 percent increase authorized in this amendment will authorize approximately $1.5 billion more for fiscal year 2002 than did H.R. 1 as introduced. For all subsequent years, the amendment authorizes further increases in aggregate funding of 14 percent. This increase in subsequent years is in line with President Bush's original budget request for K-12 education programs. This amendment more than triples the percentage increase in K-12 funding in our budget resolution. This amendment guarantees that increases in education spending and increases for the Department of Education will make it the most significant recipient of additional funds of any cabinet agency. This is the largest increase in Federal spending for any cabinet agency. Mr. Chairman, the Bush administration is urging amendment of H.R. 1 to more closely conform to the President's budget. Our choice is to spend a great deal more, 11.5 percent, or to in fact bust the budget so much to make this bill so unrecognizable that we are jeopardizing other education programs that are not covered by this bill if we intend to live within the overall projection of an 11.5 percent increase in funding for education. I, therefore, urge adoption of this amendment, which is a very moderate approach to resolving the problem, because it is a much bigger increase in spending than was proposed by the administration. It is a bigger increase than was proposed in our own budget. It is a bigger increase than was in H.R. 1 as introduced. It is consistent with the 11.5 percent increase across the board for education that the administration proposes; and yet it maintains fiscal discipline, something we should be teaching our children as we act here in Congress responsibly with a very good bill to improve education. It is important to live within a budget. Certainly an 11.5 percent increase in these programs, the largest increase of any cabinet agency, is something that we should all be very, very proud of. I urge adoption of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his hard work on this legislation. I intend to vote for it. I support the accountability that is in this bill. I support the President's aim to make sure that no child is left behind. I support the whole of the President's request, including in particular the President's request to this House that we amend this bill as it was reported to committee to make it more closely conform with the President's budget and our own budget. The President has proposed an 11.5 percent increase in education programs. Our own budget proposed a 3.2 percent increase in funding for the K through 12 programs that are the subject of this bill. My amendment increases H.R. 1 as introduced, increases the budget that has already been passed by this House so that the total of programs funded by this bill are increased next year by 11.5 percent. If we do not adopt this amendment, the rate of increase will be 23.5 percent. I have school-aged kids. They are in second grade, first grade, and preschool. I care a lot about their future, which is why I am so supportive of this big increase in support for education, continuing the major increases in funding that we have experienced over the last several years. But I worry about their future, not just in education but also in Social Security and in Medicare. I want the future for them to be just as great in the job market as it has been recently during the 1990s. I hope we can have some tax relief so those jobs will be there. If we go way beyond the 3.2 percent increase in our budget, way beyond even the 11.5 percent that is called for in this amendment, then our appropriators, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle who are striving to maintain our responsible budget, will have to cut other education programs that are not covered by this bill. That is not what anyone here wants. Mr. Chairman, let us honor the President's request to more closely conform this bill to his and our own budget. Let us live within a budget. Let us honor our children. Let us honor their future. Vote yes on the Cox amendment.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate be extended by 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to again focus our attention on the fact that the amendment that is before us calls for an 11.5 percent increase over last year in funding for the programs covered by this legislation.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, today we will repeal the death tax. We will send it to the President for the third time, but this time to a President who will sign it. We hear arguments about why punitive confiscatory taxes on the after- tax life savings of hard-working Americans are somehow justifiable or somehow wise. The death tax is perhaps the most complicated part of the Internal Revenue Code, 88 pages. If one has ever seen a death tax return or, worse yet, if their family has had to fill one out, they know how extraordinarily complex and complicated it is. It is unfair and it is inefficient. Even if one accepts the revenue analyses of the minority, which posit that there are no compliance costs and no collateral effects associated with this very damaging tax, it raises but 1 percent of our total revenues. In fact, according to the Joint Economic Committee, the costs that the death tax imposes on the economy more than offset its collections, so that this tax is actually costing not only our economy and workers money but the United States Treasury, and income taxes, income tax collections, are depressed as a result of maintaining the death tax on the books. The death tax falls heaviest on people who have no money, because even though it is included in the income tax, one does not have to have any income in order to own it. All they have to have is property. It is really a property-tax levy and these property-tax levies are placed on the shoulders of people who have accumulated assets over their entire lives. When they sell the property, usually a small business, to pay the tax man, the workers who used to have jobs at that small business, at that ranch or that farm, are laid off. The death tax imposed on an unemployed worker is 100 percent. The Democrat substitute would maintain a 55 percent highly- confiscatory rate punishing small businesses, ranches, and farms. The bill on the floor will repeal the death tax. It is time for the death tax to die.