C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this important resolution to the floor. I rise in strong support of House Resolution 56, which calls for a National Day of Remembrance to increase public awareness of the Japanese Americans, German Americans and Italian Americans whose civil rights were violated during World War II. Suffering by the Japanese-American community was particularly acute. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed his infamous Executive Order 9066. It ordered the imprisonment of 120,000 Japanese Americans on the West Coast of the United States. For most of the war, these loyal Americans, who had done nothing to deserve such treatment, were forced to live under armed guard in isolated camps hundreds of miles from home. The Japanese Americans subject to Franklin Roosevelt's executive order had as little as 4 days to prepare for being rounded up. They were forced to sell or lease their property often at ruinous losses. They were deprived of income during their imprisonment. Many lost their businesses, their livelihoods and their life savings. So many hardworking Americans were rounded up into camps that the economies of entire States, California, Oregon and Washington, suffered severely. FDR's wholesale denial of Americans' constitutional rights shamed America but all Americans can be proud of the Japanese Americans he imprisoned. Despite their shameful treatment by the Roosevelt administration, they never wavered in their patriotism and their support for the United States and for the war effort. In fact, the most decorated combat unit of World War II, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, was composed of Japanese Americans, many of whom themselves had been internees in these camps. Mr. Speaker, Franklin Roosevelt's executive order was never formally rescinded until President Gerald Ford took action. On February 19, 1976, he rescinded Executive Order 9066 with a proclamation entitled ``An American Promise.'' By President Ford's proclamation, America finally recognized the sacrifices made by Japanese Americans for the United States and called upon all Americans to resolve that such a tragedy would never happen again. And then on August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 by which the United States Government at long last apologized for, quote, the fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of persons of Japanese ancestry. One of my predecessors as policy chairman here in the House, then Representative Dick Cheney, now Vice President Dick Cheney, cosponsored the bill. My predecessor from Orange County, California, Representative Robert Badham, was one of its strongest advocates. The Civil Liberties Act also established the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund to preserve in the national consciousness of our country the memory of the internment. At the signing ceremony, President Reagan quoted his own words honoring Japanese-American soldiers and all American soldiers who fought in World War II. Here is what President Reagan said: ``Blood that has soaked into the sands of a beach is all of one color. America stands unique in the world, the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way.'' Six decades later, as President Reagan would say, that is still the American way, and we do great honor to the Congress, to the country, to Japanese Americans and to people who come to America from all parts of the world by passing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 56.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 530, which urges the representative of the United States to the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to introduce a resolution calling upon the government of the People's Republic of China to end its human rights violations. A year ago, the government of the PRC agreed to invite three international human rights organizations to China without conditions. Those three organizations were the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Religious Intolerance and Torture, and the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Two visits were scheduled, but the arrangement was that they were supposed to come without conditions and none of those visits has taken place precisely because of unacceptable preconditions imposed in violation of its own promises by the government of the People's Republic of China. The failure of the PRC government to follow through on its promises once again is instructive. First, it demonstrates the lack of commitment and good faith on the part of the PRC to acknowledge and improve the human rights conditions for the Chinese people. Second, it reveals a PRC strategy to assuage international concerns with bare rhetoric and deceptive practices in order to advance the political and economic interests of its rulers. Most importantly, it shows that additional pressure is necessary to improve human rights in the PRC. Several cases have been cited. In fact, the pattern of hundreds and thousands of cases has been cited during this debate. I will add just one more, the case of Dr. Yang Jianli, the U.S.-educated scholar of democracy. In June 2003, this House unanimously approved legislation calling for Dr. Yang's release. His case is one more example of the unwillingness of the PRC government to fulfill its promise, or to follow its own law. The PRC has held Dr. Yang Jianli, whose wife and children are citizens of the United States, without access to a lawyer, without the right to contact his family, and even without a court ruling against him. This indefinite detention is a violation of international standards and the PRC's own criminal law. Since 1997, the denial of basic rights is beginning to extend even to Hong Kong. Just today, we read in The Washington Post that the PRC is secretly holding a group of Hong Kong residents, including at least three British citizens, and prosecuting them for espionage. What have they done? According to The Post, the charges include discussion of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Madam Speaker, there are many people who should be prosecuted for the Tiananmen Square massacre, but they are most assuredly not citizens of China or British citizens living in Hong Kong; and they are not people who simply talk about this abomination. They are, instead, the rulers who perpetrated this assault on the Chinese people and who continue to occupy positions of high power in Beijing. We ask the government of the PRC to accomplish simple and humane goals: stop the persecution of religious practitioners; stop the forced return of Korean refugees to the totalitarian half of the peninsula; end forced abortions and forced sterilization of women; adhere to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the 1951 Convention Relating to Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Madam Speaker, today there appears in the news the fact that the People's Republic of China has announced it is going to change its constitution to include private property as a right of the Chinese people. In practice, the National People's Congress exists mainly to carry out the will of the party leadership; and if the party leadership will not observe its own laws, we can expect nothing to come of this as well. Article 35 of the existing state constitution proclaims that citizens of the PRC enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration; and that is a lie. We are here today to urge our government to work to see to it that these lies come to an end and that the People's Republic of China honors the citizens of China with basic fundamental human rights.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, today, in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to honor one of its most distinguished judges by hanging his portrait in historic Courtroom One in the courthouse on 7th Street in San Francisco. That jurist is Herbert Y.C. Choy. I am very privileged to have worked for him in my first job upon graduation from law school as his law clerk. Today, some 31 generations of Choy law clerks will honor him, along with Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Richard Clifton, the successor to Judge Choy in the Ninth Circuit courthouse in Honolulu; and also one of his law clerks, John McCuckin, who is now executive vice president of Union Bank, and many, many others from around the country who honor and treasure and respect Judge Choy and his wife, Helen. Judge Choy is the first Asian American ever appointed to the Federal bench. He is the first Asian American not only on an article 3 court, but on any court. He is the first Korean American to be appointed to the Federal bench, and he is the first Hawaiian ever to be appointed to serve representing the State of Hawaii on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Choy is the son of immigrants who came to Hawaii, came to the United States from Korea, as part of a great wave to work on Hawaii's sugar plantations. The Hawaiians of Korean ancestry are celebrating their centennial of that great immigration wave this year. As someone who was part of the immigration experience, Judge Choy always paid particular attention, he said, to immigration cases to make sure they were decided fairly, and on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, immigration cases are a significant portion of the total caseload. When he graduated from the University of Hawaii, Judge Choy blazed another trail. He went back East to Boston to attend Harvard Law School where he distinguished himself as a scholar. When he graduated in 1941, as a Hawaiian on the East Coast of the United States of America, he was horrified, as were all Americans, when 6 months later, an anniversary that we recognized last week, on December 7, 1941 saw the attack on Pearl Harbor. Judge Choy, who had just graduated from law school, joined the United States Army, and served this country with distinction. He joined the Judge Advocate General Corps, prefiguring his work in private practice, beginning in 1946 at the end of World War II, as a lawyer. He became the Nation's first Korean American attorney, and practiced with the firm of Fong & Miho, later known as Fong, Miho, Choy & Robertson. Hiriam Robertson, a distinguished Member of this Congress, was his law partner. He went on to serve Hawaii as attorney general, beginning in 1957, and he was nominated by the President of the United States in 1971, elevated to the Federal bench, to the United States Court of Appeals, the largest and busiest of the Nation's appellate courts. When he became the first Asian American on the Federal bench, it was not remarked upon in that way. Rather, people recognized that this was a first of another sort, this was one of the most remarkable people from any background nominated to the Federal bench, and as his law clerk and as so many of his law clerks gathering to honor him can attest, he was unique, and remains unique, in his capacity to inspire others through a quiet dignity, through leadership, scholarship that is not intimidating, but compassionate. He is scrupulously honest. I have known honest people in my life who have been examples for me, certainly my own parents, but never have I seen someone who is so scrupulously honest as Judge Choy. Mr. Speaker, we honor today a man whose life in the United States of America symbolizes the importance of the rule of law and that vital pillar of our American republic depends upon people of character. There is no finer example of honesty, integrity, impartiality, and equality before the law than this man, Judge Choy, whom we honor today here in this Congress and in the courthouse in San Francisco. To Judge Choy, to his wife, Helen, and all of the Federal family, as he is want to call them, congratulations. This is a wonderful occasion to honor a wonderful man.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 624 I inadvertently voted ``aye.'' The vote was closed before I could correct the mistake. Had I been able to do so, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education to thank two outstanding individuals, Bill and Sue Gross, whose unparalleled commitment to teachers in California is an inspiration in. the field of education. Each year more than fifty public, private, and community college teachers from Orange County, California, are recognized for their outstanding contributions and dedicated efforts in the field of education. The Orange County Department of Education, led by Superintendent William M. Habermehl, coordinates the annual selection and recognition of these teachers. During the last dozen years, the Teachers of the Year program has had the additional support and generosity of two local residents, Bill and Sue Gross. In 1991, the Grosses established the Dr. James Hines Foundation in memory of a teacher who had positively influenced Sue Gross' life. In the ensuing 12 years, through the Foundation, the Grosses have given over $1 million in cash awards to these exemplary teachers. This year, as an added surprise, Bill and Sue Gross invited all one hundred 2003 and 2004 Teachers of the Year nominees to be their guests on a 10-day cruise to Alaska. Orange County residents Bill and Sue Gross are champions of teaching excellence, deserving of special commendation and recognition by the Congress of the United States of America. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Bill and Sue Gross for their years of commitment to California's educators.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding official of the city of Fountain Valley, California. Chief of Police Elvin G. Miali has devoted almost four decades of his life in service to his community and to his country. Chief Miali has excelled in his many law enforcement assignments over the years beginning in the city of San Gabriel and culminating in the city of Fountain Valley. The experience, commitment and professionalism which Chief Miali brings to the leadership of a major law enforcement organization is highly respected and commended by his peers throughout Orange County and the State of California. Setting high standards for himself and all his department personnel and staff, he is known for achieving exceptional results under the most demanding of situations. The trademark of his leadership is ``first class, the first time, every time.'' Chief Miali began his law enforcement career on February 27, 1967, with the city of San Gabriel, California, where he rose through the ranks and achieved the position of Captain. During this time his assignments included the Detective Bureau for 12 years, six of which dealt with robbery and homicide. In August 1986, he was selected Chief of Police for the Fountain Valley Police Department. His community contributions during 17 years as Chief of Police include active efforts to combat drug abuse, child abuse, and drinking and driving, as well as promoting charitable efforts such as helping underprivileged children at Christmas. Before it had a name, Chief Miali introduced the Community-Oriented Policing philosophy. A most distinguished police officer with an undergraduate degree in Police Science, a master's degree in Public Administration, and a graduate of the POST Command College and the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Program, Chief Miali is known throughout Fountain Valley and Orange County as one of the city's principal ambassadors. Chief Miali, together with his wife Charli and their two children, Elvin and Carla, are proud citizens of Fountain Valley, a city which can rightfully look to Chief Miali for making its motto ``A Nice Place to Live'' happen every day. Mr. Speaker, as Chief Miali completes his 36 years of devoted public service in law enforcement, and sets his course for new and ever challenging community involvement, I am sure my colleagues will join me in saluting him and thanking him for the exemplary job ``well done''-- for Fountain Valley, for California, and for America.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call this Congress' attention to a devastating disease that affects millions of Americans. Systematic Lupus Erythematosus, commonly known as lupus, is a chronic, complex, and often life-threatening autoimmune disease. It causes the immune system to become hyperactive and attack the body's own tissue, damaging vital organs which can lead to severe disability or death. Research shows that 2.8 million people have been diagnosed with lupus in the United States--more than those affected by AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis combined. Although lupus can affect people of all ages, it strikes primarily women between the ages of 16-45, and is currently the fourth leading cause of disability in females. To date, there is no known cure for lupus and there are still very few treatments specific to the disease. However, with increased public awareness, education, and innovative research, we are hopeful that this battle can and will be won. Lupus International, a nonprofit organization in Irvine, California, has been a champion in the field of lupus research since it was founded in 1983. Over 2 decades, Lupus International has worked to alleviate suffering for millions of patients through support services and early detection of undiagnosed cases through awareness promotion. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lupus International for its 20-year commitment to finding a cure for lupus, and its tremendous service to millions of Americans suffering from this devastating disease.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. The Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act is a bill that, as its author, of course, I am very pleased to see on the floor, but one also that I am very very grateful to the committee for producing. This is going to make a very important contribution to improving water quality in southern California. I would especially like to thank and recognize the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, for their support and leadership, and also my colleague from Orange County (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. I thank all of them for their active interest in and support of this important legislation. This bill authorizes the Federal Government to assist in designing a series of wetlands. As the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) has said, this is an innovative approach, one that has the support of environmentalists and government leaders alike. This series of wetlands is going to clean up polluted surface runoff within the San Diego Creek Watershed in Orange County, California. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with southern California, the San Diego Creek is one of our region's major watersheds. It empties into Upper Newport Bay, one of the largest wetlands in the entire coastal region between Los Angeles and San Diego. The Upper Newport Bay is home to over 75 species of fish, nearly 200 species of birds, and a number of threatened and endangered species, including the light-footed clapper rail, Belding's Savannah sparrow, the American osprey, the California brown pelican and California's least tern. In addition, the Bay is an important stop on the Pacific Flyway for 50,000 migratory birds each year. Unfortunately, the Upper Newport Bay is threatened by silt and polluted runoff from the San Diego Creek that flows into the Bay. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has declared the water quality of San Diego Creek and its tributaries to be limited. That is a bureaucratic euphemism for hazardous to swim in or drink. The reason for this designation is that drainage from urban surfaces flows unfiltered into the watershed. Thankfully, there is a solution on the horizon to save the Upper Newport Bay. This legislation will use a natural treatment system to reduce the amount of silt and pollutants that gets dumped into San Diego Creek and, in turn, into Upper Newport Bay. The plan was developed by environmentalists and local officials, and it relies on wetlands, nature's own system for filtering pollutants out of the water. Specifically, the plan calls for the creation of an entire network of wetlands to be developed along the San Diego Creek basin. The natural, beneficial bacteria in the soils of these wetlands, along with plants such as bulrush and cattails, will remove nitrogen and other pollutants from surface runoff. It is expected that this natural treatment system will reduce fecal coliform levels by over 26 percent and each year remove 126,000 pounds of nitrogen and 21,000 pounds of phosphorus from the San Diego Creek. In this way, the natural treatment system will help prevent unwanted sediment, nutrients and contaminants from polluting and clogging up San Diego Creek and Upper Newport Bay. It will also provide another major benefit. The creation of all these new wetlands will provide considerable additional wildlife habitat and open space, including habitat for the many threatened and endangered species of the Upper Newport Bay. For all of these reasons, the Natural Treatment System established by this legislation is strongly supported by local environmental groups, including Orange County Coastkeepers and the Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends. This legislation is also fully supported by our local public officials, including the Irvine Ranch Water District, the County of Orange and the cities of Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin. This bill, Mr. Speaker, will be of tremendous help to our local environmental efforts. By allowing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which has extensive experience in wetlands restoration, to serve as a partner in this important regional project, H.R. 1598 is an important step toward assuring that the Natural Treatment System moves forward as quickly and cost effectively as possible. Finally, I would like to point out that the Natural Treatment System will also provide significant cost savings for the Federal Government. Since the Upper Newport Bay is a Federal waterway, the U.S. Corps of Engineers regularly dredges the bay to remove the accumulation of silt and pollutants. By significantly reducing silt runoff into Upper Newport Bay, the Natural Treatment System will reduce both the Corps of Engineers' dredging expenses and the bill to Federal taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1598 so that we can move forward with this important environmental initiative for Southern California.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I thank the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Cannon) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), ranking member. This is an extraordinary moment because the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which was originally enacted 5 years ago, was something of an experiment. We debated it aggressively in both Chambers. We were not sure whether it was going to work as intended. It clearly has. And so having extended it twice, we are now back here to make it permanent. The benefits to our economy are manifest. It is estimated that the expansion of the Internet, the anticipated continued rollout of broadband and perhaps the next generation of broadband will add as much as $500 billion in gross domestic product every year in each of the next 10 years for our country. This is an extraordinary potential. The University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA, in a January, 2003, survey has found that for consumers in the 21st century, right now the Internet is the most important source of information, but not everybody can afford it. Not everybody yet has the Internet. It is still expensive. There is about a $10 difference, perhaps more or less in some areas, between dial-up and broadband, and people have not been converting from dial-up to broadband, in part, because of that price point. It is just a little bit too expensive for a lot of people. Adding new taxes to Internet access, taxing e-mails, taxing the bits transmitted or the bandwidth would be a profoundly bad idea for our country. And as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned, there is such a potential for multiple taxes from many jurisdictions, all claiming that because there is a server located in their jurisdiction, they can tax a piece of this, that even a nick here and a little bit of nickels and dimes there would add up to a very serious amount of taxation for most people, and it would destroy what the Internet can become. We are now going to put this behind us. We are going to move on. We are going to find that this becomes one of the invisible parts of the legal infrastructure that makes our economy great. It is going to help consumers. It is going to help technological innovation. It is going to help our economy and our country. And having worked for so long with Senator Wyden on this, I want to thank him, Senator Allen, Senator McCain as well. In this Chamber, though, there has been such leadership from the Committee on the Judiciary, from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), from the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Cannon), from the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee, as I mentioned, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), whom I think we will hear from next that, I can safely say without that kind of leadership in this House, the American people would not be seeing this victory today.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding officer of the United States Coast Guard. Captain John M. Holmes has devoted almost three decades of his life in service to his country. Captain Holmes has excelled in his many assignments over the years in the Coast Guard, assignments which are as far ranging, varied and contemporary as the Service itself. Captain Holmes' assignments include: Chief of Operational Intelligence, Seventh Coast Guard District in Miami, Florida; Operations Officer, Coast Guard Group, Seattle, Washington; Overseas Inspection Supervisor, Marine Safety Office, Honolulu, Hawaii; Chief of Compliance, Office of Marine Safety, Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office, St. Louis, Missouri. The experience, commitment and professionalism which Captain Holmes brought to the Service proved its value in assignments as Coast Guard Liaison to the Governor of American Samoa; staff officer for the United States Ambassador to the Government of Singapore; State Department delegate to the International Maritime Organization, London, England; and as Deputy Chief, Office of Congressional Affairs, Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, D.C. It has been under the most demanding circumstances that, as Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Captain Holmes has demonstrated the finest qualities of a military officer. The events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath of those attacks on our country, presented Captain Holmes with challenges far beyond those faced by any previous Commanding Officer at this unit. Captain Holmes immediately initiated a series of skillfully coordinated actions in order to establish a robust, comprehensive maritime homeland security presence for this vital port complex, the largest and busiest in our Nation. Expertly directing port security operations and carefully balancing security and safety with commerce, Captain Holmes achieved an unprecedented level of interagency cooperation with city, county, state and federal agencies that led the Nation in coordinated operations and planning. Establishing joint agency boarding teams, high-risk vessel water escorts, on-board Sea Marshals of high-risk vessels, and tighter port security boarding procedures, he moved without delay on September 11, 2001 to insure the continuation of maritime commerce and the confidence of the shipping community. Many of Captain Holmes' innovative methods were adopted Pacific-wide by the Coast Guard and will no doubt find their way to ports worldwide as we seek to enhance global maritime security. This most distinguished Coast Guard officer, with his wife Carol, has two children, Lucas and Ava. They are as proud of him as am I, for he has provided all of us a shining example of all that is good and honorable in the American military. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I have had the distinct pleasure of working directly with Captain Holmes and seeing first-hand his professional expertise, commitment to his personnel, and dedication to his country. His stewardship in serving our Nation will long be remembered, and should serve as a model for all of us in the years to come. As he sets his course for new challenges, I'm sure my colleagues will join me in saluting John Holmes, and thanking him for a ``job well done''--for the maritime community, for California, and for America.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman not only for yielding time but for the exceptional work that the Committee on Government Reform has done both on the majority and minority sides to bring us to this point; likewise, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, of which I am a member, and Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Dingell for their extraordinary leadership and commitment to bringing this bill to the floor; and my ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, which I chair, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who is with me on the floor now. This has been a bipartisan effort for one simple reason. The terrorists do not discriminate between Democrats and Republicans. They certainly are not going to protect us because we are on one or another side of this debate. We are all in their sights. The committees of jurisdiction working closely together have managed to create a process in bringing this bill to the floor that has been focused on producing the best possible policy and thus the best possible security for our country. It is not focused on Capitol Hill turf battles. This type of cooperation serves as a model for our efforts to make America more secure against terrorist attack. In the fall of 2001, we caught a glimpse of the terrible potential of a bioterror attack when anthrax attacks were loosed on the Nation's capital. A broader attack on the American population, on our armed services involving one of the many biologic agents for which we have no antidote could be devastating. The potential toll in lives would far exceed what happened on September 11, 2001. We must, of course, do all we can to prevent such attacks, but ultimately we must be prepared. Because no scheme of prevention, no matter how expert and reliable our intelligence collection and analysis, is going to be perfect. We must be prepared. This legislation, the BioShield Project launched in this bill, will provide the resources and authorities we need to develop the next generation of biological countermeasures. It will help to ensure that we avoid the kind of catastrophe we are contemplating here on the floor today in the future. The ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify from around the world the most serious potential biological threats to our population is key to making Project BioShield effective, and it is key to the vital task that we have of meeting this threat. To do that, Secretary Ridge will have to get the very best intelligence available. By learning everything we can about the biological weapon threats that confront us, we can allocate our resources and focus our efforts where they will be most effective. By identifying the bioterror agents for which the risks and potential consequences of attacks are greatest, we can use these substantial new first responder resources most wisely. That brings us, therefore, to the creation of Project BioShield in fulfillment of President Bush's charge to this Congress in his State of the Union message. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made this a priority, and we are responding in this Congress. The BioShield Project is by far the most expansive, broadest, largest first responder program initiated in the history of our country. It is budgeted for $5.6 billion, but we have made it very plain that, through the appropriations process and through the budget process, we will put the resources behind this program that are needed to develop the antidotes and, if a presidential decision on a recommendation of both the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Homeland Security is made, if the President decides to stockpile enough antidotes, vaccines to immunize the entire American population in the event of a catastrophe. The Secretary of Homeland Security as part of this process is charged with identifying the most significant biological, chemical and nuclear agents that threaten the American population. Because our ability to collect, analyze and put to use timely and accurate intelligence information is at the very heart of doing this job, certainly in preventing a biological attack but also of being prepared to respond to it, in this legislation we have given the Secretary of Homeland Security the information analysis tools that he needs. This bill is very important to the Select Committee on Homeland Security. We worked hard to get it right. We have held extensive hearings and nearly 3 months of work in three of our subcommittees and twice in the full committee. We conducted a series of oversight hearings which examined the new Department's ability to carry out its threat assessment function; and as a result, we have incorporated into the bill several provisions designed to strengthen the Secretary's threat assessment capabilities. We have given the Secretary the authority and the resources he needs to quickly hire the necessary bioterror analysts and to rapidly build a bioterror intelligence infrastructure. The Select Committee on Homeland Security added these provisions to this bill. This legislation greatly increases our ability to conduct bioterror research against the most urgent threats identified by the Department of Homeland Security. But most importantly, rather than trying to create a parallel government bioterror industry, or I should say bioterror response industry, BioShield will draw on the expertise and resources of the private sector. Our American industries lead the world in these categories. And our health care innovation, our free markets, our strong patent protections have led American industry to spend more on research and development on new products and treatments than all of Europe and Japan combined. To make the progress that is necessary in these noncommercial areas that are so essential to national security, it is essential we tap into this strength in the private sector. To accomplish this, the legislation establishes a reserve fund that will be available to stockpile security countermeasures that are produced against government requirements, even though these countermeasures do not presently exist. We want to stimulate the invention, the productivity, the research that is necessary to find these antidotes, these vaccines to bioweapons that exist but for which countermeasures do not presently exist. The gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and I worked with the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) of the new Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee to provide this funding in a 10-year advance appropriation. This money will remain available for a full decade, creating, in essence, a homeland security market for the development of critical security countermeasures for which no commercial market exists. The knowledge that funding will be available for a full decade and not be subject to the annual appropriations process will encourage the biotech industry to devote resources to develop and produce the next generation of treatments for bioterror agents. So once again I want to thank the Members on both sides who have worked so hard on this legislation for their spirit of cooperation, of bipartisan cooperation; and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, is that 6 minutes the time that was earlier yielded to me by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)?

Mr. COX. So the time that we are speaking of, Mr. Speaker, comprises also the time allotted for purposes of debate to the Select Committee on Homeland Security?

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Dunn), the vice chairman of the full Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Rules.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the remaining time. I want to take a moment to say not only how productive it was to work with the gentleman from Texas but what a pleasure it has been, because both sides of the aisle, the Republicans and the Democrats, have worked together, as we should, after September 11 to put our Nation's security first. I hope that our Nation never sees the kind of bioterror attack that we have been discussing on the floor here today. It is our job to be prepared against that eventuality. The legislative steps that we are taking today, the resources that we are providing, the intelligence infrastructure that we are building, the stockpile of vaccines and antidotes that we may requisition under Project BioShield are all intended to protect against mass casualties that would result in the event of a terrorist attack that we hope to prevent and we hope never to see in this country. After September 11, I daresay every Member of this body determined that we will win this war against these terrorists. They are not superhuman. They are individuals. They do not have infinite capabilities. They have finite resources. We can find them, we can defeat them, and we shall. And we will be prepared. That is the purpose of this legislation today. I strongly urge a vote in support.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the foreign relations and security assistance bill. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and also the ranking member for including in its entirety in this legislation the Global Internet Freedom Act. Today, many governments are attempting to restrict individual freedoms by blocking the most powerful tool ever created for the free exchange of ideas throughout the world. In the hands of free people, the Internet may represent the greatest threat to tyranny ever invented. That is why many repressive regimes are trying to prevent people from using the Internet. The Global Internet Freedom Act included in this legislation will give millions of people around the world the opportunity to outwit the dictators, the power to get around the repressive regimes that are attempting to silence them and, perhaps most importantly of all, the power to protect themselves from reprisals from these vicious governments. Many outlawed regimes have been aggressively blocking access to the Internet with technologies such as firewalls, filters and black boxes. They monitor their citizens' activities on the Internet. They keep track of who is saying what, and they punish those who exercise free speech on line. Last month, according to Human Rights Watch, Chinese web publisher Huang Qi, after enduring a 3-month detention, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for the crime of subversion. What was he publishing? The on- line equivalent of our milk carton ads. He created a Web site in which people could share information about missing friends or family members, and he actually helped rescue several young girls who had been abducted and sold into marriage. But because his site also criticized the government's failure to deal with these human needs, he now spends his days in prison. In Cuba, dissidents and opposition journalists are prohibited from using the Internet. In Burma, only those with official permission from the military government can use the Internet. In North Korea, Kim Jung Il has sealed off his population from the outside world. Of course, Kim Jung Il thinks of himself as a computer buff; and the Associated Press has recently reported he has issued an edict making computer education mandatory. But outside of those classrooms, there will be no connection to the outside world. Because, for a dictator, the top priority is keeping ideas about freedom and democracy away from the computer screens of impressionable young minds. That is why the Global Internet Freedom Act, now included in this bill, is so important. The Act will require the United States to develop and implement a global strategy to combat state-sponsored and state-directed Internet jamming and the persecution of those who use the Internet. Mr. Chairman, for the sake of freedom and human rights in the 21st century, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I support the leadership and commend the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit for inclusion in the Record the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of 2003, reflecting that implementing H.R. 2122 would increase discretionary spending by $0.3 billion in 2004. The Public Printer estimates that the cost of including the CBO estimate in the Record is $975. Because this estimate dated July 9, 2003, was not received by the Committee in time for inclusion in the Committee Report on the legislation. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, July 9, 2003. Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, Select Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield Act of 2003. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Jeanne De Sa, who can be reached at 226-9010, and Sam Papenfuss, who can be reached at 226-2840. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director. Enclosure. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2122: Project BioShield Act of 2003--As ordered reported by the Select Committee on Homeland Security on June 26, 2003)

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of H. Res. 277, expressing the sense of this House in support of freedom in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a jewel. We are all admirers of Hong Kong on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans. Hong Kong has had for years what is probably the freest economy in the world, and along with that they have had civil rights and civil liberties of which Hong Kongers themselves have been jealously protective. Nothing has changed in that respect except that under the one country-two systems formula the government of the People's Republic of China is getting ahead of themselves by many decades. They promised 50 years, and instead, they are now seeking to replace the traditional civil law of Hong Kong with a subversion law, with a national security law that will take away fundamental rights of speech, association, membership in labor unions, journalists doing their job. The scope, the breadth, the discretion given to the executive in this proposed law is absolutely breathtaking, and we feel compelled for this reason because these legal changes are imminent in Hong Kong to express ourselves in support of the people of Hong Kong. An article in the South China Morning Post just this Saturday reported on a controversy ignited by two causes here in America: first, this resolution, the fact that it has been reported by the Committee on International Relations and has come to the floor; and second, a White House statement in support of freedom in Hong Kong. In response to these modest congressional and presidential expressions of support for freedom, noting that the Article 23 legislation being considered in Hong Kong ``could harm local freedoms and autonomy over time,'' a spokesman for the foreign ministry in the People's Republic of China said that other nations should not interfere in the debate about free expression in Hong Kong because it is an ``internal affair.'' With all due respect to the PRC foreign ministry, the freedom of people to think, to express themselves, to belong to organizations, to associate with others is not an internal affair. It is a fundamental human right. The human dignity of the people of Hong Kong is of itself sufficient reason to approve this resolution, but if that were the sole justification for this resolution, then we would probably be considering thousands like it. A second reason we act today is because it is in the interests of the United States to do so. In the Hong Kong Policy Act, approved unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President on October 5, 1992, the United States declared that, ``Hong Kong plays an important role in today's regional and world economy. This role is reflected in strong economic, cultural and other ties with the United States that give the United States a strong interest in the continued vitality, prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.'' Our law also declares that ``support for democratization is a fundamental principle of United States foreign policy. As such, it naturally applies to United States policy toward Hong Kong. This will remain equally true after June 30, 1997,'' that of course being the date of the handover from the British to the Chinese of the territory of Hong Kong. Finally, the law says, ``The human rights of the people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the United States and are directly relevant to United States interests in Hong Kong. A fully successful transition in the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong must safeguard human rights in and of themselves. ``The United States should play an active role, before, on, and after July 1, 1997, in maintaining Hong Kong's confidence and prosperity, Hong Kong's role as an international financial center, and the mutually beneficial ties between the people of the United States and the people of Hong Kong.'' That is why we are here today. If we think back to the time prior to the handover, prior to 1997, we were assured that this could not happen, that it would not happen, and yet through an excretion of changes in the law, through inroads that are being made on the traditional freedoms that Hong Kongers have enjoyed, so slowly perhaps as to be imperceptible but now this one fell swoop suddenly very noticeable, the PRC is taking away the freedom of one country-two systems, that was guaranteed in 1997. Our former colleague, Connie Mack, warned us in 1994, on the 10th anniversary of the Sino-British Declaration on the question of Hong Kong, of the failure of the Communist Government of China to respect the declaration, even as of that date: ``Immediately after signing the Joint Declaration, the PRC started working on the Basic Law, Hong Kong's post-1997 'mini-constitution.' The Basic Law was enacted not by Hong Kong's Legislative Council, the Legco, but by Beijing's rubber stamp National People's Congress that contravened the Joint Declaration. It subordinates the Legco to a Beijing- appointed executive; assigns a power of judicial interpretation to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, rather than to Hong Kong's courts; and it requires a law against `subversion,' a concept unknown in the common law.'' It is that illegitimate law against subversion that today the House revisits. This is what is about to take place in Hong Kong. If the world is silent, as this interruption, as this deprivation of freedom moves forward, then our liberties, too, will be at greater risk. Hong Kong is a jewel for the entire planet. It is our hope that the freedom that Hong Kong has traditionally enjoyed will spread northward throughout the People's Republic of China, that that will be the ultimate result of one country, two systems, not the other way around. But what is happening now, as we meet here today, is that this island of freedom is being weighted down by the long-standing rule of the Communist Party in the People's Republic of China; that the law is simply a tool of the party itself and not independent. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the careful consideration that this Chamber is giving to this resolution. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations for bringing this resolution to the floor in a timely fashion, and I expect that all of our colleagues will vote in support of freedom at this important time in both China's history and our own.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding me the time. I too rise in strong support of H. Res. 199 calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Yang Jianli. Dr. Yang is being imprisoned for his love of democracy and his love of country. As a tireless fighter for human rights and democracy in China, Dr. Yang has remained faithful to his conscience and to his cause, even at the risk of imperiling his career and his life. Nearly 15 years ago, after studying in the United States for 4 years, Dr. Yang suspended his graduate studies and returned to the land of his birth, to China, to support the students who were working for democracy in Beijing. On June 4, 1989, he watched as the tanks rolled in Tiananmen Square and narrowly escaped himself while his fellow students and activists were imprisoned and executed. Throughout this ordeal his wife Christina Fu did not know if he was even alive. Today, Christina is being tortured in a living hell once more because once again she does not know whether the Chinese Communist Party will return her husband alive. Her husband's imprisonment violates all of the procedures and rules that the PRC has set out in law, and it confirms our worst fears, that when it comes to the denial of human rights, nothing in the People's Republic of China has really changed since 1989. Today's totalitarian regime continues to view freedom and liberty as dangerous threats to the existing order and acts accordingly, punishing democracy activists like Dr. Yang with ruthless impunity. He is a permanent resident of the United States. His family lives here. His wife Christina is with us in the Chamber as are his children Aaron and Anita. I have met with Christina and with his family many times over the last several month, and we have tried in every way to send our concerns to the rulers in Beijing. This American family deserves to have their father back, and this man, whose human rights are being abridged by the PRC's violation of its own laws and every international covenant that it had signed, deserves basic fairness. Dr. Yang has been held incommunicado in the People's Republic of China for over 13 months, incommunicado, meaning that nobody can talk to him. We cannot get the State Department to talk to him. We cannot see this American resident. We cannot report to his family in what condition he is. He has not been properly charged in violation of Beijing's own laws. Earlier this month on June 4, which incidentally was the 14th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that China violated Dr. Yang Jianli's rights as a citizen, as a citizen of China, and violated his rights as a resident of the United States by detaining him in a Chinese prison with no access to family or to a lawyer. As a consequence of these actions, the working group concluded that China is violating the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is fitting that a U.N.-sponsored organization, with its diverse membership and international credentials, would single out the PRC for its dreadful behavior. The Working Group consisted of representatives from Algeria, France, Hungary, Paraguay, and Iran. That is right, even Iran has condemned this abuse of human rights by China. The PRC ought to be very ashamed. The day after the U.N. report, the Communist regime responded that it had complied with Chinese law by advising Dr. Yang's family of his detention via telephone. The PRC's statements conveniently avoid the discussion of any of the specific laws that govern the detention process. While claiming it provided a notice of detention, the regime in Beijing forgot to add its own procedural law requires that the family or employer of a detained person be notified within 24 hours of a detention. That formal notice of detention has been sorely absent for months. Moreover, while PRC law also permits detention of 37 days without a warrant in emergency situations, Dr. Yang has been illegally detained in China for more than a year. This blatant disregard for the due process of law is further evidence of the PRC's collective disdain towards the established rule of law. Despite the unambiguous text of its own laws and the weight of international condemnation, the communist regime continues to use deceit and manipulation to strengthen its totalitarian rule. Just as it persecutes men and women like Dr. Yang, the PRC is attempting to extend its coercion beyond. The House is also considering today House Resolution 277, legislation that I authored to condemn the PRC's crackdown on freedom of speech in Hong Kong. As the city with the strongest tradition of freedom in China, Hong Kong is an island of liberty in a sea of oppression. Preserving free speech in Hong Kong will help ensure that liberty flourishes not just for the people of Hong Kong but throughout the PRC, so that in the future we will not be on the floor with resolutions for individual heroes and heroines such as Dr. Yang Jianli. Mr. Speaker, securing liberty in the People's Republic of China and freedom for Dr. Yang are all part of the same struggle. The Chinese Communist Party must not be allowed to forget the sacrifices made at Tiananmen Square. They must not be allowed to extinguish the message of hope that Tiananmen survivors, like Dr. Yang, convey to the people of the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for authoring this legislation; and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for supporting freedom for Dr. Yang and freedom in China and around the world.

Mr. COX

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2417. The amendment that I have introduced I will address in a moment but let me state at the outset that there is no more important function in the war on terrorism than having and acting on good intelligence, intelligence about attacks that are yet to come, intelligence about who is involved, what is planned, where and when it will take place and how it might be executed. The bill as it is written provides critical support for the Intelligence Community's efforts in the war on terrorism. I especially appreciate the provisions in the legislation focusing additional attention on enhancing our capability for gathering human intelligence as well as the provisions that provide additional resources to increase our analytical capacity to process and make use of the intelligence we do gather. The amendment that I am offering seeks to strike section 336 of the legislation. Section 336 would amend the Homeland Security Act to create two pilot programs, one, to encourage State and local officials, critical infrastructure owners to collect and share relevant information; and, two, to test use of tear-line intelligence reports. However, Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Act already includes training and information sharing requirements for State, local and private sector officials. The Director of Central Intelligence, the head of the CIA, would under the language of the bill as it is written have a central role in both of these pilot programs which would inject the CIA into this domestic, homeland security function. Under the first section 336 pilot program on sharing critical infrastructure information, the DCI would carry out his responsibilities through the Director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, or TTIC, which has never before been recognized in law and has no responsibilities whatever for critical infrastructure information. Using TTIC in this way would undermine the statutory function of the Office of Infrastructure Protection subdirectorate of the Department of Homeland Security. We do not need to pilotize the Department's existing statutory obligations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, already is required to, and this is now a quote from existing law, ``coordinate training and other support to the elements and personnel of the Department, other agencies of the Federal Government, and State and local governments that provide information to the Department, or are consumers of information provided by the Department, in order to facilitate the identification and sharing of information.'' That is the Homeland Security Act as it is written. The Homeland Security Act already requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security ``coordinate with elements of the Intelligence Community and with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and the private sector.'' Extensive information sharing requirements covering State, local and private officials already exist in the Homeland Security Act, for example, in sections 891 and 892. Tear-line reporting, unclassified reports to convey the critical substance of classified intelligence reporting, is already a common practice. There is not a need for a pilot program. The Homeland Security Act already requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security ``in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, shall work to ensure that intelligence or other information relating to terrorism to which the Department has access is appropriately shared with State and local governments.'' At this point I hope that the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, could rise to enter into a colloquy so that I might obtain additional information on the amendments to the Homeland Security Act contained within section 336 of the legislation, and I would yield for this purpose to the chairman. As the chairman knows, I am offering an amendment to strike section 336 of the legislation as it proposes amendments to the Homeland Security Act that fall within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security. I am prepared to withdraw this amendment pending appropriate clarification by the gentleman.