C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 489, which supports the objectives of National Preparedness Month and commends the Department of Homeland Security for initiating this bold and timely program. I recently introduced this bill, along with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). Her strong leadership on the Select Committee on Homeland Security on behalf of this measure has contributed significantly to keeping our citizens prepared, informed and protected from the continued threat of terrorism. Since September 11, this Congress has worked tirelessly to improve the security of every town and city across America. This month, September 2004, more than 80 organizations across the United States in every one of the 56 United States and territories are joining with the Department of Homeland Security to encourage Americans to be prepared in our homes, in our businesses and in our schools. As recent tragic events in Beslan have made it clear, even our children, even our schools are not immune from terrorism. As we continue to secure our transportation systems and other critical infrastructure, we must also make it a priority to educate our citizens. Moms, dads, students, teachers, businesses and professional men and women, every American at his and her place of work can contribute to the counterterrorism mission. In order to work, this critical mission has to be a partnership, a broad partnership involving not just Federal, State and local governments but each and every citizen. That is why National Preparedness Month is so important and so relevant to President Bush's strategy for homeland security. It is a creative but practical program that emphasizes clear, commonsense steps that we can all take to secure our communities, to safeguard our neighborhoods and to protect our children. Every one of us has an important role to play in this effort. We can make emergency communications plans. We should have emergency kits. We can work with our neighbors to promote public awareness and public preparedness. As Secretary Ridge has reminded us, national preparedness is not just a 30-day exercise. It is not going to be finished and forgotten. It should be for all of our citizens the renewal of a 365-day, 24-7 effort, a commitment to defeat international terrorism in our own homes. National preparedness must be a way of life in defense of our home. The unthinkable happened on September 11, and we are making sure that it never happens again. The Department of Homeland Security is working to ensure that our capable and courageous police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel are properly trained and equipped. These first responders must be prepared to respond to terrorist attacks and other emergencies, especially if they involve biological weapons or WMDs. We have come a long way since 9/11, but as the President tells us time and again, there is still much more to do to keep America safe. Each and every one of us, as I said, has an important role to play in this effort. By staying informed and active in our communities, we can all help accomplish this. I commend Secretary Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security for inaugurating National Preparedness Month, which is keeping us all focused on this important goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, this is the 150th anniversary year of the Republican Party. Over a century and a half, from the abolition of slavery to the establishment of women's suffrage, to the freeing of millions in the Soviet Empire and Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Republican Party has been the most effective political organization in the history of the world in advancing the cause of freedom. So that all of us can learn more about the achievements of this fundamentally American institution in its 150th anniversary year, the House Republican Policy Committee has published the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. Each day of the year, the calendar lists an important milestone of the Republican Party's history of advancing freedom and civil rights in America. It was on this day in 1901, 103 years ago, that America mourned the death of Republican President William McKinley, who established an impressive civil rights record. To show his support for African Americans, President McKinley defied Democrat protests to travel to Alabama and deliver an address at the Tuskegee Institute, which was founded by the celebrated African American Republican Booker T. Washington. Mr. Speaker, the calendar is available on line at policy.house.gov.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his kind words but mostly for his strong efforts in behalf of not only democracy in Hong Kong but around the world. I rise in support of H. Res. 667, which expresses the sense of this House in support of freedom and democracy and self-determination for the people of Hong Kong. Nearly 2 million of Hong Kong's 7 million people voted yesterday and pro-democracy advocates won 25 out of the 30 seats that they were eligible to compete for. But the other half of the 60 seats in the LegCo were not elected through universal suffrage because those seats were decided by so-called functional constituencies, effectively controlled by Beijing. Many observers have compared the functional constituencies to Britain's ``rotten boroughs,'' where a handful of malleable voters held all the power. Genuine democracy should be allowed under Beijing's oft repeated slogan of ``one country, two systems.'' It ought to be allowed because it is what the people of Hong Kong want. But at present neither Hong Kong's chief executive nor most of its lawmakers are democratically elected. Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa, shortly after taking power in 1997, assured this Congressman and the United States Congress that, quote, further democratic evolution will depend on the wish of the Hong Kong people. Seven years later, the People's Republic of China has not made good on that promise. We have been here before. Last year, the House passed H. Res. 277, responding to a direct threat against freedom in Hong Kong, a Communist-backed law designed to restrict free speech and civil liberties in the guise of punishing subversion. Just days later, more than a half million people in Hong Kong demonstrated against the proposed law. In combination with American and international outrage, this courageous demonstration of people power resulted in a tactical victory for freedom. The law so far remains shelved. But this year Beijing has returned with a new tactic. Since it is easier simply to prevent democratic elections than it is to completely crush free speech, the Communist regime simply ruled out any possibility of democratic elections for chief executive in 2007 and for the legislature in 2008. They did this on April 6 of this year without even consulting the people of Hong Kong as is required by the basic law. This new interpretation of the basic law bars the legislature of Hong Kong from any actions towards electoral reform until Beijing has granted its blessings. Beijing then sought to ensure that what little democracy the people of Hong Kong were allowed to exercise would be severely manipulated. These intentions became clear on May 5 of this year. On that day, just a few months ago, the People's Republic of China sailed eight PLA warships down Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong. This overt show of military force, which was the first time that this has happened since the handover in 1997, included four frigates, two submarines, two destroyers, and all the sailors standing at attention atop their vessels. The display left little doubt as to how seriously the Communist regime viewed the question of fully democratic elections and their intention not to have them. At the same time, the People's Republic of China began a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists. As my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has described, in early May of this year Albert Cheung, a well-known radio host and columnist, was forced to flee Hong Kong after receiving threats against his life from PRC officials. Mr. Cheung left behind an audio recording. It detailed threats of violence made against him and his family. Shortly thereafter, his replacement on the show, Allen Lee, was also forced to quit broadcasting, citing the need to protect his family. He received a late-night threat by telephone from a PRC official who referred pointedly to his wife and his daughter. Media outlets in Hong Kong have been silenced through commercial pressure for supporting or even just reporting on democratic views. Chinese property developers, for instance, boycotted advertising in the Chinese language Apple Daily newspaper for daring to report on the July 1 pro-democracy demonstrations. This industry has always been the largest ad buyer for the paper. Pro-democracy legislative candidate Alex Ho was detained under suspicious circumstances on a business trip to the mainland in early August. He was accused of consorting with a prostitute and sentenced to 6 months without a trial. According to Asian media outlets, Hong Kong media moguls who steered their outlets towards Beijing's wishes in the run-up to yesterday's elections have been rewarded with political titles and easier mainland China market access. In mid May, numerous Hong Kong voters called in to local radio shows to report that they were pressured to vote for Beijing's preferred candidates. Several callers reported being contacted by relatives on the mainland and told that if they did not vote for pro-Beijing candidates, their relatives on the mainland would face severe consequences. Human Rights Watch has recounted in a 42-page report on September 9 that one caller reported, quote, a senior staff member of my company asked me to vote for pro-Beijing candidates instead of pro- democracy candidates. To make sure I have done that, he told me to take pictures of my completed ballot with my mobile phone camera. As the PRC learned to counter potential freedom through the Internet, so has it learned to twist the freedom of wireless communication into just another tool of oppression. On May 19, the office of legislator Leung Yiu-chung was defaced with excrement. This vandalism closely followed Leung's support in the legislature for a pro-democracy resolution. In June, vandals set fire to election posters in the office of pro-democracy legislator Emily Lau and wrote, quote, Chinese traitors must die on the wall outside. In July, Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption, an anticorruption body admired worldwide, became just another blunt instrument of Communist rule, raiding the offices of local newspapers, including the South China Morning Post, Apple Daily, Oriental Daily News, the Sun, and Sing Tao. Even the ostensibly pro-Communist Ta Kung Pao newspaper was not spared. Some investigators remained on the scene for up to 10 hours. Journalists' homes were searched and many were not so cordially invited for further questioning. Since the commission is answerable to Hong Kong's unelected chief executive, C.H. Tung, it is unlikely that orders came anywhere but from the top. All these examples constitute a strange melding of criminal elements. The director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, Law Yuk-kai, has said, quote, we believe the Ministry of State Security and Hong Kong triads are collaborating in this political violence and intimidation. Yet this campaign of intimidation and harassment had a goal more important than simply winning yesterday's elections. It was about the PRC making Hong Kong voters understand that supporting democratic forces carries a heavy price. Despite the very real threats from the Communist regime, the people of Hong Kong still went to the polls in record numbers and they returned a near totality of the democratically elected seats in the LegCo. The people of Hong Kong have shown that they will not be intimidated or silenced. Stephen Vines wrote in the Hong Kong Standard on August 4, 2004, ``Those of us who work in the media have been accused of crying wolf far too often, but maybe we have not cried wolf often enough.'' According to Vines, the way to prevent such erosions of freedom is not to wait for dramatic events like editors being murdered in Russia or newspapers being forcibly closed in mainland China. ``If we need to wait for the worst before speaking out,'' he said, ``we will have waited too long.'' More than 400 academics declared in an advertisement in the Apple Daily newspaper on May 27 that, quote, in the face of autocratic and political pressure, we will not be silent. The people of Hong Kong know that they must defend their democracy and their way of life against Communist oppression. Now it is up to us to remind them that the American people stand with them. This House demands that Beijing guarantee all revisions of Hong Kong law reflect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong as expressed through a fully democratically elected legislature and chief executive. A high degree of autonomy is what was promised to the people of Hong Kong in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hong Kong's Basic Law stipulates that Beijing has authority over defense and foreign affairs but that Hong Kong itself should have autonomy for most domestic affairs, driven by an independent electoral democracy. Beijing's attempts this year, as in the past, constitute a blatant violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, of the Basic Law and of the People's Republic of China's treaty obligations. An act of this Congress, the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, directly ties our commercial interests in Hong Kong to the freedom of Hong Kong's people. The President of the United States has the authority under the act to suspend many of the special treatments we extend to the territory in areas including export controls, customs, air service and cultural and educational exchange because Beijing's ham-fisted violation of the Hong Kong autonomy violates that act. The Communists were caught off guard by the massive popular demonstrations in July, both this year and last. For ages, Beijing has maintained the belief that any complaints about autonomy and democracy were really veiled economic frustrations, that the people of Hong Kong could be satisfied with some economic sweeteners. Now perhaps the Communist regime may begin to understand. Business interests can be purchased and bureaucratic machinery can be controlled, but the hearts and minds of the people of Hong Kong are not for sale. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's elections were part of a broader fight for the soul of Hong Kong and ultimately the future of China. We believe that Communist China must follow Hong Kong's example of freedom, not the other way around. Hong Kong's 7 million people remain the best hope for freedom and democracy for billions of other people in China and throughout Asia.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Leisure World in Laguna Woods, California. It was on September 10, 1964 that the first residents moved into Leisure World, a private community designed especially for active, retired seniors. Within a mere three years, the community had grown to a population of 10,000, making it one of our country's earliest and largest age restricted developments. Today, Leisure World is home to nearly 18,000 residents who enjoy a variety of housing options and social services, an abundance of recreational activities and organizations, and an exceptionally warm and welcoming community. Nestled in the rolling hills of South Orange County, Leisure World existed as an unincorporated part of the county for more than three decades. In 1999, the community made history when its residents voted for city-hood and the area officially became part of Laguna Woods, America's first and only age-restricted city. I had the pleasure of getting to know the residents of Leisure World when I was first running for Congress in 1988. And, for the past sixteen years, it has been a true honor to represent this unique and thriving community. In my experience, Leisure World residents are among the most politically aware and active of my constituency. Local political clubs have included me in hundreds of roundtable discussions, candidate debates, and ``Get-Out-The-Vote'' events. Leisure World TV has interviewed me on numerous occasions for its local cable show, and the community newsletter has welcomed my columns. Most importantly, individual residents are always willing to share their informed opinions and suggestions on nearly any issue. Because of their insight, I have authored laws to reduce death taxes for seniors living in communities such as Leisure World, and to ease federal regulations that sought to outlaw age-restricted communities. I truly value my relationship with Leisure World, and I appreciate the opportunity to carry legislation on behalf of this community. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere honor to ask the Congress of the United States of America to join me in congratulating Leisure World-Laguna Woods on the occasion of its 40th Anniversary.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, what we are fighting for in Iraq is what we have always fought for here in America. We are fighting for freedom. This year is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Republican Party. Over a century and a half, from the abolition of slavery to the establishment of women's suffrage, to the freeing of millions of people from slavery and the Soviet Empire, Afghanistan, and in Iraq, the Republican Party has been the most effective political organization in the history of the world in advancing the cause of freedom. So that all of us can learn more about the civil rights achievements of this distinguished American institution in its 150th anniversary year, the House Republican Policy Committee has produced this 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. Each day of the year the calendar lists an important milestone in the Republican Party's history of advancing freedom. Thirty-five years ago yesterday, America mourned the death of one of the world's greatest civil rights champions, Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen. It was he who authored the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and it was he more than any other person who was responsible for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including defeating a 14-hour Democrat filibuster in the Senate. The 2005 Freedom Calendar is available both in published and electronic form on the Internet at policy.house.gov.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for bringing this bill to the floor. It is vitally important because I agree with the last speaker, hidden stock options are a tool of fraud artists. What we are about to do at FASB is give corporate managers, the new Jeff Skillings, an opportunity to manipulate earnings because, by choosing whether or not to issue stock options, they will now be able to do what they cannot do today, and that is fudge the earnings figure. Currently, stock options are not run through the income statement. But if we make this change where we imagine a notional value for stock options, where nobody real knows really what they are worth, run them not through the balance sheet but through the income statement, we have now got a new tool to manage earnings. That is exactly what Enron taught us we should not do. We should fully disclose stock options, and there is ample evidence that we can do much better in disclosing to investors stock option costs to the company, to the shareholders, and the place we do that is on the balance sheet. The issuance of stock and the issuance of an option on stock is a dilution event. It is an adjustment to the capital accounts. It belongs on the balance sheet; it does not belong on the income statement. The FASB chairman testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce 2 weeks ago that FASB wants to make this change not because it is technically correct or professionally sound, but rather ``because of the high level of public concern expressed by investors.'' But during the most recent proxy season, shareholders across the country are rejecting proposals to expense stock options. Shareholders of Gillette where Warren Buffett, the champion of stock option expensing on the income statement, sits on the board and controls nearly 10 percent of the shares, voted against expensing on the income statement. The people for whom FASB claims to be acting, the people with money at stake, are not only not convinced, but they recognize if FASB goes forward with this, it is going to be a new tool for manipulation. Let us keep the earnings statement honest. Let us vote for the bill.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many contributions of the Newport Beach Junior Chamber on the occasion of the 2004 Metropolitan Network Conference. The Newport Beach Junior Chamber, also known as the Newport Beach Jaycees, is a local chapter of the Junior Chamber International. With the stated mission of contributing ``to the advancement of the global community by providing young people the opportunity to develop the leadership skills, social responsibility, entrepreneurship, and fellowship necessary to create positive change,'' the Junior Chamber International is a global federation of more than 200,000 leaders and entrepreneurs who serve in over 100 nations worldwide. Here in our country, the U.S. Junior Chamber has been an active force for positive change in communities across America. They have built parks, hospitals, playgrounds, and housing for the elderly, and they have raised millions of dollars for causes such as the March of Dimes and research into Muscular Dystrophy. With their strong passion for volunteerism, the U.S. Junior Chamber is improving the quality of life and expanding opportunities for Americans from the smallest of towns to the largest of cities nationwide. The Newport Beach Junior Chamber was founded in 1941. In the 63 years since it was first chartered, the Newport Beach Jaycees have grown to include more than 200 men and women between the ages of 18 and 40 who live and work in cities throughout Orange County, and is the largest Junior Chamber chapter in the state of California. The Newport Beach Jaycees serve the community by hosting business skills seminars, providing project management training and networking opportunities for members and non-members alike, and by participating in community service projects, such as Habitat for Humanity and Adopt-A-Family. This year, the Newport Beach Jaycees hosted the 2004 Metropolitan Network Conference, the U.S. Junior Chamber's annual leadership and networking symposium for chapters with over 100 members or those located in communities with 75,000 or more residents. Thursday, July 15 marked the commencement of the Conference, also known as MetNet 2004, for which more than 120 members and community leaders traveled from across the nation and from around the world to participate in various business seminars, training sessions, and networking events that took place from Thursday through Sunday. I wish the Newport Beach Jaycees and all participants in MetNet 2004 the best for a successful event this year, and I thank them for their continued service to our nation.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. This has been an extraordinary collaborative effort. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my ranking member, who is on the floor and who has been on his feet for much of this debate. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking Democrat on that committee. In the same way that this was a collaboration between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the Congress and the Committee on Government Reform in the House of Representatives, chaired by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who will speak shortly; likewise, it was a collaborative effort in the Senate, including their Government Affairs Committee. It is a collaborative effort within the administration that we are setting up. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services will partner in this first responder effort of unprecedented magnitude. And I should say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the largest first responder program ever enacted in American history. The purpose, of course, is to protect Americans, to protect Americans in the event of an attack. That puts this squarely in the orbit of what we consider to be first response. But we need to make sure that our first responders have the tools that they need to arrest the spread of a biological attack and to protect Americans before it is too late. Every second, every moment really does count in the event of a terror attack, as the Senate Majority Leader Dr. Frist has so ably pointed out in his book on this topic. It was 18 months ago that President Bush called on Congress to enact a bill to speed the development of antidotes, vaccines, against biological warfare and against chemical weapons. We need to have drugs, vaccines, and antidotes to combat these weapons if they are used against us, as we now expect they might be. We know, for example, that Mr. Zarqawi, when he was in Afghanistan, was working on biological and chemical weapons development. He is now attacking Americans and leading the terrorist attacks on Americans in Iraq. We know that Osama bin Laden at various times expressed interest in and may have acquired precursors of these same kinds of weapons. We cannot take these kinds of threats lightly, and we are not. The bill that we are passing today reflects a model for future legislation because it is so collaborative. Homeland security requires us to knit together different responsibilities, different authorities, the responsibilities of different agencies of government, of law enforcement, different levels of government, Federal, State, and local, as never before. That is going to happen under this bill as well. In the first instance, it will be the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security to assess the global threat, to tell us what are the most likely and most threatening agents that could be used against us. Then we will hand off to the Department of Health and Human Services, which will help, after the priorities are set for this research jointly with DHS, implement this program. The research priorities will be implemented based on the information that has been provided by the Department of Homeland Security. By properly understanding the threats that confront us based on our country's best intelligence, we can allocate our resources and focus our efforts where they are most needed, on the biological, chemical and radiological agents for which the risks and potential consequences of attacks are greatest. Another genius of this program is that it is not a government-run program. The government is putting significant resources at the ready to provide an incentive and a market to purchase any successful products that are developed as a result of our call to action, but we are unleashing the creative genius of the private sector. Under the President's new national biodefense directive issued on April 28, 2004, all bioterrorism projects and programs will fall under a coordinated and focused strategic plan. This will help maximize these resources that we are putting to work here, and it will ensure a unified effort across all the Federal agencies. Bioshield is an integral part of this strategic plan. It will draw upon the expertise and resources of the private sector, as almost no other government program that is part of the strategic plan, in order to produce more quickly those countermeasures necessary to make our Nation safer. It is important to recognize the visionary leadership of the President in this regard. It is without exaggeration or embellishment that I can say that this President, President Bush, and his administration, and in particular Vice President Cheney, have devoted more attention and more resources to the fight against bioterror than any administration in history. Prior to 2001, our investments in research and development and other public health preparedness activities were minimal. They are now profound. The President and this Congress are allocating annually billions of dollars to this fight, and under Project Bioshield alone we will spend $5.6 billion over the next 10 years. The President is clearly leading the way. Project Bioshield was not dreamed up here in the halls of Congress, but with big obstacles to addressing that need we have acted. So it is with both bipartisan pride, I think, and also with collaboration in mind between the executive branch and the legislative branch that we can say that we have enacted into law, we very shortly will be able to do this, next week we will be able to say this, the most significant first responder program in our Nation's history. The Select Committee looks forward to working with President Bush, Secretary Ridge, Secretary Thompson, and the other committees in the House and Senate to make sure we leverage the resources provided by Project Bioshield to build a sustained countermeasure capacity to protect our Nation and our citizens from the ever-evolving threat of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we are playing a dangerous game here. If the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) had written an amendment that dealt with how U.S. citizens are treated, whether they can be found to be enemy combatants and detained, we might have had an interesting discussion. There has been, for example, discussion of the Jose Padilla case during this debate. But that is not the amendment that he wrote. The amendment that he wrote does not even apply strictly to terrorism. It applies to conventional warfare. So that if Adolph Hitler's Panzer Division were to land here in America, every single one of the Nazi troops would have to be sent through the judicial system. We could not deal with them as an enemy force. If Kim Jong-il sends his million-man army to land on America's shores, if they were to arrive in amphibious vehicles and roll tanks through our streets, every single one of those millions would have to be treated as a litigant in court under this amendment. We have never done this before. Least of all should we be doing this in an appropriations bill. These sorts of novel concepts that strip the Commander in Chief of his authority to conduct war for the United States of America that I would say that go so far as to completely upend the legal right of the United States to defend itself should not be written on the back of an envelope and attached as authorizing language essentially in an appropriations bill. Here is what the amendment says. It is a very short amendment. It says that we cannot use any of the funds available in this act to detain for more than 30 days a person apprehended on U.S. territory even if that person is an enemy combatant. So we are not talking about people who might or might not be enemies of the United States. We are talking about people from foreign soil, not U.S. citizens, whether they be generals or troops, armies, coming over here. These people must be handled through the judicial legal system. This is an outrageous interference with the ability of the United States to defend itself. It is very dangerous. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the House voted today to recognize and commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that was approved with broad bipartisan support and that has proven its worth in enforcing the principles of freedom and individual rights that undergird our Nation. We commemorate a much sadder anniversary today, the 30th anniversary of the Budget Act of 1974. Unlike the Civil Rights Act, which was a bipartisan achievement approved with over 80 percent of Republican support and 62 percent of Democrat support, the 1974 Budget Act was approved over the strong objections of Republicans. The results of the Budget Act have been precisely what Republicans predicted. The House Policy Committee, which I chair, criticized the current budget process even before it took effect in 1973 and predicted precisely the runaway spending it would enable. In 1973, policy chairman John Rhodes issued a statement of the official position of House Republicans that said, ``Any limitation on expenditures should cover not only budgetary outlays handled through the Appropriations Committee, but also programs funded separately from the annual appropriations process.'' The 1974 Budget Act decided to ignore that advice, and in every year since, we have suffered from runaway Federal spending. In 1975, after the first year, the Policy Committee issued another statement reflecting on what a miserable failure the new Budget Act had been in organizing the process. ``Major legislative efforts are needed,'' the Policy Committee said at that time, ``to rein in `uncontrollable' items and to establish a new pattern of legislative authorizations and appropriations.'' The Congress has never yet fixed this problem, and in every year since 1974, we have suffered from runaway government spending. This legislation is about protecting the right of Americans to see their tax dollars wisely spent. It is about getting rid of a legislative contraption that has proved over 30 years it is utterly incapable of producing the budget that the minority wishes we had between the House and Senate. It is about getting rid of a budget process that has grown our Federal Government from less than $1 trillion when I first became a Member of Congress not many years ago to over $2 trillion today. Our economy has not doubled. Our population has not doubled, but what has happened is our government is growing at rates that far outstrip the economy which supports it. This ongoing displacement of the private sector by government is driven inexorably by the one-way leftward ratchet we euphemistically refer to as the budget process. It is time to junk this contraption which does not work. It is time to protect the family budget. It is time to make the tough choices between government and the people and bring fiscal sanity and honest accounting back to Washington. It is time to vote ``aye'' on the Hensarling amendment.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Today, we celebrate the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the subject of debate in this very body 40 years ago and which was enacted into law almost on this very day, on July 2. This anniversary is important because guaranteeing the equal treatment, the equal recognition of every American before the law has been a work in progress for the entirety of the existence of this Nation and it remains a work in progress still. It is important also because with this enactment, the United States finally established in permanent, positive law the fulfillment of the vision of the grand words of our founders; that our Nation would not treat its citizens differently any more than they are treated differently in the eyes of God, their creator. The Act said that we will not tolerate discrimination against women or against men of any race or background or belief, even when the offense is not committed by a State government or by the Federal Government. When the Congress finished this momentous work in 1964, our Nation had already made significant progress in advancing the rights of women and minorities. In 1964, Senator Margaret Chase Smith became the first woman to be considered by a major party for nomination to the Presidency of the United States. She finished second in the balloting to Barry Goldwater. But in that same year, reflecting how far we still had to go, and may have to go, a former Klu Klux Klansman filibustered the Civil Rights Act on the floor of the other body for 14 hours. History will record that one of the great leaders in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was Senator Everett Dirksen, who indeed led the fight to protect the rights of all Americans here in the United States and, ultimately, to extend that vision around the world. Today, we can look back at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in even greater appreciation, if not awe, of its significance. Remember that this legislation had been enacted in prototypical form, in the 19th century by this Congress, but it had been stricken down by the Supreme Court. In 1964, the Congress acted and we made it stick. This legislation finally said to the world that if you are an American, our government will protect your freedom not only from outside aggressors, but from those in your own country who would deny employment benefits to you or deny you access to a public place because of your race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This Act created a law enforcement organization, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and it enhanced the power of the U.S. Department of Justice, which had been created initially to prevent discrimination against American citizens. Now the Department of Justice was given more tools to combat public and private discrimination. There were major steps in continuing a national tradition of expanding protection for individuals that dates back to the establishment of our Nation. From the statement of equality in the first line of the Declaration of Independence to the founding of the Republican Party for the purpose of opposing slavery in 1854, to the first attempts to enact effective civil rights legislation in the years after the war, to the establishment of voting rights for women, to the defeat of fascism and Soviet communism, our Nation has moved deliberately, if not promptly, to become the Nation in which freedom for individuals is paramount. As a legal act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required courage, persistence, and dedication to enact. Countless lives were taken and sacrificed in attacks against the ideas it embodies. There were battles for this rule of law that made it possible. America had its very own domestic terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, organized to murder opponents and to destroy the principle of freedom that we fight to protect today from terrorists around the world. As we memorialized President Reagan a few weeks ago, we were reminded of our national mission to protect freedom, and we once again heard the final line of the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' That simple line speaks to us even now as our soldiers are deployed around the world: ``Let us die to make men free.'' Forty years ago, this and the other body approved the Civil Rights Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. What we do here today while our soldiers still give their lives to make others free is remind the world once again that our Nation stands for freedom and equality. To us, these are priceless. I commend the authors of this resolution for so doing and urge its adoption.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a recent achievement of two Californians who, in celebrating their 50th year of marriage, have provided an inspiring example to all Americans. On May 8, 1954, in Westwood, California, Joseph Peter Giali, first generation American (both his parents were born in Italy), married Carol Amy Johnson (one of her parents was bom in Sweden, the other parent was a first generation American from Sweden). With not much more at the beginning to call their own except their marriage, their faith in God and the vast opportunities afforded by this great country, Joe and Carol have come a long way in their 50 years of marriage. Their first child was born a year and a day after their marriage and five more children followed quickly thereafter. All six children are married and productive citizens and Joe and Carol have 12 grandchildren and one great grandchild (with surely more to follow). Joe served his country in the Marines. After getting married and starting the family, Joe attended Loyola University in Los Angeles on the G.I. Bill and graduated with honors. He worked in the furniture industry for almost 40 years. Carol ran the household and tirelessly provided a loving and nurturing home environment for her husband and kids. Throughout their incredible life together, Joe and Carol have dedicated their lives, their children's lives and their home to God, country and the Golden Rule. Wherever they have lived, Joe and Carol have been strong and active supporters of their church. They have also strongly supported their country, and so have their kids. And of course this support has been longstanding, as Joe and Carol's marriage has lasted through 10 Presidential administrations from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. Joe and Carol and their family have been truly blessed by the first 50 years of this magical marriage, and here's hoping that the best is yet to come. On behalf of my colleagues, let me join the many friends and admirers in wishing Joe and Carol and their family all good fortune during the next 50 years.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding official of the U.S. Congress, Capt. James M. Fournier of Fountain Valley, California, who has dedicated almost 50 years of his life in public service to his country. Twelve years ago, I stood on this same floor to thank Capt. James M. Fournier, upon his retirement as my California Chief of Staff, for his many decades of service to our country. It was the good fortune of the people of southern California that, a few years later, Jim returned to work for the citizens of the 48th Congressional District. Just as Michael Jordan had difficulty staying away from the game that he loved, Jim Fournier has trouble walking away from his personal dedication to public service. In fact, if you ask the people of Orange County, they might say that Jim is the Michael Jordan of public and constituent service: He is a true professional, and has devoted his life to serving his country and his fellow man. Today, Capt. Jim Fournier is retiring as my California Chief of Staff so that he might spend more time with his family and his beloved wife, Lucille. As he departs, I offer heartfelt thanks for his almost 50 years of service to his country. Jim Fournier has excelled in many fields: As a military officer, a sea captain, an engineer, and a public servant. He is, I am proud to say, a good and loyal friend who has worked with me throughout my congressional career. As my District Representative and the Chief of Staff in my California office, Jim Fournier has become a beloved figure to the people who work for him and, more importantly, to the thousands of southern Californians whom he has personally helped. Although it would have been equally well-deserved, Jim did not earn the title of ``Captain'' by navigating the political waters of Washington, DC, or California. Rather, it was his long and outstanding service in the U.S. Coast Guard that earned him this designation. He began serving our Nation in 1954, when he was commissioned an ensign following graduation from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. The next 30 years found Jim on Coast Guard cutters sailing to all four corners of the Earth, as well as on the vast network of waterways throughout the United States. Among his varied assignments, Jim captained icebreakers in the Antarctic and in the Arctic Circle; he commanded the Coast Guard's 8th District Field Office in New Orleans; and he managed the Coast Guard's Congressional Liaison Office in Washington, DC. Jim Fournier's rapid advancement and stellar performance sailing under the flag of the United States earned him several national honors, including one of our Nation's top military service awards, the Legion of Merit. Although he would not be one to mention it, a listing of the other honors awarded to Captain Fournier is nothing short of amazing: two Meritorious Service Medals; two Coast Guard Commendation Medals; two Letters of Commendation; the National Defense Medal, twice; three Antarctic Service Medals; four Arctic Service Medals; and 11 other awards. In between his seagoing assignments, Jim found time to study engineering at the prestigious Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and to do postgraduate work at John Carroll University. Jim has often mentioned that the best import ever to sail to the United States from Canada is Lucille, his wife of 40 years. I have had the pleasure of knowing Lucille since 1988, and I agree with Jim completely. Jim and Lucille have three grown children, and now Captain Jim is Grandpa Jim to his beautiful grandkids, Renee and Ryan. Following his retirement from the Coast Guard and from private business in the field of engineering, Jim came on board with me after my first election in 1988. He set up my Orange County office from scratch, finding office space, hiring the staff, and organizing the workload. He has served Orange County as the first line of assistance for thousands of constituents who have had problems with Federal agencies--from the IRS to the INS, from Orange County to our most distant and far-flung embassies around the world. I well remember one especially poignant success that Jim achieved. Two years ago, my office was contacted by two California youths who were on the verge of being forcibly resettled to Zimbabwe--a country torn by violence and lawlessness--as the result of an international custody dispute. Despite the fact that the youths were U.S. citizens, the U.S. State Department was on the verge of honoring an unjust ruling by a Zimbabwean court that would have required the youths to return to this violent land. That's when they turned to my office for help. Jim Fournier worked on their problem with passion--spending countless hours over a matter of months to guarantee the safety of these two young Americans. The creative energy that led to this success was typical of Jim Fournier. Mr. Speaker, as my top California aide and advisor, Jim Fournier has established an enviable record of caring service to the people of Orange County. His stewardship in that role will long be remembered, and should serve as a model for all of us in congressional service for years to come. As he sets his course for new challenges, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Jim Fournier, and thanking him for a job well done--for Orange County, for California, and for America.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this has been an outstanding debate. It is a vital question for our country to decide. As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I cannot help but notice that the September 11 Commission in its findings, issued as part of the final round of its public hearings, has just released details from interviews with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key coordinator of the 9/11 plot, indicating that these al Qaeda terrorists had, in addition to the plans that they actually executed, a more elaborate plot to use 10 airplanes to strike large cities on both American coasts, to hit the tallest buildings in California and Washington State. I also know, as does my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, as a result of our routine briefings from the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, that there is no question that such planning continues. If we spread our homeland security dollars about the country in a diffuse and diluted fashion, we may not live to regret it. It is vitally important that we recognize that our urban areas are threatened. At the same time, suburban and rural areas of this country are also threatened. They have chemical plans, pipelines, military bases, energy infrastructure, agricultural fields, transportation corridors, including rivers, barges and so on. Risk which matches threat against vulnerability applies equally to urban and rural infrastructures and populations. Regrettably, the bill that is before us does not give us an opportunity to vindicate what we know is good policy, and that is to substitute for political formulas an allocation of first responder moneys based upon risk. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said it is very important for us to move there, and I could not agree more. With this amendment, we have something of a bittersweet opportunity because the amendment would transfer .45 billion dollars from a formula that admittedly is a political formula, not based on risk, to 50 of the most-threatened urban areas in the country and 30 of the most- threatened transit areas to be determined by the Department of Homeland Security, also a political formula. But at least this political formula is based in part on the actual terrorist threat and therefore putting the amount of money into this program that was requested by President Bush and by the Department of Homeland Security and taking it out of a pot that is allocated strictly according to population and strictly according to political formulas is a modest improvement. The high-threat urban areas program, however, which this amendment would transfer money into, distributes funding only to those cities deemed high risk, meaning that Federal moneys are unavailable to 23 States without cities covered by this formula. It also means that 30 percent of total terrorism preparedness funds are off limits to 23 States. That is an imperfect result. Mr. Chairman, terrorists have limited resources and focused energies. Congress should allocate first responder funding in a similar manner with money directed toward the places most at risk. The current process in place to allocate first responder grant funding is inadequate. It places our Nation under greater vulnerability. Cities that apply for high-threat grants are given scores according to three factors: Population, vulnerability and threat. As I said, since this money is coming out of a pot, 60 percent of which is going according to population anyway, it is a modest improvement to send that money which was going to go to high population urban areas in the first place according to a formula that takes threat into account. That is marginally better. Mr. Chairman, while this amendment is not an ideal vehicle for resolving these issues, it will at least allocate more of the funds in the bill according to threat. Sixty percent of the formula grants from which the .45 billion dollars would be taken are already allocated strictly according to population. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said it best, we should move to a threat allocation of homeland security dollars. In the meanwhile, the Sweeney amendment is a small step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 664) mourning the passing of President Ronald Reagan and celebrating his service to the people of the United States and his leadership in promoting the cause of freedom for all the people of the world, and ask for its immediate further consideration.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the Land of Lincoln and the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, and the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and it is entirely fitting that we pass this resolution authorizing the remains of President Reagan to lie in state in the Nation's Capitol. It was in this building that President Reagan took the oath of office in January 1981. Eight years later, he yielded his authority as President and Commander in Chief in this building, in that quiet peaceful transfer of power that is the hallmark of our democracy. Many of the shining moments of his two Presidential terms took place right here in this Chamber. None are more thrilling than that 1982 State of the Union that marked his triumphant return shortly after he was shot by a would-be Presidential assassin. And some of his greatest challenges have close associations with this Chamber as well. In his second term, after President Reagan had won Senate passage of his request for aid to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua, the challenge he faced was in this House. The President asked permission to address the House, but Speaker O'Neill said no. I served then as legal counsel in the White House, and I was asked whether the Speaker of the House could deny the President the opportunity to come and address the Congress in the people's House. And my answer, swiftly delivered, was ``absolutely.'' President Reagan did not mind the legal advice. He asked, ``They all have televisions, don't they?'' And he addressed the Nation from the Oval Office. As a result of that magnificent address, intended for all of us here but absorbed equally by the American people, this Congress did the right thing and democracy did move forward in Nicaragua. The Soviet Union was not able to establish a beachhead in our own hemisphere. And whereas upon President Reagan's assumption of office there were only 56 electoral democracies in the world, today there are 117, and over 1 billion people now live in democracies that otherwise would not. When President Reagan took the oath of office here in this building, he was facing west. The west front of the Capitol was the staging area for that inauguration. He was the first President to do so. He thought it was important to face west, because not only was he a Westerner, not only was he a Californian, but the history of our country moving westward signified the spirit of frontier, the pioneer spirit, and entrepreneurship that President Reagan thought was the genius of America. When his body is placed in the rotunda later today, it will come to the Capitol up those same steps on the west front and all of us will be looking west to his beloved State of California thinking about what President Reagan meant by that symbolism. So it is entirely appropriate that we pass this resolution we address now. I know that each of us will take personal pride in recalling his contributions to our country, to our sense of patriotism as we observe the ceremonies in the rotunda later today and as we have our own personal moment to walk by that casket.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, this week, as we mourn the passing and commemorate the life of Ronald Reagan, we have another occasion for unabashed celebration. My predecessor in this office, Representative Robert Badham, who blazed trails for President Reagan in Sacramento and in Washington, celebrates his 75th birthday today. Bob Badham won election to the California State Assembly at a remarkably young age, four years before Ronald Reagan won the governorship. He won election to the U.S. House of Representatives four years before Governor Reagan won the presidency. As soon as he arrived in Washington he was elected president of his incoming class of Members, and he remained a leader throughout his tenure here. From the 117 feet of his records held by the University of California at Irvine to the GOP records stored by the Policy Committee on the fourth floor of the Longworth House Office Building, Bob's name stands out as one of our party's most energetic spokesmen and most articulate advocates for our agenda; as an active litigant for electoral fairness; as an international diplomat supporting our critical security alliances; and as a Member of Congress who set a standard for constituent service and attention that I must work very hard to approach. Most significantly, as Bob rose to becoming the ranking Member on the House Armed Services Procurement Subcommittee, he helped President Reagan rebuild our military, and, through the policy of peace through strength, win the Cold War. As President Reagan headed back to California in 1989, Representative Badham chose to leave one of the most secure Congressional seats in the nation and to return to California as well. Needless to say, the career of our colleague, Duncan Hunter, and my own, were both advanced by Bob's decision that a quarter century in elected office was enough. The people of southern California are fortunate that giving up elected office has not meant giving up public service to Bob Badham. Since his return to California, Bob has remained an active leader in Orange County. He and his wife, Anne, remain two of Orange County's most active and energetic citizens. They are among the kindest and most interesting people anyone will ever know. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join the people of Orange County, all of Bob's colleagues in the House of Representatives, and all of those who are fortunate to call Bob Badham a friend, in wishing him the happiest of birthdays on this, his 75th!