C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Particularly, I thank him for bringing this budget to the floor, because in this budget we will have room to do two things: first, meet the President's objectives and more on controlling the growth in spending. This budget allows for growth in spending, but it does not grow spending as fast as some of the other proposals we have seen on the floor. Second, it provides for across-the-board rate relief. Third, it provides, as nobody else is proposing to do here immediately, today, for a diminution, a reduction, in the rate of tax applied to savings and investment, the penalty tax on creating jobs, the penalty tax on new investment that we call capital gains. Throughout my service in Congress for 13 years, we have pretended that every time we raise the capital gains rate, we gain revenue for the Treasury, and every time we reduce the rate, we lose it. That is how we score revenue. But each time we have done this since 1978, we find that when we raise the rate of tax on capital gains, we lose money for the Treasury, and when we reduce the rate of tax on capital gains, we gain money. Cap gains revenues increased 385 percent in the 5 years after we reduced the rate from 28 to 20 percent in the Economic Recovery Tax Act. In 1986 when the Congress was chasing after scored revenue and jacked the rate of tax up again because that would be more responsible, that would avoid deficits, cap gains revenues fell by a third in the first year; and they stayed in the tank for 10 years, essentially, from 1986 to 1996. Then, in the mid-1990s, in this Congress, President Clinton vetoed a cut in the capital gains tax rates because he wanted to be responsible, because keeping that rate high would somehow help. Nonetheless, in 1997, we enacted a rate cut from 28 percent to 20 percent; and today, as we stand here, cap gains revenues to the Treasury are up over a third. Mr. Chairman, this budget will permit us to cut the cap gains rate and make money for the Treasury, as well as help the American people. I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman could not have said it better. Higher tax rates do not produce jobs. Lower tax rates do. High tax rates do not help single moms. Lower tax rates do. High tax rates do not help our kids and our families. Lower tax rates do. Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time in 20 years, we had on this floor a bill that will provide across the board tax rate relief for every working American, everyone. And, of course, the greatest percentage relief goes to the lowest end of the income scale. The last time we did this was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. That was the catalyst for the staggering economic growth of the 1980s, the 1990s, the growth that we are still enjoying today. By reducing tax rates, we found during the decade of the 1980s that income tax revenues to the government more than doubles. The problem was, of course, congressional spending at that time which more than doubled, but now a fiscally responsible Congress is prepared to keep a lid on spending. I do expect that we will live within the 4 percent growth in discretionary spending that President Bush has laid out for us. Mr. Speaker, what better time for a tax rate reduction than when we are enjoying record surpluses, something we were not blessed with back in the 1980s. Since the 1981 tax rate reduction, the American people have suffered eight tax hikes, so that today the tax burden on the American people and the tax burden as a share of this largest economy in our history is, in fact, the greatest in American history, eclipsing even the tax burden of World War II, when we were facing a death struggle with Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The need is clear. It is time to reduce tax rates which are placing a burden on our economy right now, which is the greatest since the largest war in the history of man. Mr. Speaker, $2,000 that the average family of four will save because of this bill will go a long way towards setting this economy back on the path of economic growth and prosperity for every American. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and commend this bill to my colleagues who I know will vote in its support.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. When I first was elected to Congress in 1988, it was the last year of the Reagan administration. I had worked for President Reagan in the White House as his legal counsel, and because the Congress is sworn in shortly before the Presidential Inauguration, as we recall from the events of just a few weeks ago, I served in this House of Representatives under President Reagan for a period of a few weeks. My colleague from southern California, also elected to the House of Representatives that year, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is here in the Chamber with us today, likewise had been here when President Reagan came and addressed us from the floor of the House, the minority Members then, because we were a Republican minority, and I sat in that back row, and President Reagan, who not being a former Member of Congress, stood at this particular rostrum, which is reserved under our traditions, because it is on the left-hand side of the aisle, for the Democrats. He described his career and how he became involved in public life as the leader of a labor union, how he had campaigned for Harry Truman, and how the principles of freedom that he stood for had remained with him all of that time. But, he said, about midway through his adult life, while he helped fashion those principles, his party did not, and he strode, purposefully across the floor from this rostrum to this rostrum and said, that is how he became a Republican. But the truth is that after two terms as President, Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly claimed Ronald Reagan as their great President and a great leader and a great spokesman for the ideas that Americans, not Republicans, not Democrats, all share. It was 20 years ago that this brave and idealistic man came to Washington, and I will say that with the benefit of a fifth of the century since that time, it is pretty clear that Washington has rarely seen his like. He is a hero to the Nation, and I can honestly say he is a hero of mine. We have seen that heroism once again as he and his wife, Nancy, whom we all fondly recall as our First Lady, wage their brave fight against Alzheimer's disease. Ronald Reagan has lived a remarkable life of leadership, first as the head of a great labor union, then as governor of California, now our most populous State, two terms, then two terms as President of the United States. The same qualities brought him through each of those remarkable careers. The courage to be candid, to be honest, to be forthright, the courage fortified by faith and by humor. Even now on his 90th birthday, I am sure, were he with us today, I am sure he would tell us a joke about his age. I remember when I worked for him at the White House he used to say, I have already lived 20 years longer than my life expectancy at birth, and that has been a source of annoyance to a great many people. His courage created the unique optimism that is now always associated with President Reagan, and that spread throughout the whole country. Our Nation became more optimistic, believed more in itself as a result of his leadership. When President Reagan stood at the Brandenburg gate and said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear town this wall,'' he did so at a time when most people in official circles in Washington believed that the Berlin Wall and, indeed, Soviet communism itself, were permanent facts of life, to be accommodated and, perhaps, at best, contained. But Ronald Reagan knew better. Shortly after he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' the Berlin Wall did, in fact, come tumbling down, and half a continent in chains for 45 years was liberated. President Reagan, of course, would deny much credit for this. He attributed it to America and its own ideals. Here is what he said on December 16, 1983, when he created the National Endowment for Democracy. ``Speaking out for human rights and individual liberty and for the rule of law is good and right,'' he said, ``but it is just not good enough. We must work hard for democracy and freedom, and that means putting our resources, organizations, sweat and dollars behind a long-term program,'' and he had a long-term program to win the Cold War, and today we are all the beneficiaries of it. President Reagan saw this not as a great military victory alone, although surely it ended that doctrine of mutual assured destruction that loomed like a shadow over all of our lives for so many decades but, rather, even more as a victory of freedom for millions of people enslaved by communism. I will mention in response to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), that because I worked in the White House during the Reagan administration, I saw that here in Congress, President Reagan was unsuccessful in controlling spending. Yes, he did bring America's top tax rates from 70 percent down to 28 percent, and yes, that did ignite an economic expansion that we are still living through today; but no, President Reagan did not bring us deficits, for during the 1980s tax revenues to the government more than doubled as a result of that economic expansion that he started. Instead, it was runaway spending in Congress that President Reagan unsuccessfully railed against. In his last State of the Union address from this very rostrum, he asked Americans to give him a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, so that even if Congress were unwilling to be fiscally responsible, we could live within our means. Mr. Speaker, I say to President Reagan, I am happy to tell him that his message has sunk in. We are all Reaganites now, for all of us working together, Republicans and Democrats, are balancing the budget. We are now arguing about how to spend the tax surplus or give it back to the taxpayers. These are happy times. Indeed, all of it, I think, can be dated back to the hard work and leadership provided by President Reagan. So, Mr. Speaker, for President Reagan's 90th birthday, how about if we promise to complete the Reagan revolution here in Congress. Happy birthday, Mr. President.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in a way, it is nice to be here on the floor and to listen to all of these things being said about Julian Dixon, because my southern California colleague, even now that he is gone, is going to be a powerful force among us. All of us in our spiritual lives have aspirational goals that we try to reach, something greater than us that we try to be. But it is also important in life to have real human beings that one can look at and say that is a person I would like to be like. That is someone who, if I strive, I work, I could be like that person. Julian Dixon is such a model for all of us, and is not just now in death, but was while he walked among us such a person. He and I were facilitators together at Hershey at the bipartisan retreat. We spent a lot of time talking on airplanes flying to and from Southern California and discussing important national security business on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where he bore so much responsibility. But it is with respect to the efforts that we have made over a period of many Congresses at Hershey that I think I will think best of Julian Dixon, because in a time when so many people are talking about the need for bipartisanship, Julian Dixon can remind us of what that really is. Bipartisanship, as he showed us, is not lacking convictions. It is not being a political hermaphrodite, half Republican, half Democrat. But Julian believed passionately about the things he did, and he was a great leader for our country. But, rather, it was transcending that conviction and recognizing that many of the things that we believe so deeply divide us are transitory, they are products of the time and the place in which we live, and focusing instead on our essential humanity, on our respective worth and dignity. I think that, in the year and years ahead, there can be no better model for every Member of this body than our good friend who we will so deeply miss, the Honorable Julian Dixon.

Mr. COX

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution, because it will lay before the Congress, lay before the public, lay before legislators in California, vitally important information, the results of a study by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the energy crisis in Southern California caused by the deregulation legislation enacted in the legislature in Sacramento. Without question, this is a situation that we must not allow to continue; but without question, we also must know where we are headed with reform in Sacramento. When the Democratic legislature adopted the deregulation that has led to this crisis, they did so with the best of intentions, and they did so with bipartisan cooperation. It has not turned out as people would have wished. The best of intentions or acting in haste, therefore, as we have seen from experience is not what is required; what is required is immediate remedial action based upon the facts; and right now, the best facts lie with the FERC. We ought to in this Congress, while we are still in session, have that information. This resolution, which I expect will be unanimously adopted by Republicans and Democrats, is, in fact, what the FERC needs to hear, because it is true, as Justice Brandeis has said, that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let us get that information out. Let us get that report released. Let us enact this Bilbray resolution so that we may then swiftly move to the more fundamental legislation that has occupied so much of our debate here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Statement of Congressman Brian Bilbray for H. Res. 650 I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bliley and leadership for working with me to bring this resolution to the floor. H. Res. 650 is a simple, straightforward resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission release it's completed report on the California electricity crisis before November 1, 2000. FERC has been investigating the electricity market place in California as a result of unexpected rate of volatility this summer, San Diego and Orange Counties were the first in the nation to experience the effects of an unregulated electricity markets. After speaking with the Commission and writing a letter, a copy of which is included for the record, requesting that the completed report be released as soon as possible, I introduced H. Res. 650 to ensure that the report be made public sooner rather than later, so that all interested parties can examine, analyze and make response to the report as quickly as possible. The initial report is complete. Why not let the public have access to it now? The consumers in southern California have had a difficult time this summer, and the crisis is not over. The entire state of California will be facing these hardships unless consumers, industry, utilities, generators, legislators, the Governor, and regulators--both FERC and the California Public Utility Commission,--come together to fix the flaws in the California electricity market. Until the FERC report is released, all of these interested parties are in limbo. Help San Diego. Help California. Vote for H. Res. 650. Thank you.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.Res. 650.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. I want to thank the previous speakers for their bipartisan cooperation in the passage of this resolution; and I would add that there is a big difference between this resolution which, as has been pointed out, is a sense of the Congress resolution urging simply that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission release a report that has been shelf-ready since October 19, bearing directly on the kinds of legislation that are under discussion here, and substantive legislation to remake the electric utility industry in the largest State of the union or in the rest of the country. My colleague referenced H.R. 5131, his legislation, and he was good to point out that he has introduced this legislation for the first time just last month in the closing days of the second session of the 106th Congress. Even though this legislation, which is sweeping in its effects, was introduced by such a distinguished Member as the gentleman from San Diego, I think he recognizes it would not be regular order for it to be simply whisked into law in a matter of weeks without even being able to know the results of the significant study that has been underway since July at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And so I would return to the point and the purpose of this resolution, which is to put before the Congress and to put before the general public for the requisite 3-week period of comment the already completed study and recommendations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission bearing on what we have all agreed is an extraordinarily difficult and complicated problem with very, very egregious consequences for consumers in Southern California.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and simply agree with the essential points that have been made on both sides here this evening. That is, first, that the crisis for consumers and small businesses alike in Southern California, in particular in San Diego and Orange Counties is very real. Second, that we should take swift action and prudent action to address it both in the State legislature in Sacramento and here in Washington, D.C. And, third, that to inform those decisions, we are entitled to see the report and the study and the recommendations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on this very topic. I would finally observe that as my colleague from San Diego points out, the legislation to which he refers, H.R. 5131, not the only bill on this topic but an important one, is sponsored jointly by Democrats and Republicans, highly respected Members of this body, and it is therefore in the interest of both Republicans and Democrats that we move rapidly on such legislation.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I would simply correct for the record one statement that my distinguished colleague has just made, and, that is, that the purpose of this resolution is to advance by 1 day the release of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report. It is, to the contrary, to release the report immediately, whereas it has been completed since October 19. Let me read from the concurring opinion of one of the FERC commissioners on October 19 when that report was released: ``Rather than wait for November to release the findings of our staff's investigation, I urge the chairman to release the completed report now. Our open government requires it. Fairness does as well. The people of California should have as much time as possible to digest our staff's findings and consider the options presented.'' The commissioner continues: ``Justice Brandeis often remarked, `Sunlight is the best disinfectant.' Let the sun shine on our staff's report. It could only help heal the raw emotions rampant in the State of California. I hope that the commission will proceed in the right path from now on.'' The bureaucracy here, to put it relatively impolitely in this case, is dragging its feet. This is a report on a very significant topic, the result of a significant and long study. It should not be gathering dust on the shelf. There is a 3-week comment period once it is released that will have to expire before the recommendations can be made final. The California legislature is going into session at the beginning of December.

Mr. COX. Reclaiming my time on that point. This resolution does nothing more, nothing less than it purports to do, which is to put before the Congress a report which we ought by rights to have seen on October 19, and I think that on that we should all agree.

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 650, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Bilbray). The resolution expresses that it is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should release its findings and recommendations regarding the electricity situation in California as soon as possible. San Diego Gas and Electric is the first utility in California to pay off its stranded costs. Customers served by San Diego Gas and Electric were the first in the Nation to experience the effects of unregulated electricity pricing without unregulated competition for new supplies of electricity. So while there is no new generating capacity in California and no free-wheeling competition in the wholesale market for electricity, consumers are facing unlimited prices. As a result, beginning this summer, customers of San Diego Gas and Electric in San Diego and Orange Counties will have seen their electricity bills double and triple. And that has continued over the last several months. The small businesses have closed, and consumers are suffering. On July 26, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opened an inquiry into this situation. They have written their findings and their recommendations, and yet they have not been released to the Congress or to the public. Considering the seriousness of the situation in California, there should be no further delay in releasing this report. This resolution, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), will help assure that his constituents in San Diego and all other San Diego Gas and Electric customers and Orange County and all other California electricity consumers in the near future do not have to continue to wait even longer before finally getting answers they need simply because the Federal bureaucracy is dragging its feet. The Committee on Commerce has spent nearly 6 years holding hearings on the best way to modernize our laws governing the electric utilities so that electricity will be more affordable and reliable. In that process, we have talked to consumers, regulators, and power generators. We have learned from our California situation that interstate electricity markets pose complicated issues of Federal and State jurisdiction. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's report, if we can see it, will speak to the important question of interstate transmission of electricity. The situation in California highlights the importance of getting it right for consumers. In conclusion, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), my colleague, on his resolution; and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 650) expressing the sense of the House with respect to the release of findings and recommendations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the electricity crisis in California.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) would also be pleased to be recognized before the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) speaks. If the gentleman would be willing to yield to him for 5 minutes, I will ask then for a 5-minute special order myself and yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California very much for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with this distinguished group of Members on both sides of the aisle in paying tribute to my friend and our colleague, this great national leader from Southern California, Ron Packard. I, too, have enjoyed listening to the stories tonight on the floor, and I hope the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has, too. There are many to tell about a man whose time here in Congress has done so much to improve our national life and to improve this institution. Ron and Jean and their seven children and their 34 grandchildren are a family that the Packards have made us all feel a part of. I have met some, but not all of the Packard family. Perhaps someday I will be able to do that. But the family members that I have been introduced to and I have met are fine men and women that say a lot about Ron and Jean. I have my own much younger family. It seems to me, given the natural limits to mortal life, I can never catch up. But I know from the task of being a father what a measure of our own worth that is. That is one and only one, a big one, area of Ron's life in which he has set an example for the rest of us. When I first came to Congress, I had the opportunity to serve on the Public Works and Transportation Committee with my neighbor in Orange County to the south, Ron Packard. Ron was and is an expert in aviation, served on that as well as other subcommittees in the Congress, and continued to have even greater influence in that area on the Committee on Appropriations where, as has been remarked upon several times tonight, he is a cardinal, a term of reverence, well deserved in his case for someone who wields extraordinary power of the purse in our constitutional system. I have had the opportunity even to have some vacation dinners with Ron and Jean. Rebecca and I have shared a nice meal at some romantic spots in Hawaii together and gotten to know Ron in that way personally, and it has been a lot of fun. I hope we have the opportunity to continue to do that even after he retires, because we are Southern California neighbors. It has been mentioned because it is such an extraordinary fact of Ron's career here how he got here in the first place, one of only four Americans in our national history to come to this people's House as a write-in candidate. It is extraordinary in a time in election season right now when we are all talking about campaign finance reform and the nefarious influence of special interests to think about what this means in Ron's case. Ron got here in exactly the opposite way, not because of special interests, not because he was even the nominee of a major party. He was not. He had to run against the Democratic nominee, run against the Republican nominee as an individual. He was Ron Packard first and became the party's standard bearer thereafter because the people wrote him in. Ron Packard and I share another distinction that I am very proud of. Possibly this means more to a Republican than a Democrat. But Ron and I are the only Members to have our legislation become law, notwithstanding the veto of President Clinton, in two full terms of the Clinton administration: in my case, the Securities Litigation Reform Act; in his case something even more important, I have to say, and that is rebuilding our Nation's military. Because as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of our Committee on Appropriations, he put before this House what was necessary to rebuild our military, to provide the resources that armed services needed. He convinced our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. They voted to support his legislation. The same was true down the corridor in the other body, the United States Senate. We sent that legislation to the President. When the President made the rare decision to cast a veto that he should not have, the Congress reacted quickly and supported Ron Packard, even against the wishes of the President of the United States, because they knew he was supporting the United States military and that he was right. Now, it should be said about a Republican who serves on the Committee on Appropriations that there are temptations. The whole term limits movement has a reason in America because of those temptations, because people who serve too long in Washington find it too easy to spend other people's money on pork barrel projects, on wasteful Washington ways. Sometimes they forget about the people back home. It is sad to say that temptation is strongest when one is closest to the money on the committee charged with spending it, the Committee on Appropriations in the House and in the Senate. So how honored have we been as American citizens to be served by a chairman on the Committee on Appropriations who took his trust so seriously that, in discharging it, he actually reduced spending. When Ron Packard first became a chairman on the Committee on Appropriations in 1995, he quickly sent a bill to the floor of the House of Representatives that did not just cut spending for the benefit of taxpayers, it cut spending at home where, presumably, it would hurt Members of Congress themselves most, in our own legislative budget. He cut spending by Congress on itself by fully one-third, an extraordinary achievement when we had a new majority, a new Congress, under the leadership of Ron Packard. In fact, throughout his career in the majority as a cardinal, as a chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, Ron Packard has been garnering awards, not for bringing home the bacon, but from such groups as Americans for Tax Reform, which rated him a taxpayer's hero, and the National Taxpayers Union, which rated Ron Packard an appropriator and a chairman and a cardinal in the top 5 percent of people in this entire Congress interested in cutting spending. This is an extraordinary accomplishment and something, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) can not only be proud of, but that all of his colleagues here are proud of. He has made us all proud. Everything that he has done in his career, even before he came to Congress, as a local leader, as a mayor, as a member of the city council, as a dentist with his own practice has distinguished him. But in this Congress for 18 years, everyone on both sides of the aisle, as the gentleman is hearing tonight from his friends, has found him to be scrupulously honest in his dealings, to be always fair, and, just as importantly, to be hard working and is represented by the fact that he got here as a write-in candidate, a citizen legislator. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is, in short, everything that a Member of Congress should be, everything a national leader should be. It is well said that ours is a government of, by and for the people. The for and by parts are very important. But remember that it is also a government of the people, and that this Congress, which manufacturers nothing, is simply the sum of the people who populate it, the people who were chosen by the voters to come back here. Therefore, by being who he has been, the fine gentleman that he has been and is, the leader that he has been, the exemplar that he has been for all of us, he have improved this institution, the people's House. The Congress of the United States and thus our country is the better for it. It has been a privilege to know the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and to work with him, and I look forward to continuing our friendship in the years ahead.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for their leadership on this legislation, which is so strongly needed in the interests of justice. Everyone is moved by stories of people who work hard and play by the rules. That is certainly the case for one of my constituents who, for 6 years, has been working hard to become legally a citizen of the United States. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when the system of justice does not work, it is heartbreaking for those involved. In the case of Vijai Rajan, who is 25 years old, she has lived in this country her entire life, since she was 4 months old. Both of her parents are naturalized U.S. citizens. Her sister was born in Cincinnati. The Rajan family wanted Vijai also to become a citizen, but you see, Vijai is in a wheelchair. She requires 24-hour-a-day care. She has cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, Crohn's disease, and suffers from seizures. She communicates by sounds and by signs that she understands, and the only expressions are those that she feels. Of course, Vijai could not raise her hand and take the oath of citizenship. But the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, where her family applied for her some 6 years ago has run them through the bureaucratic mill for years. They contacted my office after having twice filed for citizenship, after having had her in her wheelchair even down to the INS office. She had been working for 4 years with the INS at that point; and not until later, not until the very end, did the INS tell them, even though they had met the other requirements, that she could not become a citizen in any event, because she could not raise her hand and say the oath. The INS regs already allow an exemption from the English language for people who wish to become citizens. They allow for people with disabilities an exemption from the American history requirement. And a recent court case recently held that a man with Down's Syndrome who could not recite the oath could still be granted citizenship. But in the case of Vijai Rajan, the INS pressed on, litigated, tried to do everything possible to prevent this woman and her family from letting her become a citizen. Today with the passage of H.R. 4838, Congress will clearly state that the Attorney General has the authority to waive the oath requirement for people with disabilities. This legislation also sends a strong signal that long delays in bureaucratic impediments are not the greeting that this great Nation will extend to its new citizens. I thank the Rajan family for never losing hope. It sometimes takes an act of Congress to write a wrong. Vijai may not be able to comprehend the full extent of her legacy, but I know that passing this legislation will bring great comfort to all of her family and friends and all other immigrants who dream of becoming United States citizens. I thank my colleagues for their leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, there are few occasions more joyous and historic in a family's life than a 25th wedding anniversary. On October 11, 1975, Don and Cathie Hunsberger were married. Today, a quarter- century later, their bonds of matrimony are stronger than ever. As each of us in Congress knows, leadership in all walks of life means, more than anything else, setting an example. The Hunsbergers' commitment to each other, to their families, and to their communities is just such an example and inspiration to us all. They began their partnership as college sweethearts at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. Cathie was studying to become a teacher. Don was preparing for law school. Even then, Cathie was convinced that the education of our children was the key to our future, and Don was committee to improving the way of our laws and our government serve the people. Their sense of caring and responsibility made a lasting impression on all of their many friends, most particularly Cathie's adopted ``sister'' and roommate, my wife, Rebecca. Cathie and Don were soon married, and shortly made their way to Orange County, California. As a renowed educator, Cathie has made a positive difference to hundreds of our children in Orange County. Don's leadership in the law and his community service have improved the lives of families throughout Southern California. Twenty-five years of marriage have produced four children. As parents, Don and Cathie have passed along their values and their sense of honor, duty, and patriotism to Lauren, Ashley, Alec, and Evan. As a result, Orange County and our Nation will long profit from their example. Along with the rest of their family and friends, the Hunsbergers will be celebrating this memorable occasions on October 11, 2000 in Yorba Linda, California at the home of Cathie's parents, George and Mary Ries. I know all of my colleagues join me in wishing Don and Cathie Hunsberger a splendid 25th wedding anniversary, and many more to come.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to celebrate the sesquicentennial anniversary of statehood for the great state of California. For 12 years, I have had the privilege to represent the 47th Congressional district, which is nestled in the heart of Orange County. Our State was created out of territory ceded to the United States by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It officially became the 31st State in 1850 with a population of 92,597. Orange County was created in 1889, after residents of the southern part of then Los Angeles County felt they were not getting the attention they deserved from county officials and wanted a county seat nearer home. Santa Ana, which had grown recently due to the discovery of silver in the Santa Ana Mountains, was named the county seat. Today, with a population of nearly 3 million people and an annual economic output of over $110 billion, Orange County is one of the most successful and diverse hi-tech centers of commerce in the world. Its economy is larger than all but 31 nations in the world--ranking ahead of Israel, Portugal, and Singapore. Orange County's diverse population is larger than 20 states, and its economy is bigger than 25 states. It is one of California's top exporting regions, behind only Silicon Valley and Los Angeles, and tied with San Francisco. Orange County exports more than $12 billion worth of goods each year, from computers to state-of-the-art medical equipment, biotechnology, and other ultra- sophisticated technological goods. In just the last three years, high- tech exports from Orange County companies have grown by 53 percent. Orange County is home to some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, stretching for miles along the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and San Diego. The ``Places Rated Almanac'' has selected Orange County as the best place to live in the nation, ahead of more than 350 other metropolitan areas. Orange County is a national center for higher education. Universities and colleges in my district include the University of California, Irvine, where I serve on the Advisory Board of the world-class Brain Imaging Center, and Chapman University, on whose Board of Trustees I serve. Orange County has also been home to the world-famous Festival of the Arts and Pageant of the Masters for 68 years. In addition, Laguna Beach, the southernmost point in my district, is a year-round haven for artists and craftsmen, and its entire coastline has been declared a ``Marine Life Refuge'' to protect and preserve the rich variety of marine life forms for all to observe and enjoy. The Anaheim Angels baseball team and the Anaheim Mighty Ducks hockey team make their homes in my district. The Anaheim Pond, home of the Ducks, is also the second most active concert venue in America, behind only Madison Square Garden. Finally, Orange County is home to the Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse, authorized in legislation I wrote as a member of the House Public Works Committee in 1992. Once again, it is with great pride that I stand here today to mark 150 years of prosperity and leadership for the great state or California, and to recognize Orange County's important role in our state's history and future success.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. I have heard here an attempt to make this debate one about the super rich instead of the family next door; to make it about only 2 percent of the super rich instead of half of the American population; to make it partisan, when in fact it is very bipartisan. This legislation went to the President backed by Democrats and Republicans. A big number of Democrats supported this, 65, in this House. While Al Gore is campaigning it as some Republican plot, the entire delegation of Tennessee voted for this, including all of the Democrats, including our distinguished African-American colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a keynote speaker at the Democrat convention. Before we question the motives of people supporting abolishing the death tax, let us consider that more is at stake here. This is not about the super rich. Bill Gates will never pay this tax and everyone knows it. Those are the only people who we know to a certainty who will never pay this tax. But working men and women will pay not just the 55 percent, not just the 60 percent confiscatory rate, they will pay 100 percent when they lose their jobs, when the business for which they work is sold out to pay the tax man. It is time for the death tax to die.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4865, long overdue legislation to repeal the 1993 Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security beneficiaries. The media has begun calling this tax the ``Gore Tax'' because Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate needed to send the bill to President Clinton for his signature. The Gore Tax impose a 70 percent income tax rate increase or retired couples making as little as $22,000 each, and single retirees earning as little as $34,000. These low-income senior citizens don't qualify in anyone's book as ``rich.'' In fact, they earn barely enough to keep them out of the government's official definition of ``poverty.'' Yet Al Gore cast the deciding vote to significantly increase taxes on these low-income senior citizens. How costly has this tax increase been? This year, the Gore Tax will hit 10 million retirees, and force each of them to pay an average of $1,200 in additional taxes. This tax burden is made all the more devastating because of the fact that so many low-income seniors live largely on their Social Security income. The Gore Tax is not only terrible tax policy because it unfairly burdens low-income Americans. It's also bad tax policy because it discourages Americans from working and saving for retirement. Instead of encouraging hard work and thrift, the Gore Tax severely punishes Americans who set money aside for retirement--and retirees who want to stay productive and in the workforce during their golden years--by forcing them to pay thousands of dollars more in income taxes. This tax is indefensible. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4865, so that we can at long last repeal the Gore Tax and its unfair and punitive burden on America's senior citizens.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for trying to do the right thing here today, because I share the concerns of my colleagues about the spread of illegal Internet gambling. But I rise in reluctant opposition to this legislation because while it is well intentioned, it is bad telecommunications policy. This legislation would create enormous, if unintentional, regulatory problems. First, it proposes to treat online and offline gambling under different rules. That is a violation of the fundamental tenet of the Internet Nondiscrimination Act that this House passed very recently by the overwhelming vote of 352-75. Regulating commerce on the Internet under different rules from commerce in the offline world is a dangerous precedent that invites significant new regulation of the Internet such as we have not yet seen. Second, the bill expands gambling opportunities to make legal certain types of bets over the Internet that would be illegal if they were made over the telephone. Third, the bill would unfairly make Internet service providers and search engines and other interactive service providers, ISPs, who have nothing to do with gambling, people who have nothing to do with gambling, it would make them responsible for policing the behavior of their subscribers. This is the principle that we rejected when then Representative Wyden and I brought the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act to the floor so that we could stop the approach that the Senate had adopted with the Communications Decency Act, later rejected by the Supreme Court. In this bill in order to avoid criminal prosecution, ISPs and other interactive services would have to make sure that they are not hosting or linking to Web sites containing gambling advertising or information. To avoid criminal prosecution, they would have to block users from accessing foreign Web sites over which they have no control, an especially dangerous precedent while the United States at this very moment is seeking to oppose efforts by foreign governments to do that to our Web sites. Fourth, this bill would have the Federal Government dictate, indeed amend, the terms and conditions on which ISPs today offer service. It would require that every ISP terminate the account of any subscriber who is suspected of using the service to gamble. Fifth, the bill contains price controls. It requires every ISP to offer gambling filtering software at, quote, ``reasonable cost,'' putting the Federal Government in an unspecified way in charge of determining what is a reasonable price for filtering software. For the mom-and-pop Internet service providers who constitute the vast majority of America's thousands of ISPs, the legal and regulatory costs of complying with this new Federal regulatory scheme are significant. That is why this imperfect bill remains opposed by so many groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Free Congress Foundation, the Seniors Coalition, and Americans for Tax Reform. Oppose this legislation.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment. It is similar to language that this House recently approved when I offered my amendment on the defense authorization bill. The House voted 334 to 85 to authorize this prohibition on the Clinton administration guaranteeing against the cost of nuclear accidents in Stalinist North Korea. This amendment is imminently sensible, and it must be adopted.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)