C. Cox

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.)

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my distinguished colleague.

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

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, today I join the Taiwanese-American Community of Southern California in welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama. His Holiness' speech on ``Love, Compassion and Universal Responsibility'' is certain to motivate and inspire this historic gathering. In 1991 Congress passed a resolution stating that Tibet is an occupied country whose true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. Forced to flee brutal repression in his homeland, the Dalai Lama is now living in enforced exile. Although the Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that he seeks only autonomy and not the independence that his people so rightly deserve, the Communist Chinese dictatorship refuses to negotiate. And yet the Dalai Lama continues to exhort his followers to adhere to the Buddhist principle of nonviolence. His message of hope and freedom through non-violence is an inspiration to us all. We must never forget the suffering that the people of Tibet have been forced to endure. The government of the People's Republic of China should be held accountable for the immense damage that has resulted from its invasion and occupation of Tibet. The almost complete destruction of Tibet's unique cultural treasures, the attempt to eradicate the Buddhist religion, and the intense repression has never been adequately redressed. I know I speak for all the Members of this House who voted for freedom in Tibet when I say we welcome His Holiness and look forward to the day when Tibet is free and its people can express themselves without fear. We will look back on these meetings and know that the cause of freedom was advanced and that we did the right thing to stand by His Holiness the Dalai Lama's side.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, today I join with each of my colleagues in recognizing Steve Davis for his extraordinary contributions to American aviation, his dedication to his country, and his commitment to excellence. In just three years, we will celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the first powered flight by man. On December 17, 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright broke the bonds of earth after conquering serious technological and scientific obstacles. But the biggest obstacle they faced was the absolute certainty of those around them that it ``simply couldn't be done.'' Bishop Wright said, during a sermon in 1890, ``If God meant man to fly, he would have given him wings.'' Yet, just 13 years after their own father ordained it impossible, the Wright Brothers proved that perseverance and faith can overcome even the greatest of seeming impossibilities. Steve Davis is one of those rare men who, like the Wright Brothers, never listened to those who told him it ``couldn't be done.'' As a Navy pilot in Vietnam, a key leader with Frank Borman at Eastern Airlines, the founder of his own airline, and a respected leader among his aviation colleagues in Orange County, Steve Davis has long been in the forefront of aviation. He has taken on each challenge with the absolute certainty that nothing is impossible. Steve Davis has proven to every American that, with the right attitude, even the greatest obstacles can be overcome. Steve gives 110 percent effort, 100 percent of the time. He has served his country with distinction, his industry with honor, and his friends and family with love. Steve Davis's efforts and can-do optimism are appreciated by all who know him. In behalf of every one of us in the United States Congress, as well as all of the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, I am honored to extend to Steve Davis a hearty ``thank you'' and warmest congratulations for a job well done--and a shining example for all of us to follow.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I agree with essentially all of the arguments that were advanced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) just now in opposition to this bill because everything that they said makes sense. We ought not to have the FCC become the Faith-based Content Commission. The reason we are here on the floor is that that is exactly what the FCC tried to do. Six months ago, the FCC ruled that church services would not qualify as general education programming. Six months ago, the FCC ruled that the broadcast of religious views would not constitute educational programming. The FCC ruled that the broadcast of religious beliefs would not qualify as educational programming. The FCC put this out in the form of a rule. They, not the Congress, put the word ``religion'' into the test for whether or not you could get a broadcast license. And so this legislation is necessary to take away that discretion. So much for the arguments made by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The gentleman from Michigan then says, ``Well, it's not necessary to be here on the floor because the FCC has withdrawn their stupid rule,'' and many of the minority who spoke against this bill called the FCC's action stupid. It was withdrawn, they said, because the FCC should not have ventured into this area. This legislation is necessary to take away power that the FCC apparently thinks it has, but no one in the majority or the minority wishes them to have, to adopt such a significant policy change as they attempted to do here to take religious broadcasting off the air without any public notice or input. We should vote for this legislation for this reason. Here is what it says: The Commission should not engage in regulating the content of speech. That is what this is all about. Vote aye.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We are all agreed here, I think, having listened to the debate, we are all agreed on both sides of the aisle and on all sides of this question that the Government should not regulate the content of speech of noncommercial broadcasters and that the Government should not discriminate against some religious speech in favor of other religious speech. Both sides of this argument are claiming that high ground and saying, vote for us and we will vindicate those principles. The legislation that is before us says, and I quote, ``the Commission,'' referring to the Federal Communications Commission, ``should not engage in regulating the content of speech broadcasted by noncommercial educational stations.'' That is the principle of this bill, to keep the Government out of the business of regulating speech. Now, the Markey amendment does something very straightforward, at least mechanically. It inserts a word, one word, the word ``educational,'' as an adjectival modifier in front of another word, ``religious,'' so that we have an adjective on an adjective, a modifier on a modifier, and we now have something called ``education religious programming.'' The term ``educational religious programming'' is nowhere defined in statute. It is nowhere defined in the rules or the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. I do not know what it is, and the author of the amendment does not know what ``educational religious programming'' is. But let us do what a judge or a court would have to do faced with this language. A judge or a court would have to say, we have an adjective in front of ``religious.'' That means that we have something called ``educational religious programming,'' and presumptively something that is not ``educational religious programming.'' Two categories we have now created, this kind of religious programming and that kind of religious programming. Who decides which is which? Obviously, because of the way the statute is written and the way the gentleman has written his amendment, the Federal Communications Commission will decide which is educational religious programming on the one hand and which is the other category, presumably noneducational religious programming. What does the bill do without his amendment? The bill, without his amendment, simply creates a presumption. It says, and I quote, ``Religious programming contributes to serving the educational and cultural needs of the public and should be treated by the Commission on a par with other educational and cultural programming.'' So the FCC has no decision to make. The FCC does not decide which religious programming is good and which religious programming is bad; it does not run afoul of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution as it would under the Markey amendment. This new category that the Markey amendment would create of educational religious programming, which as I say, I have never seen, does not appear in statute, does not appear anywhere in the regulations, would create a lot of confusion. It would be a legal unicorn. Nobody having seen it before would not know quite what to make of it, or maybe it would be more like the Loch Ness Monster of the United States Code. We would see a vague apparition, but we would not quite know what to make of it. One court might decide one way; another court might decide another way. I think that the colloquy between the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Massachusetts about the broadcasting of a church service makes the vagueness, the hopeless vagueness of this amendment's wording very obvious. Because the author of the amendment does not really know, at least I listened to his remarks and I inferred this much, does not really know whether or not under his standard, the broadcast of a church service would be acceptable or not. We ought not to put the FCC into that kind of legal muddle. Remember the reason that we are here is that just 6 months ago the FCC said this, quote: ``Church services generally will not qualify as general educational programming under our rules.'' They tried to change the status quo. The Democrats said that was stupid, the Republicans said that was stupid, and so the FCC quickly backed down. Mr. Speaker, that leaves but one question. If we reject the Markey amendment and we have this base text, why do we need this bill to make sure the FCC does not do again what they did in December? After all, they have backed down and that argument has been forcefully made by the gentleman from Michigan. The answer is that the commissioners have let it be known, certainly one of them, that they would go forward in this course of action again, given the opportunity. So what we are saying in this legislation is the following: the Federal Communications Commission shall not establish, expand or otherwise modify requirements relating to the service obligations of noncommercial educational radio or TV stations, except by means of agency rulemaking conducted in accordance with the law. Because the FCC not only did something that the Democrats thought was stupid and the Republicans agreed was stupid, a word used several times to describe their action during the course of this debate, but they did so without any, without any public notice or input, or any warning to the broadcasters whose licenses were at stake. The policy change was announced as part of an adjudicatory proceeding relating to the transfer, as we have discussed here earlier in this debate, of a Pittsburgh TV station. By acting in this manner, the Federal Communications Commission circumvented the Administrative Procedure Act which requires public review and comment before any major policy change is adopted. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation so that we will have a transparent process, so that we will not have bureaucrats run amok, so that we will not find ourselves 6 months from now on the floor of this House complaining that the FCC action directed towards broadcasters was stupid. I urge that we reject the Markey amendment so that we do not render this legislation unconstitutional and hopelessly vague, so that we keep the Government out of the business of regulating religious speech.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in strong support of this resolution which will present the Congressional Gold Medal to the three astronauts who flew in the historic 1969 Apollo 11 mission. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for bringing this to the floor and to the attention of the Nation. Those three men who first set foot on the Moon's surface and flew to the Moon, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, stand out as heroes to us now and in even greater relief after the passage of so many decades. We are now in a new century. We can look back to the events of the mid-20th century and see what were the great events and what were the minor ones. This is truly an outstanding achievement not only of the 20th century but of all time. So it is appropriate that we are here today to recognize and honor these three American heroes. These men were tasked with a mission that was never before attempted by men or women. They participated in a space program that was then and is now still fraught with danger. My brother-in-law, Mike Gernhardt, is an astronaut. I have had the opportunity to watch him go up on the space shuttle more than once, and even today that is an extraordinarily risky venture. But think what it was like for those first astronauts, think what it was like for the Apollo astronauts and those on the Apollo 11 mission who were supposed to carry out all that had been tested before them. They proved to the world that we were still a Nation that when it sets its mind to something can do almost anything. With those few minutes of videotape, of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin skipping across the surface of the Moon and planting the American flag, confidence in American ingenuity was reborn. Landing on the Moon may have been an American feat, but more than that it was a pioneering event for the entire world, an achievement of humanity, and it opened to the entire world a whole new realm of possibilities. As was mentioned, I have had the privilege of representing Buzz Aldrin as a constituent. I would like to say a few words in particular about him. Buzz's own life can be best illustrated by his impressive resume and his dedication to government service. He was a graduate of West Point. He distinguished himself flying combat missions in the Korean War. After his military service, he earned an advanced degree from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He then returned to serving his country when he piloted one of the first manned rockets into space before joining NASA and the Apollo program. Although it is hard to eclipse being one of the first men to set foot on the Moon, Buzz has continued to contribute to the advancement of space exploration and become a nationally recognized advocate for the space program. Even today, he earns national attention for his humanitarian efforts and his efforts with Sharespace, an organization which advocates human space travel. It is Buzz's notion that we can raise money for the space program by letting Americans participate in the opportunity to be in space. He is convinced that someday soon, sooner than later, that will be a real opportunity for ordinary Americans. But it is not just Buzz Aldrin, it is each of these three men, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins that deserves the recognition that Congress is seeking to bestow upon them today. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the three astronauts who flew in the historic 1969 Apollo 11 mission.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, our colleague from California, Mr. Badham, who represented Newport Beach before I had that honor, rose in this chamber to commemorate the 10th Anniversary of an important community event in Orange County. The event was premised on the ``simple act of doing something nice for someone for no reason.'' Today, 25 years after the people of Orange County first decided to do something nice for someone for no reason, I'm pleased to report that ``Irrelevant Week'' and Orange County altruism are both thriving. Irrelevant Week XXV is honoring Michael Green, from Northwestern State in Louisiana, who was selected 254th in the NFL draft. He is headed for the Chicago Bears, where--at six feet tall and 189 pounds-- he will have trouble eclipsing the legend of Refrigerator Perry. Such long odds do not dampen the enthusiasm of community leaders like Paul Salata, who put this all together. That's because they recognize that all fame is fleeting, that humility is a virtue, and that even the last-round NFL draft pick is a significantly better athlete that most Members of Congress. Today, my colleague Mr. Rohrabacher shares with me the honor of representing the City of Newport Beach, and he joins me in congratulating all of those involved in this celebration, which has now, we can all agree, outgrown its name--for there is little in this world today that is more relevant to our spirit of community and our common humanity than doing nice things for other people. On behalf of the United States Congress and the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, congratulations to everyone associated with Irrelevant Week XXV, for being more relevant than you care to admit.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this conference report. I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee for his leadership of our House effort in the House-Senate conference. It is a very, very important step for this Congress that we are completing action on this legislation. The growing use of the Internet, of course, gave rise to the need for this legislation. It created questions about whether or not a piece of paper, pen and ink, would be necessary in order to make a contract that otherwise was negotiated and agreed to on-line. We have just started a new millennium. In the last millennium, several centuries ago, there were similar questions about whether one could form a contract in some way other than with a stamp and hot wax, and I am happy to say that with such high-tech inventions as the ballpoint pen at hand, legislatures all over the world recognized the efficiency of permitting people to make agreements that were legally binding without a stamp and hot wax. Now, in the 21st century, we are asking ourselves again whether the latest technology will be sufficient to form an agreement. We have agreed that the answer must be yes. No longer will there be inconsistency among the 50 States over the question of whether a contract is a contract just because it was made over the Internet. Now, an electronic signature, that is an individual's agreement given on-line, will be just as legally valid as the handwritten signature. And this is a good thing, because they are not just mere substitutes for one another. In fact, an electronic signature is more secure. Present-day technology permits us to ascertain more accurately whether or not the individual is actually the person making the agreement or whether the person at the other side of the contract is the contracting party much more so than signatures, which can more easily be forged. Digital signatures also permit us to ascertain whether or not the contract itself is the very contract that we thought we were signing or whether it has been altered in some way. These are real benefits over paper and ink. There is one other thing about this conference report that is worth mentioning, and that is that it permits the parties themselves to agree on the specific technologies that they find satisfactory in coming to a meeting of the minds. When we pass legislation that is going to be valid not just for a month or for a year; but for the indefinite future, it is vitally important we permit technology to advance, that we not impede it with our legislative enactments. And this flexibility, my colleagues, I think, is a very important aspect of this legislation. Finally, I am pleased that this legislation directs the Commerce Department, the executive branch of our government to work with foreign governments to make sure that this rule, which will now apply in the 50 States, also applies worldwide.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, when I first introduced legislation to repeal the death tax in 1993, the Democratic leader was seeking to increase death taxes. But slowly but surely over four congresses, we have put together a consensus of Democrats and Republicans in this body and the other body behind the simple notion: the death tax, even though it is intended to soak the filthy rich, does not really fall on them. It falls on low-wage workers. Mr. Speaker, people who fall in the category of the top 2 percent richest Americans, names that we have heard during this debate like Ted Turner or Bill Gates, will not benefit from the passage of this legislation because they will not pay the death tax. To a certainty, the one person who will not pay the death tax is the rich dead person. But beyond that even those who survive, through estate planning, through all manner of complicated trusts and avoidance schemes, not to mention lifetime gifts, successfully avoid most of the burden of this tax. The real burden of this tax falls on the low-wage worker, the woman who works for a business or a farm or a ranch that is family owned, because every day she does not know what happens when the founder dies. If part of that business has to be sold off or all of it has to be sold off to pay the tax man as so often happens, then people lose their jobs. Many more people than there are dead rich persons at whom this tax is aimed. And when they lose their jobs, their tax rate is 100 percent. It is for those people that we are passing this legislation today. In California, we put this question to a vote of the people. Even though the left raised the battle cry that this was a tax break for the rich, nearly two-thirds of Californians voted to repeal our death tax in its entirety because they understood where the real burden of this tax falls. It is the right thing to do today for the working people of America, and I congratulate the leadership of this Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), and all of the Democrats and Republicans who have come together to make this happen. We hope that this time the President will sign it into law.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it has been instructive to listen to the debate, because we are coming together, Democrats and Republicans, to appreciate that the death tax is unfair. It is unfair, because it is a double tax on the aftertax lifesavings of an individual. The only cavil that seems to be, not all but some Members on the minority side have is, first, that the death tax is expensive, by which they mean it raises revenue that we might lose if we repeal it, and, second, that it is a way to keep us from having two Americas of haves and have nots. But the truth is the death tax is expensive in a way that perhaps these people do not quite apprehend. It is expensive to collect. Every time we try to collect the death tax, we get thrown into a lawsuit that lasts for years. It is one of the most expensive taxes to collect that we have on the books. It reduces other taxes, such as income taxes that we collect, because as a tax avoidance scheme, people give away money during life and, thus, reduce, because they get a deduction, they reduce the taxes that otherwise they might owe. The Secretary of the Treasury, Lawrence Summers, in fact told us this when he was a Harvard economist just a few years ago that this tax might very well lose money for the Federal Government. So by repealing it, we should not worry that it is too expensive. The only expense that we are relieving is that on the American people. Second, this tax which was meant 85 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt to avoid undue concentration of wealth has resulted in just the opposite. We break up, not concentrations of wealth, but farmers and small businesses which are acquired by multinational corporations and real estate developers. That is why environmental groups are supporting complete repeal. The substitute would keep all the complexities of the more than 80 pages of the Internal Revenue Code that are devoted to the death tax. When tax simplification is the cry of the American people, this is the best opportunity that we will have to achieve that result. The substitute would raise taxes on families by repealing the current tax credit for State taxes. Let us not raise taxes. Let us cut them. Let us eliminate complexity. Let us do the right thing. Vote down the substitute and vote aye on H.R. 8.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, let us remind ourselves how we got here. When, in 1993, I introduced the first bill in the history of the income tax to repeal the death tax, we had just a few sponsors. By the 106th Congress, I had over 200 sponsors on my legislation to repeal the death tax. And last year the House and the Senate agreed on legislation that we sent to President Clinton to completely repeal the death tax. In September 1999, Bill Clinton vetoed death tax relief. Now we are back here to do it again for one simple reason. The gathering momentum behind repeal of the death tax is a result of the increasing realization of where the burden of this tax falls. It does not fall on the dead rich person. That is the one person who does not care. It does not even fall on the wealthy people in the family of the rich person. They might have to pay 55 percent or 60 percent because of a 5 percent surtax that kicks in, but the real burden of this falls on the low-wage worker who pays a tax rate of 100 percent when he or she loses a job because that medium-sized business or small business that is not publicly owned has to be liquidated in whole or in part to pay the tax man. That is why when in California we put this to an initiative of the people, even though the Los Angeles Times repeatedly said it is a tax break for the rich, almost two-thirds of voters agreed we should completely repeal California's death tax. Larry Summers, now the Secretary of the Treasury, when he was an economist at Harvard just a few years ago told us that we probably lose money on this tax, that we may not even make a penny even though it seems to raise 1 percent of our revenues because of all the tax avoidance schemes that people use to not pay it, such as lifetime gifts. That takes away from income tax they pay this year. It is time for the death tax to die. I am thrilled we are bringing it to the floor again. Let us send it to the President again and this time ask him not to veto it, Mr. President, but to sign it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for the extraordinary work that he has done in a bipartisan fashion to bring this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to join with him and the rest of my Republican and Democratic colleagues today in support of this legislation to repeal the Spanish American war tax. It is no longer a luxury tax. It is not fair; it is extremely regressive. The reason for its enactment, to fund the war with Spain, no longer exists. In preparing for this debate, I did some research into the genesis of this tax. I went to the report issued on April 26, 1898, 102 years ago, in the Committee on Ways and Means, and I found that the author of this bill, a Representative Dingley, not Dingell from Michigan, not my good friend and colleague who is the dean of the House, because even he has not been here anywhere near that long, but a Representative Dingley who said about his bill which was entitled, Revenue to Meet War Expenditures, ``All of these additional taxes are war taxes which would naturally be repealed or modified when the necessities of war and the payment of war expenses have ceased.'' Well, I think we can all agree today that that time has come, 102 years later. This tax was created over a century ago to pay for a war in which the father of General Douglas MacArthur, a commander of note in his own right, capped his career. Some years later, a half century ago, his son stood here in this chamber and told us in one of the most memorable addresses ever given in this Chamber, that old soldiers never die, they just fade away. But this old tax will neither die nor fade away. So today, more than a century after Spain and the United States signed a treaty of peace in Paris, we need to invoke the memory of those rough riders who charged up San Juan Hill and mount a charge on this unnecessary and unfair confiscation, run a bayonet through it, and kill it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for consideration of our debate on permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China, because it makes in order legislation to correct a serious flaw in the bill sent up here by the Clinton-Gore administration to establish PNTR. That bill did two things. It provided for permanent normal trade relations, but it also would have repealed our annual debate on human rights here in the Congress. I am happy to say that our annual role for Congress will now be preserved. In addition to consideration of human rights in the commission that will be set up to evaluate China's human rights performance each year, there will now be a mandatory procedure in the Congress for consideration of these as well on an annual basis. The human rights on which we will focus will be expanded from the original Jackson-Vanik focused solely on immigration to include religious freedom, the plight of political prisoners, protections against arbitrary arrest, and that heinous form of punishment exile that has been reserved for such democracy activists as Wei Jinhsheng. We must not and we will not, as a result of this rule, throw out the human rights baby with the trade sanctions bath water.

Mr. COX

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Rogan amendment that will facilitate effective traffic mitigation at reasonable cost for the citizens of South Pasadena and the surrounding communities of Pasadena, Altadena, La Canada, and East Los Angeles. The reason that I am offering the Rogan amendment, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) himself is not here to offer it, is that in addition to being a dedicated Member of this House, he is also a dedicated parent. He and his wife Christine at this moment are attending to the urgent medical needs of their daughters. He would very much himself have wanted to be here to offer this amendment, and I am happy to do it in his stead. This amendment is supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as well as environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club. It is identical to a measure passed with bipartisan support in the last Congress. It will reduce the cost to taxpayers of freeway construction in southern California and free Federal funds for traffic mitigation and infrastructure support projects.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we must keep our focus on the narrow purpose of this amendment, which is to keep Congress in control over any decision whether the U.S. taxpayer should be put on the hook for a multi-billion dollar liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea. It is, to say the least, a surprising policy that this administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, with the author of Earth in the Balance complicit in the decision, has decided to use taxpayer resources to build nuclear power plants, nuclear power plants not for U.S. consumers, but for a repressive regime that has armed itself to the teeth. They are maintaining a 1 million-man army while the people of North Korea are so impoverished they are eating the bark off of trees. But leaving aside our warranted astonishment with this policy of building nuclear power plants for Kim Jong Il, which will produce plutonium which could be used to make nuclear weapons and be fitted on the missiles that he will continue to develop while we are giving them this aid, the new question that is put before us now is whether or not the agreed framework between the United States and Japan and South Korea and North Korea is going to be distorted in a way not contemplated by this Congress or by the administration, that the liability of the U.S. taxpayers will be enormously increased without any consultation with Congress, and, most importantly, without any legal authorization for doing so. Earlier today I discussed this with Ambassador Sherman from the Department of State. She told me that the Republic of Korea National Assembly may soon be considering legislation to accept some part of the liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea. That would be a good policy for the U.S. Congress to follow. Just as the ROK, we are also parties to this agreement. Let us not change the agreement and the financial commitment of the United States by fiat of the State Department. Let us not stretch a statute beyond all recognition in an unprecedented way to impose billions of dollars of liability on U.S. taxpayers. It is precisely because the potential damages here are so great that the Clinton administration is considering an unprecedented use of a defense contracting provision in Title 50 of the United States Code, Section 1431, to impose unlimited nuclear liability on U.S. taxpayers. The Congressional Research Service has been unable to find any precedent for this. They have been unable to find any precedent for such use of this provision or for the assumption of unlimited foreign nuclear liability by U.S. taxpayers under any provision of U.S. law. If we are to do this, then we should do it after debate on the merits in this Congress. That is the way that multibillion dollar commitments of U.S. taxpayer resources should be made in our government, with legal authority, not by fiat.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), I would simply point out that there is no provision in the KEDO agreement for U.S. taxpayer liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea, nor is there any existing Federal statute that permits the administration to do this by fiat. If taxpayers are to assume this liability in a remarkable expansion of the U.S. financial commitment to KEDO, then it should be by decision of this Congress. That is the only purpose of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to the gentleman that the KEDO program has never contemplated U.S. taxpayer liability for nuclear accidents in North Korea. Second, if the purpose is to rid North Korea of a nuclear program, it seems an odd way to do it, to build them nuclear reactors. If our object is to give them electricity, certainly a coal-fired plant or a hydro plant would make a great deal of sense. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a senior Member of the Committee on Appropriations, who has done a substantial amount of work on KEDO over the years.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times published an article with the lead, ``Warning to American Taxpayers: Without knowing it, you may soon take on responsibility for what could be billions of dollars in liability stemming from nuclear accidents in, of all places, North Korea.'' The article continued: ``The Clinton administration is quietly weighing a policy change that would make the United States Government the insurer of last resort for any disasters at the civilian nuclear plants being built for the North Korean regime. But the Clinton administration is reluctant to seek a new law from the Republican Congress. That roadblock has sent administration lawyers scurrying through the United States Code, and they have found an obscure law that might be used in a new way.'' The article concludes: ``Presto, one little legal reinterpretation by the administration, and one huge new legal liability for American taxpayers.'' That according to the Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2000. Perhaps not all of our colleagues are yet aware of how the administration has embarked upon a policy of subsidies to the Stalinist regime of Kim Jong Il in North Korea. From the founding of the Communist State in North Korea until the very last day of the Bush administration, North Korea received not a penny of U.S. foreign aid or U.S. taxpayer support. But that has all changed under the Clinton administration. Today, the Stalinist government of North Korea is the number one recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia Pacific region. Our aid is now totaling some two-thirds of a billion dollars. That aid is being used by Kim Jong Il's repressive government, to feed his million-man army, to use fuel oil for military industries, and, most improbably of all, to construct nuclear power plants; which, when they are completed, will produce enough plutonium for Kim Jong Il's army to build 65 nuclear weapons a year. Now, this is the same government that has recently launched a three- stage ballistic missile over Japan. The proliferation risks of this venture are, obviously, the most frightening. But there are additional risks to the proposal to build nuclear plants for Kim Jong-Il as well, enormous risks to taxpayers from a nuclear accident at one of these plants if it were ever the case that the United States taxpayer would be on the line. According to these published accounts not only in the Los Angeles Times but in industry publications as well, that is just what the administration is setting out to do. I want to remind every Member that when the Clinton administration has advocated its North Korea policy before the Congress, they have always emphasized how limited our financial involvement would be and how limited our involvement in the nuclear reactor component of the KEDO program would be. The administration's plans to put U.S. taxpayers on the line for the cost of nuclear accidents in North Korea and the administration's stated opposition to this amendment makes a mockery of those plans. This amendment which I am offering, together with my Democratic colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), prohibits the United States Government from making American taxpayers liable if the nuclear reactors that the Clinton administration is giving to North Korea are involved in a catastrophic nuclear accident. If U.S. taxpayers are ever to be made liable in this unprecedented way for the costs of nuclear catastrophes in a foreign country, least of all North Korea, then it should be by the act of this Congress. That is the purpose of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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