C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Francisco J. Ayala, Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. Today, President Bush will present Professor Ayala the National Medal of Science, the highest honor for scientific achievement in the United States. Professor Ayala was bom in Madrid, Spain in 1934, and moved to the United States in 1961. Three years later, he received a Doctorate of Philosophy from Columbia University. Since this time, he has served on the faculties of several universities across the country, published over 750 articles, and written or edited 15 books. From 1994 to 2001, he served his country on the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. He has been a member of the faculty at the University of California, Irvine since 1987, and it has been my pleasure to represent him in Congress for the last 14 years. Professor Ayala's discoveries have revolutionized the study of evolution by applying new techniques to the investigation of the evolutionary process. He has also made landmark advances in the treatment and prevention of worldwide diseases that have afflicted millions, including Chagas' disease and malaria. Professor Ayala's advances are helping the medical profession eradicate diseases that have devastated communities in developing countries for centuries. Professor Ayala will continue to serve mankind by selflessly lending his time and effort as a scientist to the war against disease, and as a teacher at University of California, Irvine. The national recognition of his outstanding work is a special honor for UCI, as well: Professor Ayala is the UCI's second recipient of this award. On behalf of the United States House of Representatives, and all of the people of Orange County whom I am privileged to represent, I congratulate Professor Ayala on his lifetime of achievements in the field of evolutionary biology.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this day since 1993 when I first introduced the bill to repeal the death tax. The following year by 1994, we had some 29 sponsors, over 100 sponsors in the next Congress, over 200 sponsors in the following Congress. Due to the efforts of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), that bill was eventually signed into law. Four times this House has voted to repeal the death tax. And for good reason. By the way, I refer to it as the death tax because that is in fact what it is called in the Internal Revenue Code. For example, in section 2014 and section 2015, you will see the words, unlike the comments of the preceding speaker, death tax. That is the proper name for this code because it is a tax that applies on death. Its purpose when it originally was put into place was to confiscate the wealth of the super rich. Much of the discussion today has been focused on the nobility of that cause, confiscating the wealth of the super rich. But we have now a century of experience and we know that it does not succeed, or come close to succeeding, in that effort. It does not break up concentrations of wealth. To the contrary, it is the engine for concentrations of wealth. Ask yourself: How could it be after a century of experience with a tax such as this designed to break up great concentrations of wealth that the great-grandchildren of John D. Rockefeller could be themselves so wealthy, but the wealth of John D. Rockefeller is well known to all of us who work in this Congress, as is the wealth of Joe Kennedy, the wealth of a lot of people who are no longer with us, because the super rich can afford the lawyers, the trusts, the bollix accounting schemes that are needed to avoid this ultimately elective tax. For the super rich, they do not pay it. Who does pay it? Those people who work in businesses that are too small to have enough cash to do the expensive tax planning. The compliance cost associated with this tax, according to the Joint Economic Committee, may be more than enough to eclipse all the revenue that it raises. So most of the figures that we are hearing about how much money this might bring to Washington are looking at only half the story. You have got to look at how much it costs us to squeeze that blood out of the turnip. Even more to the point, look who supports repeal of the death tax. The National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Black Women Enterprises, Hispanic Business Round Table, Latino Coalition. This is not a coalition of the super rich. To the contrary, this is working America. The tax that you pay when you lose your job because the owner dies without an adequate estate plan is 100 percent. The low wage worker in a nonpublic company pays 100 percent when his or her job is liquidated. And most of the estates where there are significant collections for the Federal Government are thrown into litigation because there is always an argument about what the estate is worth. Therefore, it is an inordinately expensive tax to collect. Over 80 pages of the Internal Revenue Code have been repealed with our repeal of the death tax. It is the biggest blow we have struck for tax simplification thus far. But now we have to make it permanent. I mentioned that this House has voted four times for repeal. I mentioned the President has signed it into law. But as a result of an anomaly in Senate rules, nothing that this House voted for, our repeal, which takes full effect 7 years from now, is undone after only 12 months. So if 7 years from now you or a member of your family or the owner of your business dies on December 31, there is no burdensome estate tax to deal with, no death tax forms to fill out. If the same person, you or the same person, dies the following morning, then 55 percent is the rate that applies. The full burden of the death tax, even before the stepdown in rates that will have taken place over the next 7 years, is revisited. That is why the New York Times referred to the current situation as the Throw Momma From the Train Act because only in 2010 is there actual repeal and the full tax comes back the following year. Only if you support this anomaly that imposes compliance costs on everyone in America should you vote against permanency. I say vote ``yes'' on making death tax repeal permanent. It is time to throw the death tax from the train.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Robert W. Bein's 40 years of service and leadership with RBF Consulting, located in Irvine, California. Now the Chief Executive Officer, Bob Bein has dedicated his life to serving his firm and his profession. RBF Consulting is an engineering, planning, and surveying firm with over 600 employees and offices in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Bob Bein joined RBF in 1962 as a Chief Engineer, and went on to become President of RBF in 1964, and then Chief Executive Officer in 1991. Under Bob Bein's leadership, RBF has provided engineering, planning, and surveying services for land development, urban design, public works, transportation, and water projects throughout the western United States. In addition to his role as a corporate executive, Bob Bein is a highly respected and nationally known leader in the engineering profession--involving himself extensively in professional, civic, and community organizations at the local and national levels. He is a graduate and distinguished alumnus of the University of Illinois, as well as a United States Navy veteran, and an honorary member of Chi Epsilon. Like his career with RBF, his service to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has been extraordinary. With stints as ASCE's national president, district director, and chair of various committees, his value to his colleagues and dedication to his profession can be measured quite simply by his numerous awards. Bob Bein is truly an asset to his company and a cornerstone of the civil engineering profession. Its been a pleasure working with him in Congress as an advocate for so many of the county's important public works projects, from the Santa Ana River flood control project, to the Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse and our county's many miles of interstate highways. His decades of service in Orange County and around the United States are a testament to his character and abilities as a leader and an engineer. I congratulate Bob on his milestone, and I am honored to represent him in the United States Congress.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of a true American hero and a long time resident of Irvine, California, United States Marine Corps Colonel William E. Barber. Col. Barber passed away at the age of 82 this past April and will be buried today at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. Born in West Liberty, Kentucky, on November 30, 1919, he attended Morehouse State College in Kentucky and enlisted with the Marines in 1940. Col. Barber won distinction on the battlefield in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. As a young Second Lieutenant fighting on the beaches of Iwo Jima in 1943, Col. Barber was wounded twice, earning himself a Purple Heart as well as a Silver Star for bravery. Col. Barber is perhaps best known, though, for his valor above and beyond the call of duty, during the Korean War, in one of our military's worst defeats--the battle for the Chosin Reservoir. As 120,000 Chinese troops swept across the Yalu River to aid their North Korean allies, Col. Barber and the U.S. forces were forced to fight through bitterly cold temperatures and to retreat in the face of overwhelming opposition. At the time, Col. Barber was a seasoned Captain in command of F (Fox) Company, 2d Battalion 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division. Fox Company and its 220 men were assigned to defend a three-mile stretch of mountain pass along the division supply line--the only route of retreat for 8,000 Marines being overrun at Yudam-ni in the Chosin Reservoir and who were attempting to retreat to Hagaru-ri. Outnumbered 5 to 1 by enemy forces for five days and six nights, Col. Barber and the men of Fox Company fought a ferocious battle to keep control over the mountain pass. After two attempts by reinforcements to reach Col. Barber's isolated position were thwarted, he risked complete annihilation by remaining to hold his position rather than abandon the pass and strand the Marines in Yudam-ni. Despite being severely wounded in the leg, Col. Barber continued to lead, often from a stretcher, through the bitter fighting. After almost a week of constant fighting only 82 of the original 220 men of Fox Company could walk out under their own power. They had accounted for approximately 1000 enemy dead and held their position, but suffered dearly for their valiant actions. With this selfless act of bravery in the face of danger, Col. Barber became one of the only soldiers during the Korean War to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor--the highest military award a member of our armed forces can attain. After retiring from the Army, Col. Barber moved to Orange County, California where he and his wife of 60 years, Ione, lived and worked as proud members of our community, supporting veterans and youth activities at every opportunity. Col. Barber was known by everyone as a humble and unassuming man--a man who did not need to boast of his military exploits or service to his country. He was a regular speaker at Memorial Day events, and often enjoyed leading groups of 5th graders in discussion at the annual ``Walk of Honor'' events held at the Hall of Administration in Santa Ana, California. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to have represented this man of honor, one who so bravely answered his country's call three times. I am also honored to have had the opportunity to remember him today as he is buried in our nation's National Cemetery alongside so many other American heroes. This was a man who truly went above and beyond the call of duty for his country.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make my colleagues aware of Veterans Park Conservancy, a community group founded in 1986 to help manage Veterans Park, which covers 700 acres of land in West Los Angeles, California. Originally gifted to the Federal Government, Veterans Park is home to a number of historically and culturally significant sites, including the Los Angeles National Cemetery, the Wadsworth Theatre, and several memorials honoring our veterans. It is also one of the last remaining open spaces in West Los Angeles. The mission of Veterans Park Conservancy is simple: ``Honoring our Veterans, Cherishing the Land.'' The Veterans Park Conservancy was organized to develop and implement a long-term plan to protect the park. Soon after its inception, the group developed a 25-year Master Plan that identifies key restoration projects. In 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs officially granted Veterans Park Conservancy the authority to carry out these projects. The group's partners include veterans, the Federal Government, local and state agencies, community organizations, and private philanthropists. Throughout its 16-year history, Veterans Park Conservancy has spearheaded several projects in West Los Angeles and their fine work is a testament to their dedication to America's veterans. Beginning in 1994, the group led the charge to improve a one-mile section of Wilshire Boulevard as ``Veterans Parkway,'' and collaborated with Los Angeles County to improve the parkway with cobblestones, lighting, and 600 new trees. After the September 11th attacks, Veterans Park Conservancy worked with the Federal and local governments to install a permanent memorial of 100 American Flags, which fly proudly on both sides of the boulevard. In 1998, Veterans Park Conservancy restored the Spanish-American War Memorial, which sits at the entrance of the Los Angeles National Cemetery. In 2000, the group gave the cemetery a stately new entrance, new trees an 7,800 feet of wrought iron perimeter fencing--all of which elevate this beautiful memorial to its rightful status a ``The Arlington of the West.'' Every Memorial Day, the Veterans Park Conservancy works with scout troops to place American flags on each of the 85,000 veterans' graves, creating fields of inspirational red, white and blue. I also want to commend Veterans Park Conservancy for their effort to pass legislation to name the chapel at the National Cemetery the ``Bob Hope Veterans Chapel.'' I am also pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the group along with the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, in creating a lasting honor to our country's most beloved honorary ``veteran.'' For all these reasons, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to the many good works of the Veterans Park Conservancy and to wish them many more years of success.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to thank my colleagues for bringing this legislation immediately to the floor to name the chapel at the national cemetery in Los Angeles as the Bob Hope Veterans Chapel. This national cemetery, for those who have so faithfully served their country, is sometimes called the Arlington Cemetery of the West. It is fitting to name the chapel there in honor of the Armed Services' best friend, a man who has served America's veterans proudly for over 60 years. Before I extol the virtues of the man we intend to honor with this legislation, I would like first to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), with whom I have jointly authored this bill. It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from California. He has worked actively to gather support for this important legislation as well. I would like also to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for her active support of Bob Hope and his family, who have long been her constituents in Palm Springs, California. And again I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) as well as the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their strong support and for allowing this bill to come straight to the floor today. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not also thank the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Anthony Principi, as well as the many veterans' service organizations who have worked across the country in support of this legislation. I am also extremely grateful to my good friend from Southern California, Tom Saltarelli, the former mayor of Tustin, California, who now serves as chairman of the Veterans Park Conservancy, the group that first proposed to name the chapel after Mr. Hope. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank Bob and his loving family, especially his wife Dolores, and their children, Linda, Tony, Nora, and Kelly, and his granddaughter Miranda, who is with us here in the Chamber today. Mr. Speaker, we are here to honor Leslie Townes Hope or, as he is better known to people around the world, Bob Hope. He was born on May 29, 1903 in Eltham, England. He moved with his family to Cleveland, Ohio, in 1907 and shortly thereafter became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1920. It was while he was making his start in entertainment on vaudeville that he first met the woman he would soon marry, his wife of 68 years, Dolores. They now have 4 children, as well as 4 grandchildren. Throughout his illustrious and prolific career, Mr. Hope made over 700 television programs, he wrote 7 best-selling books, starred in 60 motion pictures, and he is cited in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most honored entertainer. And with good reason. His talent has always appealed to Americans of all ages, across many generations. Without a doubt, Bob Hope is best known as GI Bob, a man whose life was dedicated to honoring and raising the spirits of our men and women in uniform. Through an act of Congress in 1997, Bob Hope became the Nation's first and still only honorary veteran for his lifetime of service to America's soldiers. Whether the United States was at war or at peace, Bob Hope was always there. After nearly 60 years boosting the morale of U.S. armed forces through goodwill tours, USO shows, and his world-famous Christmas specials, Mr. Hope's status among American servicemen and women is now legendary. His globe-trotting spirit and his zeal for entertainment earned him worldwide status as the Ambassador of Goodwill. From his very first performance, for U.S. soldiers during World War II in May 1941, to his Christmas show in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War in 1990, Mr. Hope has performed before an estimated 10 million American GIs. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is this weekend. Two days later, Bob Hope will celebrate his 99th birthday, on Wednesday of next week. I do not think there could be a better time to bring forward this act of Congress honoring a man whom our veterans and our Nation owe so much. H.R. 4592 permits us to honor Bob Hope in a way that will endure, even when he is no longer with us. The Los Angeles National Cemetery is dedicated solely to veterans and their families. Through this act of Congress we will officially name the chapel at the national cemetery where over 85,000 veterans are buried. I will submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, letters of endorsement from many veterans' service organizations across the country. These endorsements include the California chapters of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the American GI Forum, the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans, Jewish War Veterans, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the California Association of County Veteran Service Officers. Bob Hope has become such an institution that across the street from this Capitol, in the original Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, he is the subject of an exhibit, the ``Bob Hope Gallery of American Entertainment.'' This gallery, described in this brochure which I brought with me to the floor, shows visitors to Washington, D.C. Bob Hope's early life, his career on vaudeville, in motion pictures, television, and radio, his USO shows, and his public service. In so many ways Bob Hope is an American institution, and with this act of Congress we will memorialize it in such a fitting way for those men and women of our armed services who have already passed. I know all my colleagues will join with me in bestowing on our country's most beloved supporter of America's armed forces this valuable and important honor. Mr. Speaker, the letters of support I referred to earlier are as follows: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Washington, March 29, 2002. Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: In a February 22, 2002, letter, Congressman Christopher Cox requested the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on legislation to be introduced that would name the chapel at the national cemetery in Los Angeles, California, as the Bob Hope Veterans Chapel. VA supports this bill. The bill would name the chapel at the national cemetery in Los Angeles, California, as the Bob Hope Veterans Chapel. Leslie Townes (Bob) Hope tirelessly served America's servicemembers for 50 years. Beginning in May 1941, when he performed his radio show for airmen at March Field, California, and continuing through his Christmas show in Saudi Arabia in 1990 during Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Hope has taken to the road to entertain U.S. troops, no matter where they were located, and through laughter helped them to forget for a brief period their distance from home. This legislation would honor Mr. Hope's selfless devotion to America's protectors. There would be no significant costs associated with enactment of this legislation. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, Anthony J. Principi.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make my colleagues aware of Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day, which is recognized each year on the third Saturday in May. Friedreich's ataxia Is a life-shortening neurological disorder that is usually diagnosed in childhood. It causes muscle weakness and loss of coordination in the arms and legs; impairment of vision, hearing and speech; scoliosis, diabetes; and a life-threatening heart condition. Most patients need a wheelchair full-time by their twenties. Life expectancy is reduced to early adulthood. There is currently no effective treatment or cure for Friedreich's ataxia. Although there is no treatment or cure available, Friedreich's ataxia patients and families have more and more reason for real hope. An extraordinary explosion of research findings has followed the identification of the Friedreich's ataxia gene in 1996. Since that discovery, research scientists have learned a great deal about the disorder. We now know what defects in the gene cause the disease, what protein the gene is supposed to produce, what that protein is supposed to accomplish, and why a shortage of the protein results in the cell death that leads to the disease symptoms. Investigators are increasingly optimistic that they are drawing closer to understanding more fully the causes of Friedreich's ataxia and to developing effective treatments. At the National Institutes of Health and around the world, clinical trials for Friedreich's ataxia are being conducted on drugs that hold real promise. Intensifying cooperation among organizations supporting the research and the multidisciplinary efforts of thousands of scientists and health care professionals provide powerful evidence of the growing hope and determination to conquer Friedreich's ataxia. There is a growing conviction that treatments can and will be developed for this disease and that the resulting insights will be broadly applicable across a wide range of neurological disorders. On the third Saturday of May, events will be held across our country to increase public awareness of Friedreich's ataxia and to raise funds to support the research that promises treatments for this disease. I applaud the Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance for its contributions to these efforts and ask my colleagues to Join me in recognizing May 18, 2002, as Friedreich's Ataxia Awareness Day to show our concern for all those families affected by this disorder and to express our support and encouragement for their efforts to achieve treatments and a cure.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 131, I was absent for the five- minute rollcall vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yeas.''

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for bringing this bill to the floor from the Committee on Government Reform, and for agreeing to bring it directly to the floor, because it is a very important opportunity for our Congress to recognize that one of Orange County's finest citizens is indeed one of America's finest citizens. This legislation is going to permit us to honor Hector Godinez in a way that will endure, even though he is no longer with us. I would like to commend the gentlewoman who just spoke, the sponsor of this legislation. I am the lead majority sponsor of the legislation with her. I would also like to commend the senior Senator from California. The other body actually enacted this legislation in the last Congress, and we will, I am sure, see bicameral legislation on it in this Congress. It is my privilege to rise today in strong support of this legislation because, as I say, this is such a fitting and lasting tribute to Hector Godinez, who died 3 years ago, in May of 1999. He lived an exemplary life. We have heard from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) some of the highlights of this extraordinary individual's career. He was a soldier, a public servant, a civil servant, a civic leader, a husband, a father, and a grandfather. He was a hero to many, many people in Orange County, in California, and ultimately, across the country. I think it is just spectacularly fitting that as a member of the greatest generation, we can begin a story about Hector Godinez by pointing out the very salient fact that he was a tank commander under General Patton in Germany. Yet, he was such a gentle man, genial, funny. Those of us who represent constituents know we have to go to the postmaster from time to time to work out problems: The mail is not getting delivered; I cannot get a post box in front of my house. As the postmaster in Orange County for 30 years, no one was more friendly and more responsive in response to such constituent needs than was Hector Godinez. He was just a pleasure to deal with throughout his life and his career. In Germany, this gentle man was shot at, wounded, and earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his valor. He continued to serve his country in everything he did for the rest of his life. He earned national distinction relatively earlier in his career because this Republican was appointed by a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, as the first Mexican American postmaster in American history. He was an enormously positive presence in our community of 3 million people in Orange County. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) pointed out, he was remembered at the time of his death by our leading newspapers, the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Times, for his fights against ethnic and racial discrimination. He attended ethnically segregated schools as a youngster, and he fought to make sure that would not happen to kids in his adult life. He fought against racial segregation and discrimination very successfully. He was a founding member of the local chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, and rose to become the President of the national organization from 1960 to 1966. He was the first Latino ever elected president of the Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce. Just as he devoted tireless efforts to the Mexican American community, Hector Godinez served all Orange Countians. He served on the board of directors of our public television station, KOCE TV, he chaired the Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America, he served on numerous civic boards and commissions, and helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for charities and student scholarships. I would like to conclude by paying a moment of tribute to the people who in Hector's life were the most important: his wife of 53 years, Mary; his four children, Hector, Robert, Linda and Gloria; and their nine grandchildren. To his family I would like to say that today the House of Representatives stands with you in honoring Hector's life and work. He is an example to us all. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing H.R. 1366 to come to the House floor today and I thank my colleagues for joining us to pass this important legislation so that all of America may join those paying tribute to one of Orange County's and the Nation's greatest men.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the author of this amendment for yielding me the time. One of the previous speakers referred to something he called the 1995 Republican Act. Specifically, he was talk about the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. First, it was not the 1995 Republican Act. It was passed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans, including such well-known Democrats as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Chris Dodd from Connecticut, who supported this in the Senate, in the other body; Ted Kennedy, from the Member's own State who made these remarks; my own Senator Feinstein, and so on. And it was supported by all these Democrats and Republicans because it benefits the plaintiffs in these cases. The Enron case is the best example. In the old days, before this law, the first plaintiff to file would have been able to pick who the lead plaintiff in the case is and collusion between the lawyers and the favored class member through bonus payments, which were also outlawed in that legislation, resulted in cents on the dollar. But now the University of California Regents have been selected as the lead plaintiff in the Enron case, and they will be a real lead plaintiff and stand up for the rights of all the plaintiffs. That is the kind of reform that both Democrats and Republicans supported.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this debate is difficult to understand for me because on the one hand people are talking about putting multistate claims with plaintiffs all over the country into the form that the Founding Fathers described in article III of the Constitution, a Federal form; and on the other hand, people are saying that class actions help normal Americans, class actions are good, and class actions can bring about good results. Those two things are hardly incompatible. What we are talking about is making sure that class actions, which involve the whole country and not just local issues, are resolved in the jurisdiction that the Framers had in mind, Federal jurisdiction in a Federal court. We do not have a problem in this Congress, I do not believe, in appreciating the work that our State courts do. Indeed, one prolific source of the people who serve on the Federal bench is the State courts themselves. The problem is not with State courts; the problem is with lawyers trying to manipulate the system who pick not the State court system but a particular place, a particular forum, where they shop for where they know, because of their connections with that particular forum, that they can put their thumb on the scale of justice and they can skew the result so the facts and the evidence and the law do not matter. The leading treatise on Federal civil procedure has declared that the current rules for deciding when admittedly nationwide class actions are heard in Federal court make no sense: ``The traditional principles in this area have evolved haphazardly and with little reasoning. They serve no apparent policy.'' An 11th circuit case recently had the judge apologizing to litigants because they could not have a Federal forum because the rules as presently written for diversity are so easily defeated by lawyers trying to manipulate the system. Judge John Nangel, who was for many years the Chair of the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, said this: ``Plaintiffs' attorneys are increasingly filing nationwide class actions in various State courts, carefully crafting language . . . to avoid . . . the Federal courts. Existing Federal precedent . . . [permits] this practice . . . although most of these cases . . . will be disposed of through `coupon' or paper settlements,'' that is, through extortion, at settlements at which the lawyers are paid to go away and the plaintiffs in the case, in most cases who have never even met the lawyers, get sent pennies on the dollar. In an opinion by Judge Anthony Scirica, the chairman of the Federal Judicial Conference's Standing Committee on Rules and Procedure, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit observed that ``national (interstate) class actions are the paradigm for Federal diversity jurisdiction. . . .'' That is what the Federal courts are telling us; that is what the Federal judiciary is telling us. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, someone who most Democrats, I would think, would be happy to learn from, testified before the Committee on the Judiciary: ``If Congress were to start over and write a new Federal diversity statute, interstate class actions would be the first kind of cases'' that we would put within that diversity jurisdiction. This is good for litigants, good for defendants, good for plaintiffs, good for fairness, good for America, and good for the American consumers, which is why The Washington Post has supported it: ``That it is controversial reflects less on its merit as a proposal than on the grip that trial lawyers have on many Democrats.'' I do not believe that would be true, and I think many Democrats will support this legislation.

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the preceding speaker for pointing out how urgent it is for the Democrats in control of the other body to approve the some 100 judges that President Bush has nominated that are being held hostage to politics. That is the reason that we have some backlog in some of our courts. The fairness bill which is on the floor today is addressed to something much more discrete, and that is what is the proper role of the Federal courts and what is the proper role of the State courts. This bill is needed to restore to the Federal courts the jurisdiction that the Framers of our Constitution gave to the Federal courts. It was the Framers that decided that when the parties to a case live in different States, multiple States, when what is at issue in the case are the laws of multiple States, that that kind of jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, so-called, is properly vested in the Federal courts. What we are hearing in opposition to putting nationwide class actions in Federal Court is a sort of reverse Federalism; that somehow if multiple States are involved and parties from multiple States are involved, that a hamlet in some county in America should make law for the whole country. The Framers gave us this jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, to guard against local prejudice to make sure that American citizens would not be dragged to some unfamiliar venue nowhere near where they lived and forced to appear between a rock and a hard place, as it were, unable to argue their rights that they would have back home or in a Federal jurisdiction, and knowing the outcome in advance, that they were going to be home-towned by local judges and juries. The Framers wanted to ensure that citizens would have confidence in their judicial system by eliminating this kind of local bias. The Framers reasoned that local prejudice could result in discrimination against interstate commerce. As you recall, in article I of the Constitution interstate commerce is a Federal responsibility, not a State responsibility. Of course, prejudice against people from other States, prejudice against interstate commerce, they recognized would be highly detrimental to the country. We are here today precisely because the Framers intended to prevent what is happening in our court system today in the form of nationwide class action lawsuits filed in local courts. A class action is typically a big lawsuit, a large lawsuit, often with hundreds or even thousands of class members. In fact, most of the Members in this Chamber and most of the people watching what is going on on this floor are probably plaintiffs in lawsuits that they do not even know about, because it is so easy to claim, if you are a lawyer, to represent a whole class of people similarly situated to your cousin. In these large class actions involving people from all over America, there are often at issue the laws of many different States. It is because of this that a class action involving citizens of multiple States necessarily has significant interstate commerce implications, and as a result it is the quintessential Federal case. No matter how many citizens from other States are involved, no matter how many States' laws are involved, the law as it exists today places such strict limits on the right of a party to have his or her case removed to Federal Court that it is virtually impossible for an out-of- state party to do so. This has given rise to what is called in the lawyers parlance ``forum shopping.'' If you were a clever lawyer, you get to pick the one place in America where you know you are going to win, whether you are right or whether you are wrong. Forum shopping has resulted in a very small handful of local courts in such places as Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and Palm Beach County, Florida, making law for an entire Nation. But this is not the only negative impact of what I have called reverse Federalism. It is now openly recognized that these local courts can and do harbor actual prejudice against out-of-state defendants. This was acknowledged by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent opinion in which the court apologized to the out-of-state defendant for the current state of Federal law. They recognized that while they could not permit this action under the current circumstances, which we just described, the current Federal law which makes removal so difficult, they could not permit this action to be heard in Federal Court, it ought to be in Federal Court. So they apologized to the defendant in the case for their anomalous ruling, returning a large interstate class action lawsuit to Alabama State court. The Eleventh Circuit recognized that it was sending these defendants back to a State court system that was going to treat them, or at least had treated people similarly situated in the past, unfairly; that has produced in their words ``gigantic awards against out-of-state defendants.'' The court quoted a newspaper article noting that Alabama was ``a State whose courts are among the most widely feared by corporate defendants.'' Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit concluded there was nothing under current Federal law that could be done about it. The Eleventh Circuit laid bare the harsh reality that out-of-state defendants can now face in class action lawsuits, where the thumb is put on the scale of justice in advance. You, as an individual citizen in America, as a party to one of these actions, can be dragged into a remote jurisdiction that often has little or no connection with you, or indeed with any of the parties. Appearing in local courts, facing local judges and judges unlikely to treat you fairly, you know the outcome in advance. Almost certainly you will wind up being forced to pay a large settlement just to get out of this nightmare, because you would not want to see it through trial to the unfair result. This is precisely the kind of injustice and local prejudice the Framers intended to eliminate by explicitly granting to the Federal courts diversity jurisdiction over cases involving people, parties in multiple States, and laws of multiple States. This legislation will restore the balance between State and Federal courts and return to the Federal courts the jurisdiction over diversity indications that the Framers intended. Now, I must say in closing that our State court system is a good system. It is a wonderful system for resolving a variety of cases. The problem is not with the entire system of State courts; but rather that some lawyers, a small number of amoral and unethical lawyers on many occasions, get to pick not just State courts in general, not just the system, but the precise place where they know they have control and where they can win. The argument that has been made against this bill bears a heavy burden. People have stood up here and said that this would be bad for the Enron plaintiffs, even though, as we all know, the Enron plaintiffs chose a Federal forum and this bill gives anyone the right to file in a State court or remove to a Federal court. People are saying that this tramples on the rights of State courts. I think I have dealt fairly with that argument. I have heard it is going to protect the rich or that it is going to hurt environmental cases. The burden that you bear in making that argument is that you have to say that there is inherent prejudice against environmental issues in the Federal courts. You have to say that there is inherent prejudice according to class in the Federal courts. I do not think any of you really believes that. All that this bill does is state that if multiple States are involved, you can be in the Federal system. This bill is an affirmation of Federalism and of the Founders' intent. It is the reason that the Washington Post so strongly supports this bill. In their editorial what they have said is that the lawyers cash in while the clients get coupons for product upgrades. That is the kind of misrepresentation that has occurred, as described by the speakers that got up before me, in this bad system that they describe, that irrationally taxes companies in a fashion all but unrelated to the harm their products do, and that provides nothing resembling justice to victims of actual corporate misconduct. The Federal system is a good system for resolving cases. It is the ideal system and the one that the Framers intended for resolving complex cases involving citizens and parties of multiple States and the laws of multiple States. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve not only this rule, but the legislation when it next comes to a vote, and I predict it will pass with a big bipartisan majority.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to commend Bill Mills who is retiring on April 1st after completing a successful term as the general manager of the Orange County Water District. An innovative leader, for the past fourteen years Bill Mills has spearheaded both conservation and reclamation water projects to aid one of the largest counties in the nation. Recognizing the long-term need to reduce Orange County's dependence on imported supplies, Bill has been at the forefront to promote new technologies that would improve the quality of both surface and groundwater supplies. Under his leadership, the Orange County Water District has pioneered some of the most exciting changes in water management as well as maintaining one of the highest financial ratings for a water agency in the state of California. What was once considered to be only practical in theory, the ability to purify wastewater for reuse, became a reality during Bill's tenure. An accomplished civil engineer, Bill advanced a project referred to as ``Water Factory 21,'' a model water filtration system. This new technology has enabled Orange County residents and businesses alike to recycle a useless product into one of the most important resources needed to maintain irrigation needs during drought. And of course, today, this ``new'' technology is now the norm for many cities and counties throughout the nation and world. Because of Bill's leadership on this project, Orange County is now taking the next step to transfer this critical technology to help solidify other water needs. Bill's keen ability to recognize early on the potential of new technologies such as Water Factory 21 have earned him praise and recognition from his colleagues throughout the world and numerous awards, including ``Water Leader of the Year.'' The recognition of the Orange County Water District as a leading public agency is a tribute to his legacy. I know that many of my colleagues here in this House personally gained from Bill's expertise when he traveled several times to Washington, D.C. to testify on groundwater and water quality issues. Always thinking ahead, Bill developed a 20-year master plan to guide the County's future groundwater planning--including tackling a major flood control project for an area that was once considered the biggest flood threat west of the Mississippi. Due in large part to the expertise he shared with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County is no longer designated as a flood threat area. Today, I join my fellow California colleagues to thank Bill for all of his hard work and dedication. Orange County is a better place to live because of his foresight. In behalf of the United States Congress and all of the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, congratulations to Bill Mills, and best wishes for a well- deserved retirement.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) who just spoke very eloquently about an Illinois native son. I think you can see a lot of the same traits of Ronald Reagan in the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), in our Speaker, and in our Speaker pro tem, all sons of Illinois. The sons and daughters of Illinois have a great deal to be proud of as we recognize once again President Reagan on his birthday. He has had a lot of them. At 91, he is America's oldest President ever. No President has lived to the age of 91. The record was set by John Adams. As you know, John Adams died on the Fourth of July, the same day as Thomas Jefferson. They died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I hope that Ronald Reagan will be able someday to see the end of his days in as noteworthy a fashion. Already, however, he has left such a legacy that it is appropriate that we are here to honor him. His career, any of his careers, would be remarkable in and of themselves. He was a successful sports announcer. Of course, he had a career in pictures. He was a very successful two-term Governor of California and a very successful two-term President of the United States, winning election twice in landslides. If he were here with us today, President Reagan would presumably humbly acknowledge that he appreciated the birthday wishes on the 52nd anniversary of his 39th birthday. That is what it is today. When President Clinton was running for office, he once said that America needed a President for the 1990s. Hope springs eternal. Perhaps now we could, if we would only repeal the 27th amendment, get a President in his 1990s. We would welcome, I think, Ronald Reagan back to Washington were it possible. When he became President, we had endured, unhappily for all of us, an era of national malaise, bereft of any sense of moral direction. Throughout his term of office, throughout 8 of the fastest moving years in history, President Reagan brought us back. That Irish twinkle, that homespun style of his, seemed never to change, and it brought a new assurance to America. He was not only America's President, but the leader of the free world. With a toughness that we had not seen for a long time, he stood toe to toe with what he unabashedly termed ``the Evil Empire.'' And when he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' he was widely criticized. It was thought that this was not constructive, it was not going to work, because realists among us knew the Soviet Union was going to be there forever, and we should accommodate it. He saw a different future, and he worked hard to bring it about. As a result, hundreds of millions of people not just in the Soviet Union, but throughout Eastern and Central Europe, were liberated. He was called the great communicator in part because he spent so much time on television explaining his policies, and he was quite good at it. But it was more than communication skill, it was that he had a message to communicate. Lady Thatcher, then Prime Minister Thatcher, compared him to Winston Churchill. She said, ``Like Winston Churchill, he made words fight like soldiers and lived the spirit of a Nation.'' If the events of September 11 have taught us anything, it is that America still requires a strong national defense that acts as a vanguard against enemies who would destroy freedom and democracy. Ronald Reagan cared about these things very deeply and carried forward the ideals of freedom and the defense of freedom throughout the 8 years of his Presidency. President Reagan's foreign policy and his strength of character will not be forgotten. A recent book, ``Reagan: In His Own Hand,'' details the writings of the President that we are just now discovering, even late in his life, that we never knew when he was President. Another book, ``When Character Was King,'' by Peggy Noonan, includes writings from Ronald Reagan when he was a teenager. He was a remarkable individual, the first labor union president to become President of the United States. I say with all of us here, as he said at the end of his D-Day speech in Normandy, we will always remember, Mr. President, and we will always be proud. Happy birthday.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. James D. Ruth, City Manager of Anaheim, California, who is ending his 45 year career in public service at the end of this year. After serving in several California municipalities, Jim came to Orange County in 1976 to serve the City of Anaheim as the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Director. He later served as Deputy City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and, finally, as City Manager. Jim's outstanding services in all of these positions has earned him numerous awards, including being named ``Orange County Manager of the Year'' and ``Anaheim Rotarian of the Decade.'' With almost twelve years of dedicated service as the City Manager for Anaheim, which is the tenth largest city in California, Jim Ruth has invigorated Anaheim into an internationally renowned tourist community. Under his leadership, the City of Anaheim became a major contributor to California's booming tourism and entertainment industry. Most recently, Jim successfully led the city's efforts to establish the Anaheim Resort District, including a multi-million dollar expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center and the creation of the new Disney ``California Adventure'' theme park. Jim also served as the city's chief negotiator in the construction of the Arrowhead Pond, home of the National Hockey League's Anaheim Mighty Ducks and hundreds of other special events. This concert and sports venue is now second only to Madison Square Garden in New York City in number of events. And, just across the street, Jim paved the way for the renovation of Edison Field, home of Major League Baseball's Anaheim Angels. Jim's expertise on city issues was invaluable. He improved the quality of life and standard of conducting business in Anaheim. His contributions to numerous industry, civic, and social organizations throughout Orange County will benefit its residents for years to come. Today, I join my fellow California colleagues to thank Jim for all of his hard work and dedication. I also wish to thank Jim's wife, Linda, who is a public servant in her own right. In behalf of the United States Congress and all of the people of Orange County whom it is my privilege to represent, congratulations to Jim Ruth on his successful term as the City Manager of Anaheim, and best wishes for a well- deserved retirement.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, because I support lower taxes on working Americans. Tariffs are essentially taxes that foreign countries impose on our products. You pay them whenever you pay taxes to support unemployment benefits for American workers, because foreign taxes that discriminate against the United States' goods put American workers out of work. Millions more Americans could go to work in manufacturing and in services if tariffs and trade barriers imposed by foreign countries were reduced or eliminated. Of course, America's tariffs on foreign goods and our trade barriers on goods and services are essentially zero on most of what we consume in this country, so trade negotiations aimed at reducing tariffs and trade barriers work strongly in our favor. They mean big gains for American consumers and American workers. There are many colleagues who have concerns about how future trade agreements will address issues such as sovereignty, environmental and labor protections, dumping and other unfair trade practices. But under this legislation, Congress will get to vote on any final trade agreement before it would become binding on the United States. This legislation simply authorizes President Bush to negotiate in America's behalf, an authority that Congress has granted to every President from Nixon to Clinton. Please vote ``aye'' on this rule to bring Trade Promotion Authority to the floor, so that we can give President Bush and America a chance to cut foreign taxes and help American workers and consumers.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I particularly wish to thank the gentleman form Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for putting together such an important bill for us to move quickly in response to the events of September 11. This legislation will ensure that victims are compensated after a terrorist loss if another terrorist attack or round of terrorist attacks should occur, quickly, fairly and fully. It will continue, we hope, the opportunity for people throughout our country to have insurance against terrorist risks by using the resources of the Federal Government, of the U.S. taxpayer, as a backstop. But the bill is carefully drafted so that it will not injure taxpayers in the process. It asks a great deal from the industry. Indeed, it asks the insurance industry to pay the money back, so that taxpayers will not be treated as if they are Osama bin Laden, as if they are culpable for the next round of terrorist attacks. The substitute, unfortunately, unravels these taxpayer protections. It asks far less of insurance companies than does the bill for which it would be substituting. It asks much more of taxpayers and much less of trial lawyers. The bill that was so carefully crafted in our committee established a Federal cause of action, to make sure that injured parties could quickly get to court, just as we have already done in this Congress with the victims of September 11, so they could get their money and not have to go through an endless legal process. The substitute simply repeals that protection so that the same-old-same-old will obtain, as it has for the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hundreds of plaintiffs have received, 8 years later, not one penny. It puts the burden on the consumer in another way. It mandates that consumers buy terrorist risk insurance, rather than offering consumers a choice of high-quality coverage at a reasonable cost. Once the Federal Government mandates that I must buy insurance, if I am the insurer and I know the customer has to buy it, I can offer a lousy product at a high price. We want to put the consumers in the driver's seat. The whole point is to make sure consumers are protected, and this substitute would repeal that consumer protection. It would also repeal the fair share rule that is in the bill, and that is the protection for the innocent. If you are innocent, if you are not a terrorist, you should not be treated as if you are one. Yet under the legislation that would be passed in the name of the substitute, the fair share rule would be repealed; and if you are named in a complaint, along with Osama bin Laden who is not before the court, then a jury in any State can say you pay the whole thing, even though you might be only one-half of 1 percent responsible. President Bush strongly supports the base legislation. His Secretary of the Treasury came to the Hill and asked that we include the litigation management provisions. It is our obligation and our responsibility to pass the bill that was produced by the Committee on Financial Services and by the Committee on the Judiciary staff, who helped us with the litigation management procedures. I urge strongly that we reject the substitute and its repeal of consumer protections, and I urge us rather rapidly to put this bill into law, the Oxley-Baker-Sensenbrenner base bill.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard Luehrs on his retirement as president of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce. Richard began his service with the NHACC in 1982 as its executive director, and for the last 15 years has served as president and chief executive officer. He has helped to expand NHACC's membership to more than 1,000 businesses. Richard has been a visible and enthusiastic champion of the free enterprise system, fostering programs that contribute to the success of local businesses. Overall, his vision has been one of responsible growth and development for the city of Newport Beach. To achieve this goal, he has actively participated in civic development efforts through his work with the Newport Beach Economic Development Committee, the State Independent Living Council, the Baden-Powell district for handicapped Boy Scouts of Orange County, the 552 Club for Hoag Hospital, and the Newport Beach Building Code Commission on Environment Quality Affairs. For these and many other efforts, Richard was recognized in 1995 as the ``Executive of the Year'' by the Western Association of Chamber Executives. During his tenure, Richard has been lovingly supported by his wife, Susan; son, Richard; and daughter, Samantha. In behalf of the U.S. Congress, many thanks to Richard Luehrs for his tireless dedication to the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce and the community of Newport Beach.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to point out that while the attention of the world is now rightly focused on Afghanistan and the war against terrorism, we should not forget that a large part of the oil and gas consumed by the United States and the rest of the industrialized world comes from the conflict-ridden Middle East. In addition to the need to address the issue of energy independence through new domestic sources of supply, conservation and the development of renewable energy resources, we need to be thinking about the best possible way of protecting the security of alternative sources of oil and gas outside the United States. For example, the Caspian Sea region has substantial resources, and that source of supply is important to us. Akezhan Kazhegeldin, an economist, a businessman and a former prime minister of oil rich Kazakhstan, has written a very thoughtful article on this subject that appeared in the Russian publication Vremya Novostei on October 15, 2001. In his article, Dr. Kazhegeldin states that oil and gas from Kazakhstan and the other energy producing nations bordering on the Caspian Sea could provide an important backup source of energy, complementing what now comes from the Persian Gulf countries. In addition, referring to the debate surrounding the route of a future pipeline carrying Caspian oil to consuming countries, Dr. Kazhegeldin asserts that there is no reason for the West and Russia to be at loggerheads on the pipeline issue now that the Cold War is over. He goes on to describe how the West and Russia could, in his view, work together on a pipeline solution that would benefit everyone. I commend this article to my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the article be printed at this point in the Record. Global Arc of Stability--The Way Russia and the Caspian Can Make the World Stable The September 11 tragic events and launching of the Afghan campaign, seen as the first stage in ``the global war against terror'', have changed the world dramatically. Protection of peaceful citizens from possible terror acts appears as just a tip of the huge pyramid of new problems. We are facing an acute and more global problem, the problem of ensuring the industrial world's economic safety. The supply of the developed nations' energy, above all, oil and gas, is a critical and vulnerable element in the world's economic relations. A great part of the developed oil fields are concentrated in the highly insecure and conflict-ridden Middle Eastern region, which makes the threat of oil blockade and energy crisis for the industrial countries, the main oil and gas consumers, a perpetual nightmare. Unpredictable dictators are no less dangerous than terrorist groups. Should the interests of both in the region coincide, the rest of the world would find itself in an impasse. Even if everything goes very well and the antiterrorist campaign ends quickly, the community of industrial countries will have to make sure that the threat of energy blackmail is ruled out in principle. In the global energy system, it is necessary to use reserve and back-up methods in order to ensure safety. Caspian oil reserves can play a major role here. For the past decade, politicians and journalists have been debating about the problem of Caspian oil perhaps more heatedly than the industry professionals. It has almost been made into a stake in the new Great Game, the U.S-Russian rivalry over the control of the region and its riches. This confrontation has become the legacy of the old ``bloc'' model of the world. Wayne Merry, a former U.S. State Department and Pentagon official, now a senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, describes its sources: ``. . . Washington concentrated its efforts on one great strategic project to assure US primacy in the region. . . . The idea was to bypass existing pipelines in Russia, squeeze out Iran, bring energy supplies from the Caspian region to a transhipment point in a NATO country, and thereby assure the independent futures of the producing and transit countries.'' Understandably, Moscow clearly saw the threat to its interests and resisted U.S. plans. However, both sides played their parts by force of habit, without their usual passion. The reason is that the interests of Russia and the West (not only the U.S.) in the region are actually not conflicting. Some regional leaders tried to artificially keep alive the conflict between them as they hoped to secure foreign support for their authoritarian regimes. Now that many old patterns have been left behind in the 20th century for good, the common interests of the industrial and democratic countries allow them to work out joint approaches to ensure their energy independence. Owing to this, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have a historic opportunity to become stable partners of both Russia and the West, and to be integrated into the world economy. Naturally, this integration should entail bringing their political systems in line with the international democratic and market economy standards. ``A glance at other post- colonial regions in Africa and Asia shows that the first generation of `Big Man' leaders often does as much harm to their countries as did the departing imperial powers, creating a painful legacy for future generations to sort out,'' concludes Wayne Merry. ``American long-term interests in Central Asia are best served by seeking to engage tomorrow's leaders and assuring that, when the region's energy reserves do become important to the outside world, these leaders will look to the United States as a friend and not as yet another external exploiter.'' Setting aside the controversial definition of the Central Asian countries as post-colonial ones, one should admit that the time when the region's energy reserves do become important to the outside world is nearing. Though geological exploration of the Caspian shelf is far from being completed, and many experts are not inclined to share the fanciful expectations of ``dozens of new Kuwaits'', it is clear that the region's oil and gas reserves are extremely large. However, energy projects can't become global automatically, thanks only to rich oilfields. Stable export routes are required to deliver oil and gas to the global markets. Even all the reserves of the Caspian states put together won't make the Caspian project global. It is necessary to select and develop the routes to transport oil and gas to the global markets--to the consumers in Europe, U.S., and Asian countries. The most politically and economically viable option is to transport the Caspian ``big oil'' up to the north, into Russia and further on into Eastern and Western Europe, to the consumers and transshipment ports. Economically, this option seems much more attractive, since the construction is to take place on a plain, in populated areas with a developed infrastructure. Russia's European region has enough qualified manpower and electricity for oil pumping. Russian plants produce pipes and other equipment. Stability in Russia and the neighboring countries guarantees safety of the route and its uninterrupted operation. If chosen, the Russian option would mean turning the energy flow from south to north. It will permit the in-depth integration of Russia and Central Asia into a united Europe and simultaneously charge Europe and Russia with a common political mission of ensuring energy independence for the industrial countries. It will allow oil-producing countries of the Caspian region to play a major role in the global energy market. Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and--in the long term, Turkmenistan, could, along with the North Sea oil producing countries, become a real alternative to OPEC and get significant political benefits. The main advantage of the northern export route for Caspian oil consists in the availability of a branched pipeline network in Russia. It is much easier and cheaper to improve and develop the existing system than to construct a new one. I mean the pipelines owned by the Transneft company and the recently constructed CPC line from Western Kazakhstan to the Black Sea. The CPC alone cannot provide exporters with access to the global market. For natural reasons, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles have a limited carrying capacity. The Black Sea ecosystem is vulnerable, as this sea is warm and almost closed. Turkey has already announced its intention to limit the number of giant tankers passing through its straits. Instead of forcing Turkey to agree by means of political pressure, we should respect its fundamental interests and seek other solutions in addition to the CPC capacities. The pipeline would enable Russia to solve several of its specific problems. For instance, to strengthen the special status of the Kaliningrad region as Russia's outpost in Western Europe. If the pipeline goes via the Kaliningrad region, the region could not only solve some of its economic problems, but also get additional security guarantees in case of NATO's expansion to the East. A place of its own in the EU economy would be the best guarantee for the region. In any case, with any combination of routes, Russia would be the main player in a Caspian-European project. Moreover, Russia should initiate its realization. Technological and economic calculations will give optimal solutions. However, political will and vision are still primary considerations. History teaches us that it is they rather than mathematical and economic calculations that have brought into existence such giant projects as the Suez and Panama Canals that formed the global markets of those days. Persian Gulf in the Barents Sea Looking into the future and putting aside the required political decisions, I would like to stress that the Russian route could give an incredibly promising opportunity of opening up global markets for Eurasian oil and gas. This opportunity includes building an oil-carrier port in the Murmansk region on the Barents Sea. The non-freezing, deep- sea port would become the gateway to the global market for Caspian, Siberian and, prospectively, for Timanoperchersk oil as well, as the northern oil will require outlets to world markets. In the Murmansk region, some former military ports can reportedly be used right now by tankers. From there, they can quickly and safely reach not only Western European ports, but also the U.S. and Canada's eastern coast. If gas-liquefying installations are built there, it would be hard to imagine a more natural route for a pipeline which will transport gas from the Russian polar regions and the Arctic Ocean's shelf. In addition to the oil pipeline, a parallel gas pipeline should be built to provide Kazakh and Turkmen gas access to global markets that will not compete with the existing Russian gas routes to Western Europe. Constructing gas and oil pipelines simultaneously will make it possible to significantly cut capital expenditures and make transportation for long distances economically viable. By the way, the length of this route can be compared to the gas export line running from Tyumen's north to Western Europe. Today's situation on the gas market is such that the Central Asian countries will long sit on their riches waiting for investors hindered by the lack of access to global markets. I am speaking not only about the Turkmen gas. The share of gas in the Caspian hydrocarbon reserves can be much higher than those suggested by the most optimistic forecasts. On the one hand, Caspian gas should be available when the industrial world needs it badly. On the other hand, Caspian gas won't be a rival for Russian gas and a source of contention between Russia and its neighbors in Central Asia. Where the two huge pipelines ran side by side, where a joint exploitation system exists, one will naturally expect to have a transcontinental highway and info-highway--a powerful communication line originating from Europe and going further to the south. These prospects are both exciting and distant. However, they should be taken into account when addressing today's problems. No doubt, the global economy does have enough investment resources for such a large-scale project. The U.S. Congress has given $40 billion for primary measures to safeguard national security. Much less investment is needed to ensure energy security of the industrial states. Especially as it is much more reasonable and profitable to invest in crisis prevention than in recovering from them. A pipeline bridge between the Caspian region and Western Europe, Central Asia and the world's oceans will help solve the problem of the globalization of Eurasian energy resources. It could become a basis for an ``arc of stability'' in Europe. It not only shifts the so-called arc of tension running close to Russia from the Balkans via the Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran, and Afghanistan, but will also exclude the Caspian states--the critical link--from this chain. When involved in the global economy, these countries could turn into strongholds of stability in a part of Asia that today poses major threats to the world.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, when Chairman Jerry Solomon died last Friday, America lost one of freedom's great friends. Jerry had been leading the congressional charge to put the last nail in the coffin of Soviet communism for many years when I began working with him here on Capitol Hill in 1988. Decades earlier he had taken more direct action volunteering as a Marine during the Korean War. In more recent years, it was my privilege to work with Jerry to promote freedom in place of communism in the People's Republic of China. It was Jerry's leadership, more than anything else, that permitted this House to act unanimously to put together the Select Committee on National Security that I, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and others from both sides of the aisle served upon. It was Jerry's help, as chairman of the Committee on Rules, in structuring that select committee of this Congress that paved the way for the unanimous and bipartisan result that we achieved, and for the implementation by the Congress and the execution of every one of our recommendations. In 1988, Jerry's work on the Committee on Policy's policy for freedom brought us 11 separate pieces of legislation that were passed essentially unanimously by this full House, and again the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) worked very closely with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, as did the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who has already spoken in this Special Order this evening. In fact, Jerry Solomon dedicated his entire career to advancing human freedom, and he deserves credit for advocating policies supporting freedom in Central America, in Eastern Europe, and Central Europe. Jerry would be the last, however, to tell us, mission accomplished. If Jerry were still here, he would be doing what he did every day, exhorting the rest of us to work as hard as we could, as hard as he worked, to rededicate ourselves just as this tireless Marine did to see the end of communism in the People's Republic of China, to see the end of communism in Vietnam, in North Korea and Cuba. Jerry did not live to see Fidel Castro brought to justice, and yet he was an unwavering voice against appeasing the Castro dictatorship to his last day. He did not live to see America's victory in the war on terrorism that we are fighting right now; and yet all of the work that he did in this Chamber has prepared us to win this war because his work and his leadership ensured that our fighting men and women will have what they need to see us through to victory. Jerry was an active and invaluable member of the House Republican Policy Committee during the entirety of my chairmanship from 1994 to 1998 when he retired. As chairman of the Policy Committee, I will forever treasure the opportunity I had to work with him as one of the chief leaders in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Rules. I will be forever grateful for his tremendous contributions to the committee and this Congress in time, advice, wisdom, and policy. Jerry was also a practitioner of bipartisanship at its best. He was a leading Republican in the Congress, but he was also a leading Member of the Congress who promoted comity in this institution every day. He worked with our colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), in pursuit of human rights around the world. It was typical of Jerry that he commended his ideological opposite, Congressman Ron Dellums, admiring him for his sincerity and his principled opposition to the Gulf War, even as Jerry fought to do everything possible for victory in that same war. Jerry Solomon's bipartisanship was not the feckless kind that seeks to muzzle debate. Jerry understood that only when all sides of an issue get a full airing is there a possibility to achieve true national consensus. When America lost Jerry Solomon, America lost a hero. We owe him an enormous debt. Thanks to Jerry, America's men and women are so well prepared and so well equipped today that I have no doubt when we achieve victory on today's war on terrorism, we can say thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish Jerry were here tonight so we could say personally what we all feel in our hearts. Mr. Chairman, we miss you.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Economic Security and Recovery Act that the committee has worked so hard on and that responds directly to the need of the country right now to get our economy back to get people working again. The legislation that we will soon approve in this House extends unemployment benefits. It accelerates the already scheduled modest reductions in tax rates on all individuals except those in the highest bracket, an enormous concession to the minority that is not sound economics in my view; and it very modestly reduces the capital gains rate, modestly meaning two percentage points, something we are told by the nonpartisan analysts that will actually increase revenues to the Treasury. The alternate is a $98 billion tax increase. It is, in fact, a tax increase because it will change existing law, which has scheduled a reduction rate for individuals. It will apply a tax increase to those people. It will divide up a rapidly shrinking pie and redistribute rather than providing incentives for people to work and save and invest. If we believe in the American people, if we trust the American people, they will produce. Given the opportunity then, we should enact into law the bill that the Committee on Ways and Means has put before this House. I strongly urge rejection of the $98 billion tax increase that has been offered as a substitute.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the good work of the Committee on the Judiciary in bringing this bill to the floor just in the nick of time; and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), for his support in the minority. It is vital, with only a few days remaining before the expiration of the 3-year-old moratorium on special multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet, that we extend it; that we not let a lapse occur. Because, honestly, my colleagues, if we do that, all hell may break loose. And people may then ask us, when they are not focused on other issues, where we were and how we let this happen. Back in 1996, when Senator Ron Wyden and I first began drafting the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which is now the law on the books that we are seeking to extend, our interest was to ensure that the Internet, which is not just a national but a global medium, not fall victim to the tyranny of the parochial. My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), is exactly right when he says the Governors and the State legislatures are not out to tax the Internet. But we should not kid ourselves, many, many, many special tax districts, utility commissions, regulatory agencies, and excise bureaus, 30,000 of them, are lying in wait ready to pounce. The Internet's global nature, its decentralized packet-switched architecture makes it inherently vulnerable to multiple taxation and special and discriminatory taxation. Even the United Nations sought, before we passed this legislation, to impose a bit tax, that is a tax specifically aimed only at electronic commerce, that would tax our e- mail, the transfer of any file. The more zeros and ones, the more bits, the higher the tax. This law, which is on the books and which we are seeking to extend, outlawed all of that, certainly at least in America; but it also encouraged the executive branch to show leadership on the national and international stage to make sure we do not have these exactions on the Internet from abroad. The Clinton and Bush administrations have both been superb in execution of that congressional instruction. Before this law was passed 3 years ago, here is what was about to happen, and here is what will happen beginning Sunday night if we do not act: Tacoma, Washington, had required Internet service providers to pay a 6 percent gross receipts tax, even for national Internet service providers without any employees in Tacoma. Tacoma's law also required everyone, even foreign, non-U.S. sellers who sold a product over the Internet to a Tacoma resident, to pay a $72 annual business fee in that city. Vermont and Texas were moving forward to impose more onerous tax obligations on merchants who take orders via the Internet than the same merchants who took orders via the telephone. Alabama had classified Internet service as a public utility. The Internet service was going to be a public utility. ISPs were going to have pay the same gross receipts tax as Bell South and local water utilities. Florida had imposed a 7 percent tax on the sale of Internet access; but not only access, an additional 2\1/2\ percent tax on the gross receipts from any business on the Internet. It was also allowing cities to impose additional telephone fees on Internet access service, even though telecommunications are the highest taxed legal commodity in the country. Tennessee began to tax Internet access as an intrastate telecommunications service. Connecticut began taxing Internet access as a data processing service. Out my way, in Southern California, the city of San Bernardino began taxing Internet access as a teletypewriter exchange service, a great example of a law and regulatory authority on the books from way before the birth of the Internet that was now being interpreted not by Governors and State legislators, but by bureaucrats and regulators to impose taxes on the Internet. Chicago began to tax Internet access as a lease of tangible personal property. In Texas, the State comptroller who testified before my committee had, at the time of enactment of this law, dropped his plan to tax Internet access as a telecom service, but was moving forward to tax it as an information service. The Internet Tax Freedom Act stopped all of this activity in its tracks, and the results have been essentially positive. The truth is that our whole economy is slowing down right now, and not the least of all the tech sector. So it is vitally important, as we seek to put the Nation's economy back on its feet, that we not backslide on this wise policy that we adopted 3 years ago. H.R. 1552 is endorsed by a number of taxpayer advocates, a number of sound economy groups, Americans For Tax Reform, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, the Information Technology Association, Software and Information Industry Association, Information Technology Industry Council, American Electronics Association, and so on. But it is also endorsed by the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Counties, because this is not a threat to local government. I urge my colleagues' vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Please join with me and millions of American teachers and students as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. COX led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. COX

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