C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of this resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), my good friend and colleague. This bill was reported from committee with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 32 to 6. It is because this legislation strengthens and extends the long-standing U.S. policy toward Taiwan. That policy most recently was codified in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. Today, even more than in 1979, Taiwan's security is critical to America's interests. Taiwan is now the seventh largest trading partner of the United States. Taiwan buys far more from the United States than does the People's Republic of China. The sea lanes surrounding Taiwan are vital to the economic health of Asia and to the steady growth of U.S. exports to Asia. But most important of all, a democratic Taiwan is a living example to all of the people of China that they too can build for themselves a peaceful, prosperous democracy. Taiwan does not pose any military threat to the People's Republic of China. But Taiwan's democracy, its freedom of speech and freedom of thought, do pose a threat to the Communist government in Beijing. This bill will allow our military to have relations with Taiwan's forces as close as what the administration is already putting together with the Communist People's Liberation Army. This upgrading of our military relations ought to occur now in a time of relative stability, because if we were to wait for a time of crisis, it would then be too late. Indeed, many would say then surely it was too provocative. But the State Department currently bars senior U.S. military officers from meeting their Taiwanese counterparts. But enhanced contacts between the United States and People's Liberation Army officers of all ranks has been made a priority of the Clinton-Gore administration. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act that we are about to vote upon provides that our field rank officers can have the same level of relations with a friendly defensive force on Taiwan that already they have with the Communist People's Liberation Army. Just 4 days ago, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, General Xiong Guangkai said this about Taiwan. ``We,'' referring to the People's Republic of China and the People's Liberation Army, ``we will never commit ourselves to renouncing the use of force.'' General Xiong said this not in some obscure Communist Party military publication. He said it here in Washington 4 days ago as a guest of the Clinton administration. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act will codify America's long- standing policy of peaceful cross-strait dialogue, peaceful conduct of relations between Beijing and Taipei, peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. And it will codify, again, our long-standing commitments since President Eisenhower to provide Taiwan with the defensive military strength needs to deter the PRC. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act states, ``The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services that we will sell to Taiwan based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan.'' This law calls for annual reporting to the Congress on those sales, because the administration has not been consulting Congress on these sales as have been required by the letter and spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act. Lastly, it has been argued occasionally that the United States promised the People's Republic of China to reduce or even terminate arms sales to Taiwan, as a consequence of our growing political recognition of the Communists in Beijing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States has always maintained that we would support the democracy in Taiwan; that we would support peaceful discussions; that we would support defensive weaponry for Taiwan for its legitimate defense needs. At the time of the signing of the 17 August 1982 communique of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, President Reagan wrote a four-paragraph memo elaborating what had been agreed to. He wrote that our policy was premised on the clear understanding the continuity of China's declared fundamental policy of seeking a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue, quote, ``U.S. willingness to reduce its arms sales to Taiwan,'' President Reagan wrote, ``is conditioned absolutely upon the continued commitment of China to the peaceful reunification or the peaceful resolution of this issue.'' General Xiong's comments in Washington 4 days ago were not ambiguous; neither should United States' policy be ambiguous. Our goal here on the floor today is, once again, to come together as Democrats and Republicans to state clearly the view of the legislative branch on this subject. The United States supports the democracy and the freedom of the people in Taiwan. We will continue to do so. We will continue to support their right to be free from aggression militarily by the People's Republic of China. We wish better relations with the PRC. Indeed, we wish for the people of China that the democracy already exemplified by the system that is developed in Taiwan will soon be theirs, that the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought, the freedom of action, the freedom of movement, the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion that they all enjoy will also be the birthright of every man and woman born in China in the 21st century. That is the purpose of our vote today; that is why it is so fundamentally bipartisan; that is why the vote will be so overwhelming. I urge all of my colleagues to vote aye in support of this resolution. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work, their excellent work on this bill.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). I agree entirely with what he said and with what speakers before him have said on both sides of the aisle, both on the subject of this rule and on the underlying bill. The passage of this rule, which, as by now it is abundantly clear has won bipartisan support, will permit us to debate the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which will reaffirm America's long-standing Taiwan policy, in place since President Eisenhower. In 1979 Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, and what we are doing today is making clear that we wish to see that act enforced in full. Today, even more than in 1979 when that law was passed, Taiwanese security is critical to America's interests. Taiwan is now America's seventh largest trading partner. Taiwan buys far more from the United States than does the People's Republic of China; the sea lanes surrounding Taiwan are vital to the economic health of Asia and to the sustained growth of U.S. exports to Asia; and, most important of all, a democratic Taiwan stands as a living example to all the people of China that they too can build a prosperous peaceful democracy. Taiwan does not in any way pose a threat to the People's Republic of China; but Taiwanese example of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, do pose a threat to the Communist government in Beijing. Fundamentally, this bill will allow our military to have relations with Taiwanese forces, as close as what the Clinton-Gore administration is already pursuing with the People's Liberation Army. This upgrading of our military relations with Taiwan must occur now, in a time of relative stability. It would be too late, if not too provocative, to accomplish these changes in a time of actual crisis. But the State Department currently bars senior U.S. military officers from meeting with their Taiwan counterparts, while, meanwhile, enhanced contacts between United States and People's Liberation Army officers of all ranks has been a priority for the Clinton-Gore administration. The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act provides that our field rank officers can have the same level of relations with the friendly defensive force as they currently have with the Communist People's Liberation Army. This rule and this bill are, as I said, hugely bipartisan. The vote in committee was 32 to 6. The vote today, I expect, on this rule and on the underlying bill will be similarly overwhelmingly bipartisan for one simple reason: this Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, are committed to freedom and democracy for the people of Taiwan, for the people of Taiwan and for the people of all the world.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of a great man who has achieved a great milestone: the Honorable J. Jerome Plunkett, who will celebrate his 75th birthday tomorrow, November 11. A distinguished jurist, a decorated soldier, a patron of education, and a devoted husband and father of eight children, Judge Plunkett has throughout his life been a leader for his nation, his state, his community, and his family. Born in St. Paul, Minnesota, one of five children of James P. and Anne Plunkett, the young boy's early experiences helped shape his extraordinary life. For his eighth birthday he traveled to Washington, D.C.--by train, for James P. was the Solicitor General for the Great Northern Railroad--to watch his father argue a case before the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Barely beginning third grade, Jerry Plunkett could not have known then that a quarter century later he would begin his own career as a judge. But without doubt that lasting memory was one of several influences that propelled him to the law and the bench. That autumn Washington day in 1932, as every one of Jerry Plunkett's 75 birthdays, was Armistice Day. On the first Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, Americans had celebrated the end of World War I, which officially concluded when the armistice was signed on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. But the ``war to end all wars'' had done no such thing. Just months after graduating from St. Thomas Military Academy in St. Paul, Jerry--then 18 years old--entered the United States Army, as the storm clouds of World War II cast their dark shadow on America. He enrolled in the Infantry Officers Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia, and rapidly rose through the ranks. By 1944, he was a First Lieutenant with the Second Infantry Division, destined to participate in the Allied invasion of France to liberate Europe. Lt. Plunkett, the infantryman, was wounded during the monumental struggle with Nazi forces at Normandy, code-named ``Operation Overlord,'' and commanded by General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He would later be decorated not only with a Purple Heart but the Bronze Star, but in June 1944 he continued to punch inland, securing safe landing zones for reinforcements, and waged the campaign through France and into Germany. The German failure to successfully defend the Normandy area from the Allied liberation forces in essence doomed Hitler's dream of ``Fortress Europe,'' and marked the beginning of the end for the Nazis. While Jerry survived the war, one of his two brothers, James F. Plunkett, did not. He was killed in action in France in 1944. With victory came peace, and Jerry Plunkett returned home like so many other veterans to start a new life, and begin a career. He chose the law. When he earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Minnesota, he went to work as a legal editor for the West Publishing Company, even then a long-established firm (founded in 1876) and the leading national provider of case law and statutes for all U.S. jurisdictions. His interest in the law was matched, however, by his interest in people and solving real-world problems, and barely two years later he had landed his first job in public policy, as the Assistant City Attorney for the City of St. Paul. As barrister for the state capital, Jerry Plunkett earned experience in prosecuting criminals and managing civil cases in the courtroom. By 1954, he was presiding over those same cases as the Honorable Jerome Plunkett, appointed by the Municipal Court bench by then-Minnesota Governor C. Elmer Anderson. His progress and accomplishments on the bench were as swift and commendable as they had been on the battlefield. He was made Chief Administrator of the court system. In 1956, he was elected by his fellow judges as President of the Municipal Judges Association for the entire state. And while serving on the municipal court bench, Judge Plunkett completed the first recodification since 1875 of all of the laws governing the municipal and conciliation courts in the state of Minnesota. His recodification was enacted by the state legislature in 1961, exactly as he wrote it. A decade later, another Minnesota governor elevated Judge Plunkett to the District Court. On July 1, 1967, Governor Harold LeVander made possible what would become a 25-year career serving the people of Minnesota. During his remarkable tenure, Judge Plunkett personally set up and organized the Family Court Division of the Ramsey County District Court; he spent three years recasting all of the jury instructions in use in the state's civil courts; he worked for five years to rewrite all of the pension and retirement laws for judges in the state of Minnesota; he served on the Public Defender's Board, which supervises the entire public defender operation in Ramsey County; and he was elected by his fellow judges as an officer of the state-wide Minnesota Judges Association, serving as its Treasurer. As an experienced District Court judge, Jerry Plunkett was appointed in 1977 to sit as a temporary member of the Minnesota Supreme Court, where he heard over 30 cases and authored seven Supreme Court opinions. Among the matters before Judge Plunkett was the historic Reserve Mining Company case, arising out of claims that the firm's iron-ore processing plant at Silver Bay, Minnesota had disposed of its ore wastes in a way that discharged asbestos particles into the air and into Lake Superior. Despite these enormously time-consuming professional achievements, family has always been Jerry Plunkett's first priority. Throughout his adult life, he has been devoted to--and guided by--his wife, the former Patricia Bonner. They have raised eight children, all of them impressive in their own rights: John, a forensic pathologist; Patrick, an attorney; Marnie, a computer engineer; Timothy, an insurance executive; Paul, an attorney; Michael, a radiologist; Ann, a business executive; and Peggy, a graphic designer. Imbued with their parents' sense of community and led by the example of their parents' lives, this generation of Plunketts stands as a living testament to the values that each of us in Congress is proud to call American. Jerry Plunkett's love of his country, his leadership as a jurist for his state, and his dedication to his wife and his family have always been matched by a high level of involvement in the local community. He served as Chairman of the Ramsey County Law Library. He was Director of the Capital Community Center. He has been a Trustee of St. Thomas Academy, and the President of the school's Alumni Association. He has given of himself, his time, and his energies without limit, and all of us owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for his service and his outstanding example. To mark the occasion of Judge Jerry Plunkett's 75th birthday, his family and his friends will gather with him in St. Paul in celebration. What better way to repay his many kindnesses to our country, if only in part, than by giving him this tribute? I know that all of my colleagues join with me in wishing a happy birthday, and many more to come, to a great American.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Congress take time, as we are doing just now, to recognize what is truly important and transcendent and what, on the other hand, is perhaps urgent, perhaps requiring us to devote our time because it is our work-a-day business here, but not nearly so important in the lives of American citizens and citizens around the world as what we are doing here today, remembering, in part, and looking forward, even more importantly, in greater part. So that by remembering, we will always be free. It was, as the preceding speakers have pointed out, 10 years ago to the day that the Berlin Wall was taken down. It did not fall, it was taken down by the people imprisoned behind it, with the help of people around the world. In this Chamber, as I have pointed out on many occasions to visitors to the Capitol from California and elsewhere, we have only two paintings. They have been part of the furnishings of the House Chamber for some time. One of them is an American, the father of our country, George Washington. The other is a foreigner, a Frenchman, the Marquis de Lafayette, who serves, I believe, as a reminder to us that our democracy would not be here without foreign assistance. The people of Central Europe and the people of Russia and the former captive nations waged their own struggle against Soviet communism, but they would not be free today without help from others, including, in major part, the people of the United States of America. We will never know how many people perished behind the Iron Curtain, but estimates are 70 million souls lost their lives to communism. The Berlin Wall, which was a 13-foot high structure of concrete and tangled barbed wire, stretched for 103 miles and symbolized the difference between freedom and totalitarianism, the difference between democracy and free enterprise that we enjoyed on our side of the Berlin Wall, and communism, Soviet-style, East German style, that people were required to live under on the other side. Mr. Speaker, this 13-foot high 103-mile wall topped with barbed wire symbolized the great abiding differences between the two chief systems of the world, communism and its antonym, freedom. The Berlin Wall was called by Germans ``the wall of shame,'' and indeed, 77 Germans lost their lives trying to get out. They were murdered trying to make their way to the light of freedom in the West. There are many red letter dates in the history of the Cold War that in victory was symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1948, Harry Truman ordered the Berlin Airlift, ensuring that the people of West Berlin would resist the Stalinist siege. In 1991, 2 years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union collapsed. There is another red letter date in this history. It is the future date when the last Communist tyrants in Beijing, Hanoi, Pyongyang, Belgrade, and Havana are off the world's stage. But that fight remains for us today. The most memorable date of all that we commemorate now is that date exactly 10 years ago, November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. I was in Berlin 10 years ago and watched this process of physical dismantlement, and what an amazing metaphor, and actually stepped through a hole in the Berlin Wall. In 1977, more than a decade earlier, the former Governor of California, later to become the President of the United States, talked to a man who would one day become his national security adviser, and it was Ronald Reagan conversing with Richard Allen. He told Richard Allen, history records, ``My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple. It is this: We win and they lose.'' That approach, begun by Harry Truman, carried throughout the rest of the 20th century until the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, at the conclusion of the Reagan presidency and the beginning of the Bush administration, was a visible, tangible symbol and representation of American resolve to win that fight, and it was a war. When President Reagan took office, the Soviet Union had already invaded Afghanistan, the communists had declared martial law in Poland, and the United States responded with strength. We imposed sanctions on the regime in Poland, and indeed, on the entire Warsaw Pact and Russia, cutting back on technology, never granting them most-favored-nation trade status. In 1983, NATO showed its solidarity, showed that it would not be divided by Soviet designs, when, against massive popular protests in the United Kingdom and in Germany, Prime Minister Thatcher and Chancellor Helmut Kohl agreed to accept the deployment of intermediate range missiles on their territory deployed by the United States. Three years later at Iceland, at Reykjavik, when I was working for President Reagan in the White House, President Reagan told his counterpart, Mr. Gorbachev, that the strategic defense initiative, the right and the obligation of the West to defend itself, would not be set aside. There would not be an arms control agreement that would have the direct consequence of permitting the Soviet military comfort and continued life. That same year President Reagan agreed to provide shoulder-fired Stinger missiles to the rebels in Afghanistan, fighting the Red Army. It was thought at the time that no one could defeat the Red Army, but just a few years later that is exactly what happened, and another big chunk of the Soviet empire fell apart. When one recounts the popular movements and the life-threatening risks that were taken in order to defeat Soviet communism, one recalls Charter 77 in Czechoslavakia and the leadership of such men and women as Vaclav Havel. We remember the Solidarity movement in Poland, and the leadership of such extraordinary people as Lech Walesa. We remember people like Vytautas Landsbergis and the Sajudis movement in Lithuania. It was my opportunity to travel to those countries to meet with those people; to meet, indeed, with a man who eventually would become the President of Hungary, Arpad Goncz. We have to recall that it was Hungary that accepted the refugees through the Berlin Wall that began to, more than anything, strike at the very foundations of the wall itself and everything that it stood for, ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union. We, with this House concurrent resolution, are working with our colleagues in the other body to do more than just speak today on the 10th anniversary so that we in this body will pay due attention to an important milestone in the history of freedom and the advance of freedom around the world. We are also asking our government to work with governments around the world to establish a freedom day that will perennially recognize the victory of the free world over communism in the Cold War, and remind us that freedom requires us to be ever vigilant. There are a number of Members who wish to speak on this resolution. I wish to recognize Members not in this body who are responsible for advancing this legislation. Specifically, I would like to recognize Ben Wattenburg with the American Enterprise Institute, a veteran of the administrations of Presidents Johnson, Reagan, and Bush, who has written amply on this topic, and I think done as much as any single individual to move us to this action. I would also like to point out that the Senate majority leader strongly supports this legislation, as does Senator Lieberman, who will be moving the companion in the other body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, we have only four speakers remaining. I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 2 additional minutes.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) if he would agree to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, with the agreement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I ask him to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a distinguished leader in the Congressional Human Rights Caucus who has for years advanced the cause of freedom, to conclude the debate on this legislation.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an article written by Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute, who first proposed the idea of a Freedom Day in December 1991. I am proud that we are finally moving forward with this idea, and I thank him for his commitment to ensuring that future generations recognize the important sacrifices made by those who fought for freedom against the evils of communism. [From the Washington Times, November 4, 1999] Moving Forward With Freedom Day (By Ben Wattenberg) Ten years ago, on Nov. 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was battered down by the people it had imprisoned. The event is regarded as the moment the Cold War ended. For Americans without sentient memories of World War II, the end of the Cold War has been the most momentous historical event of their lifetimes, and so it will likely remain. Long yearned for, the end of the Cold War has more than lived up to expectations: Democracy is on the march globally, defense budgets are proportionately down, market economies are beginning to flourish most everywhere, everyday people are benefiting each and every day. The end of the Cold War actually was a process, not an event. By early 1989, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had pulled his troops from Afghanistan, whipped. Poles elected a non-communist government; the Soviets did nothing. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and later Bulgaria installed non-communist governments. It was called ``the velvet revolution,'' with only Romania the exception; Nicolae Ceausescu and his empress were executed. For almost two years, the U.S.S.R. remained a one-party communist state, gradually eroding. Hard-liners attempted to resist the slow motion dis-memberment. On Aug. 19, 1991, Boris Yeltsin stood on a tank to resist a hard-line coup. The hammer-and-sickle came down; the Russian tricolor went up. Other Soviet republics declared independence, including the big guy on the block, Ukraine. U.S. diplomats did not ``gloat'' about it. The sovereign state of Russia would be unstable enough without the United States rubbing it in. On Dec. 4, 1991, I proposed in a column that a new national holiday be established to commemorate the end the Cold War. I asked readers to participate in a contest to: 1. Name it; 2. pick a date; and 3. propose a method of celebration. Several hundred submissions came in. Some of the most imaginative entries for a name were: ``Defrost Day,'' ``Thaw Day,'' ``Ronald Reagan Day,'' ``Gorbachev Day,'' ``Borscht Day,'' ``Peace Through Strength Day'' ``E Day'' (which would stand for ``Evil Empire Ends Day''), ``E2D2'' (``Evil Empire Death Day''), ``Jericho Day'' ``Pax Americana Day'' and ``Kerensky Future Freedom Day'' (recalling that Mr. Yeltsin was not the first pro-democratic leader of Russia). Scores of respondents offered ``Liberty Day,'' ``Democracy Day,'' and mostly, ``Freedom Day.'' In June of 1992, I publicly proclaimed ``Freedom Day'' the winner. One suggestion for the date of the new holiday was June 5, for Adam Smith's birthday. But the most votes went for Nov. 9, the day the wall fell. So today I proclaim that date Freedom Day. There were ideas about how to celebrate and commemorate Freedom Day: Build a sibling sculpture to the Statue of Liberty; eat potatoes, the universal food; build a tunnel to Russia across the Bering Strait; thank God for peace; welcome immigrants; mediate; issue a U.N. stamp; build ice sculptures; send money to feed Russians; and do something you can't do in an unfree country--make a public speech, see a dirty movie, celebrate a religion, travel across a border. I propose that discussion on the matter of how to celebrate be put on hold until we get the holiday established. How? Because all the major presidential candidates participate in the Cold War, they should endorse the holiday. Legislators ought to push for it. Anyone who worked in defense industry, or paid federal taxes from 1945 to 1989, ought to support it. President Clinton ought to go to the Reagan Library to endorse it. I met with Mark Burman of the Reagan Presidential Foundation. He says they are on board for a campaign. The other great presidential libraries--Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter--should join in. So should anyone concerned with the teaching of American history. The holiday will remind American children that their recent ancestors preserved freedom. The Cold War generation may not be ``the greatest'' but they did their job--victory without a major hot war. Americans can only create an American holiday. But we ought to invite all other countries to join in, Russia first. The citizens of Russia won the Cold War as surely as we did. If I were a Chinese dissident I'd promote the idea; it might give their leaders a clue. If you like the idea, or have ideas, you may e-mail me at Watmail@aol.com. I'll pass the correspondence along to the appropriate persons, as soon as I figure out who they are.

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

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 70th birthday of a fine American, true friend, and outstanding community activist: Mr. King Burstein. King was born on November 10, 1929 in Malden, Massachusetts. Upon graduating from the University of California at Los Angeles, King began working with his father and his brother in a leather findings business. In 1961, King was married, and in the next few years, he and his wife Lee became parents of two fine sons. In the 1970s, King--along with his brother--relocated the family leather business to Orange County. King, together with Lee, has long been involved in community affairs and both national and local political issues. From his city council to the White House, King actively participates in the self-government that is the essence of our democracy. He has an admirable passion for doing what is right, and never hesitates to give time and resources when needed. King and Lee have also been very involved with their temple, Temple Bat Yahn. King in particular is a leader in promoting education on key public policy issues both for members of his temple and for elected officials. He is extraordinarily well-read, and always informed about the significant issues of the day. I am not alone among my colleagues here in the chamber in calling King Burstein a good personal friend. Those of you who do not know King personally will nonetheless recognize in him the same outstanding qualities that characterize that rare individual among your own constituents who is a true national leader. In recognition of his contributions to our county, to his community, and to his family, I know you will all join me in wishing King a very happy and prosperous 70th birthday, and many more to come.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I also thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas, for permitting this resolution to come to the floor under expedited circumstances. It is, of course, because of the impending meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle on November 30 of this year that we wish Congress to be on record now, in advance, on this very important topic. I would also like to recognize the important contribution to this legislation by a gentleman from the other body, our former colleague, the Senior Senator from the State of Oregon, Mr. Wyden, who has in fact introduced a resolution identical to this in the other body, Senate Concurrent Resolution 58. It was just 1 year ago, October of 1998, that he and I worked on the Cox-Wyden Internet Tax Freedom Act, which is now the law of the land. The initiative we are considering in the House today, House Concurrent Resolution 190, takes the principle of the Internet Tax Freedom Act; that is, that information should not be taxed and we should keep special exactions that discriminate against electronic commerce off of the Internet, and applies to it to the international arena. This resolution before us has three main elements. First, no tariffs on the Internet. Our legislation calls on the World Trade Organization, which will be meeting, as I said, in late November, 1999 in Seattle, to enact a permanent moratorium on E-commerce tariffs. This will preserve the taxation status quo. It will not take bread off the plate of any nation. Because, at present, none of the WTOs, more than 130 member nations, currently has such a tariff. This is the time to act before bad things happen. The second important piece of this resolution is that it establishes the principle of no multiple or discriminatory foreign taxes on electronic commerce. Our legislation calls on the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and its 29 member countries to subscribe to the principle of no multiple discriminatory or special Internet taxes. Third, our legislation condemns the bit tax proposal of the United Nations and calls for a permanent ban on such Internet specific taxes. A bit tax, for those who have not been following this closely, is literally a tax on every bit of information, all the digital 0s and 1s. The more 0s and 1s, the greater the file size, the greater the tax. It is an obviously discriminatory levy aimed at electronic commerce. Let me explain why this legislation is so important. Centuries ago, when the Moors still ruled Spain, there was a small seaport about 20 miles from Gibraltar. The Mediterranean seas off of this port were ruled by a ruthless band of pirates. Their success in raiding trading ships was such that merchants who traveled the area began to think of paying tribute to these pirates as just a cost of doing business. So the merchants began to refer to these payments by the name of a nearby seaport, Tarifa. It is from that that we get the name tariff in today's vocabulary. In the years since then, the practice of imposing tariffs has, of course, become far more commonplace and has been taken over by governments. But a tariff, nonetheless, retains an element of piracy, the unwelcome exaction of unnecessary fees. Today, the Internet is the vehicle for over $50 billion annually in trade and goods and services. This trade today is conducted free of piracy. The purpose of this resolution is to keep it that way. It is especially important to preserve this no taxes policy since the Internet's commercial potential is greater than that of any previously existing medium of trade. A global free trade zone on the Internet will have immediate advantages for Americans, for workers who manufacture and for workers who provide services and for consumers, because U.S. firms excel in the information and media services that flourish on the Internet. Last year, U.S. exports associated with licensing fees and royalties earned $37 billion. U.S. imports in this category were $11 billion. That is the biggest trade surplus we enjoy in any category of our trade. Americans use the Internet more than citizens of other countries. We in our Nation account for roughly half of the world's usage of the Internet; that is, as of September of this year. But making the Internet a tariff-free zone will also help our trading partners. As we all know, free trade benefits both buyer and seller. Keeping tariffs off the net, moreover, will accelerate its development in foreign countries and permit the citizens of foreign nations to share in the Internet's benefits and the access to global markets that it provides. As I said, there is an urgency to the passage of this legislation. This year, the ministerial meeting of the WTO will occur on November 30. At least year's meeting in May 1998, the United States successfully negotiated and achieved a 1-year standstill of the application of tariffs to E-commerce. This was a disappointment to those of us who were urging a permanent ban. We now have the opportunity to take that 1-year moratorium and extend it and make it permanent; and that is the purpose of Congress going on record today to urge the administration to take this action, and, moreover, to let the ministers of all of the member nations of the World Trade Organization understand that this is the policy, not just of the Executive Branch, but of the United States Congress as well. This resolution calls on the President to work with all nations to enact a permanent moratorium on electronic commerce tariffs at that upcoming WTO ministerial meeting. Lastly, on this subject of bit taxes, tax collectors around the globe are still talking openly about this special new Internet tax called a bit tax. This is the most discriminatory kind of tax that could be levied against the Internet. It will establish for us in this area what we already know to be true generally that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Outlawing bit taxes worldwide, as we have already done in the Internet Tax Freedom Act for our Nation, is vitally important. I wish once again to thank my colleagues for attaching the same urgency to this as do I, and my colleague in the Senate, Mr. Wyden, for acting on this in such an expedited fashion.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Orange County Works, an outstanding program in Orange County, CA that provides vital assistance to foster care children. For over 9 years, Orange County Works job readiness workshops have given foster children the opportunity to learn from successful, high-profile business leaders, ensuring youths leaving the foster care system at age 18 will design career paths for themselves to self-sufficiency and success. Orange County Works will provide job readiness training to 400 youths in 1999 alone. Recently, Orange County Works was honored by being named as a partner in the BridgeGate 20 Initiative. This Initiative, sponsored by BridgeGate LLC, the executive recruitment firm, recognizes leaders in the Southern California information technology business community who have demonstrated a commitment to building employee knowledge in order to improve company performance. The BridgeGate 20 Initiative will assist Orange County Works to create employment opportunities for still more foster care children. Orange County Works President and Founder, Don Mac Allister, once a foster child himself, was motivated to create a program that makes a real difference in helping foster children stay off the streets. He demands success from each foster child that is part of his program. Don Mac Allister's passion and determination to improve the foster care system in Orange County inspires community leaders to get involved. Orange County Works is a true star in the Orange County community service world. It has impacted a wide range of people and its continued growth will ensure that in the future it will make dramatic changes in the lives of children now leaving the county's foster care system. I'm proud of the accomplishments of Orange County Works, and look forward to its continued success as more people discover the wonderful results from this fine program.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues today are addressing very real concerns that patients and doctors have raised. The current system of ``managed care'' imposes restrictions on a patient's choice of doctors. It interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. And it requires patients to navigate through a maze of frustrating health care bureaucracy. Indeed, the only dysfunction the current system does not yet suffer from is an epidemic of litigation that drives up health care costs. More lawsuits is not the right prescription for today's health care ailments. Rather, we need more consumer choice. Choice, quality, and competition should be the watchwords of this debate. In a competitive market, when consumers don't like what they want, they go elsewhere. In today's health care market, where employers often provide only one health care plan to employees, that is often not possible. Workers who are dissatisfied with their HMO care should have real alternatives to choose from, not just a lawsuit against a plan they didn't really want to begin with. Today, 90 percent of insured Americans are covered through their employers. Fully 30 percent of employers provide only one health plan to their employees. And a whopping 70 percent offer only no more than two choices. The tragic cause of Americans' lack of health care choice is federal regulation. The tax code provides a special break for employer-provided third-party payment plans. It provides a severe disincentive for individuals to shop for their own insurance, fee-for- service medicine, or other health care not preapproved by Uncle Sam. As a result, individuals are left with a Hobson's choice--employer- provided coverage or nothing. When your employer contracts with an HMO provider, what choice do you have? Today's bill piles on more regulation and litigation on top of this tragic mess. It further regulates how you interact with your HMO. It does not increase individual choice; it only increases the cost of health care for everyone. Increased health care costs, in turn, mean rationing of services, limits on patient choice, shortages of the latest high-tech equipment, and long waiting lists for operations. Consumers will see an increase in premiums, and many will lose their benefits or their insurance altogether as employers are forces to drop coverage due to higher costs. It's time to give Americans more choice in their health care, and more control over their health care dollars. Instead, however, this bill takes us towards more and more government control. Until individuals have an alternative to an employer-provided HMO, the fool's gold of ever-increasing litigation and regulation will beckon us toward disaster. The solution is to resist the calls for more lawsuits and more government controls, and to move to a genuinely competitive market that will empower consumers, put patients and doctors back together and cut out the bureaucracy, deliver reduced costs, provide increased access, and guarantee improved health care quality.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I think all of us here in this chamber and, in fact, anyone in the world with a television set watched in awe and horror and ultimately relief as 6 year-old boy whose faint cries were heard beneath the rubble was extracted alive after several days following the earthquake. His first words were: Why am I here, and where is my family? But his parents and his sisters were all killed in that same building in that same earthquake. It tore my heart out. Mr. Speaker, I have a 6 year-old son, and just to imagine the human loss, the tragedy of that earthquake, is almost beyond our individual capacities. Sometimes it takes an enormous tragedy such as this earthquake to bring home how futile it is for us to maintain the political differences that we do across the globe. I think everyone watching on television saw that the people of Taiwan are not the dangerous splitists so often derided by the Communist government in Beijing, but men and women and children fighting for a better life, just like all of us. Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so tragically ironic that at this time, when we should have set aside politics and put humanitarian interests first, the government of Beijing literally got in the way as Russian aid was trying to make its way immediately after the tragedy to the victims. A Russian plane actually had to divert and take a different, longer route in order to get to Taiwan because they did not have clearance from the Beijing government. The American Red Cross, as has been discussed previously in this debate, felt it necessary, even though it is a nongovernmental organization based here, to check first with Beijing, and that slowed down aid getting to people right when they most needed it, when there is still a chance to save their lives. This should never happen again. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), our Democratic colleague, has offered legislation that I know the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations supports that would permit Taiwan membership in the World Health Organization, something that does not require the status of statehood; so, this does not in any way interfere with our United States China policy. But what it would do, Mr. Speaker, is cut out the bureaucracy so that in the case of future medical emergencies this could not happen again, these kinds of delays could not happen again. I think we also need legislation to make sure that every nongovernmental organization in America, every charity in America understands that if there ever is another medical emergency or natural disaster in Taiwan, that they can get relief there right away without having to check with Beijing first. It is fortunate that so much good is now coming of the worldwide attention that has been paid to this tragedy in Taiwan, so much money is coming from our country to help people there. On Saturday night last, I met with several hundred Taiwanese Americans who were gathered in principle part to marshal their efforts behind earthquake relief in Taiwan, and I personally am participating in those efforts, and I hope that everyone here will because we do live in a small world, and we do all have much more in common than we realize.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, last January the Select Committee reached the unanimous and bipartisan conclusion that despite repeated Peoples Republic of China thefts of sophisticated U.S. nuclear weapons technology, security at our national weapons laboratories does not meet even minimal standards. Just 2 weeks after the public release of the Select Committee's unclassified report, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board joined the Select Committee in condemning the wholly inadequate security structure at the weapons laboratories. Last week the Administration's national intelligence estimate confirmed for the first time in public that the People's Republic of China is developing three new long-range nuclear missiles that will target the United States, and that their new modern nuclear warheads will likely be influenced by classified American technology stolen from the United States through espionage. Our security problems are serious, and their costs are very real. In June, this House took the first step toward fixing those egregious security problems by acting on the Select Committee's recommendations. Twenty-eight of those recommendations offered to this House by the chairman and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking democrat of the Select Committee on U.S. Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, are included in this bill and were approved by unanimous vote of the House on the floor. It is important that we see this through in to law to ensure that science at its best at our national laboratories is protected by security at its best. Finally, let me say it is vitally important that we extend coverage of environmental safety and health statutes to the new National Nuclear Security Administration created in this legislation, and we do. That is exactly what this bill does. In fact, it raises environmental health and worker safety standards. I would like to thank the members of the Select Committee, but more importantly thank the members of the Committee on Armed Services for their work on this very, very important bipartisan bill.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Buddy G. Belshe, who has completed his 50th year as an ocean lifeguard in Orange County, California. Buddy Belshe, a longtime lifeguard with the City of Newport Beach, California, has devoted his life to preserving the lives of others. Beginning his career in 1950, he continues to serve today working with and overseeing the number of men and women who keep our Southern California beaches safe and protected. In addition to his service to the residents and visitors of Newport Beach, Buddy's accomplishments also include his longtime service with the United States Lifesaving Association, where he has served as both Vice President and Secretary, and on the board of the California State Lifesaving Association. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring Buddy G. Belshe. It is fitting that all of us join with the family, friends, and the community of Newport Beach, California in recognizing his lifelong service and dedication to public safety.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. In that capacity he has the power to pardon convicted criminals. I know this from firsthand experience because I worked in the White House counsel's office which, for the President, performs the function of screening pardon applications. Usually this pardon power is used to wipe the slate clean for convicted criminals after they have served their time and paid their debt to society. President Clinton, for example, has used the pardon power in this way 108 times, but he has only let people out of jail three times before, this despite the fact that thousands of people nationwide ask the President to be freed from the sentences that they have been asked to serve after conviction for serious crimes. How did the President pluck these terrorist cases from the thousands that have asked him to be released from prison? It is because of Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign in New York. Now she says she opposes the release of these prisoners from jail. Now that she has changed her mind, Hillary Clinton is right. Vote with Hillary Clinton. Vote yes on this resolution.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the average middle-class American family earning the median income around $39,000 a year or so pays over 40 percent of its gross income in taxes. Meanwhile, Washington is taking the highest share of our whole economy in taxes in over two centuries of the Nation's peacetime history. The tax relief bill passed by this House will help working Americans. But it will first lock away 100 percent of Social Security taxes for retirement security and set aside $2 trillion for Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years. It will pay down the national debt, $227 billion more in debt relief than the Democratic minority proposal. Mr. Speaker, it is time for responsible tax relief for working Americans.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. It is certainly correct as far as the gentleman has taken it. I would add to that the following: Some State laws are unconstitutionally and impermissibly discriminatory, as for example the Hawaii tax that exempted pineapple wine. The Supreme Court properly said that that was an unconstitutional impermissible discrimination in favor of instate and against out-of- state producers, and all of these laws not having been tested under the commerce clause, we cannot say that we are trying to grandfather them here against that.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the author of the bill the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who just offered this amendment for their excellent work in support not only of the main purpose of the law but also in another area, and, that is, Internet freedom, Internet freedom from regulation and Internet freedom from taxation so that that dynamic medium can continue to grow and prosper. The amendment's language makes it clear that search engines, Internet service providers, web hosting services and other interactive computer services will not be adversely affected by this bill. In addition, the bill makes it clear, as presently written with this amendment, that it is for the enforcement of the 21st amendment that we are granting State attorneys general the power to enter Federal court. This is not the beginning of a slippery slope in which new laws can be written to regulate and tax the Internet under the guise of regulating alcoholic beverage transactions. To the contrary, it is the 21st amendment which will control, and the Supreme Court has told us that the 21st amendment did not have the effect of repealing the interstate commerce clause. Rather, States are free to regulate within their boundaries the sale, distribution and production of alcoholic beverages and the importation of alcoholic beverages produced and sold elsewhere in order to promote temperance, in order to maintain their status as dry States or even counties to be dry counties, to promote those social purposes behind the 21st amendment. But in doing so, in vindicating the purposes of the 21st amendment, a State cannot discriminate as mere economic protectionism against other sellers, other producers in the rest of the United States. I think that this language that is agreed upon all around makes it clear so that today what we are talking about is alcohol, we are talking about the 21st amendment. We are not talking about newfound powers of the parochial, of the municipality, the county, the State, to tax or regulate either instrumentalities of interstate commerce, particularly the Internet and other telecommunications, and neither are we talking about new opportunities to tax and regulate the things that move across it. We are limiting ourselves, as properly we should, to those things that are covered by the 21st amendment and nothing else.