C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority whip.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like, as essentially all of the other speakers have done thus far, once again to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member on the select committee, and thank all of the chairmen and ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction who have worked with us on this amendment. This amendment does not cover many of the important topics of our recommendations. Some of the debate here has focused on export controls on computers. There is nothing about export controls on computers in this amendment. It is also important to recognize that hard work remains ahead for our standing committees. I think that the ranking member and I will be testifying before several of them to move this legislation along. Lastly, some mention has been made on the floor about racial and ethnic profiling by the Communist Party of China. The CCP ethnic and racial profiling that is detailed in our report is a significant distinction between the Communist Party and America. In this country, the liberty and dignity of the individual are paramount. We do not think of people as members of groups or essentially tools of the State. That is why what we are investing in our armed services, in our intelligence community, and our national laboratories is so important. It is for the pursuit of freedom, not just for Americans, but for people around the world. That is ultimately the purpose to which this amendment is directed. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, whatever its other consequences, the Y2K bug may crash the nation's justice system--not for days or weeks but for years. Our justice system, already plagued by intolerable delays and expense, could be submerged under a deluge of cases--both meritorious and frivolous--sparked by Y2K. Though estimates of legal liability have ranged as high as a trillion dollars (Lloyd's of London), no one can confidently predict the scale of the liability crisis because no consensus has developed--even among the best informed experts on the subject--about how serious and widespread the underlying Y2K problems will be. The scale of the legal problem can be guessed at by the scope of remediation efforts: The Gartner Group, a consulting firm, has estimated costs of $400-600 billion worldwide to fix the problem. Federal Express will spend $500 million; Citibank will spend $600 million; Merrill Lynch has 80 people working in shifts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These efforts are focused on two main problems: first, the potential inability of programming in both software and hardware to accurately process date-related codes after 2000 because, to conserve memory, programmers in the past used a two-digit rather than four-digit date field; and second, the potential inability of embedded chips in every sort of mechanical device imaginable to function accurately because they, too, use two-digit date fields. Even the best-informed Y2K experts differ as to the scope of the problem and the success of the massive public and private remediation efforts now going on around the world. We can be sure, however, that our Dickensian legal system, which cannot address even 20th-century legal problems, will be wholly unequal to dealing with the millennium bug. Fear of the impending litigation is already seriously impeding remediation of Y2K problems, causing businesses to limit their own internal reviews and external disclosure and cooperation so that they can avoid being accused of making inaccurate statements or engaging in ``knowing'' misconduct. Even President Clinton, who has steadfastly opposed civil justice reform and even vetoed the bipartisan 1995 law suit reform bill--it was evaded anyway, over his veto--has accepted the need for a specific Y2K reform when he signed Mr. Dreier's ``Y2K Information and Readiness Disclosure Act'' in October 1998. This bill, which I cosponsored, is designed to encourage businesses to disclose the status of their Y2K readiness (and thereby encourage cooperation on remediation) without fear that their disclosures will lead to a securities suit. But much more remains to be done: Fear of unfair liability is continuing to chill proactive remediation efforts, and in any case Congress must put in place a framework now to control the avalanche of litigation that we can see coming. Y2K will exacerbate all the existing flaws in our legal system. Y2K lawsuits began to be filed in mid-1997, two and a half years before the millennium, and trial lawyers are now holding workshops and symposia on how to run Y2K class actions. Unless Congress acts quickly, we will soon see the same kind of abusive class actions that led Congress to act in 1995 and again in 1998 to curb securities strike suits--but this time, on a vastly larger scale, affecting virtually every sector of the economy. Enterprising lawyers will bring meritless suits to shake down deep-pockets defendants, or will run meritorious claims for their own benefit rather than their clients'--raking off hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars in fees that should have gone to redress their clients' injuries. In the tobacco cases, for example, billions of dollars in fees have already been diverted from tobacco victims to their counsel: in Texas, they will receive some $92,000 an hour. Tobacco lawyers fees in just two settled cases, Texas and Minnesota, amount to $2.8 billion; attorney's fees under all existing state contingent-fee contracts have been estimated to run to $14-19 billion; private tobacco suits have been estimated to generate more than $30 billion in lawyers' fees, and could soon average $3-8 billion a year. Our legal system does no better at handling non-class action, business-to-business litigation, which the millennium bug will also generate in vast quantities. Lawsuits between software and hardware vendors and their customers will be only the top level of Y2K litigation that could cascade through every economic relationship in the economy. It's vital that Congress act now to set sensible limits on this potential avalanche of litigation. H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act, was introduced in late February 1999 by Republican Representatives Davis, Dreier, and Cox and by Democratic Representatives Moran, Cramer, and Dooley. This balanced, pro-consumer legislation will help remove the current disincentives to proactive remediation of Y2K problems. It will help people by focusing on fixing the Y2K problems in advance--not affixing blame for them afterwards. If failures occur, its innovative procedural reforms will encourage constructive alternatives to long, drawn-out lawsuits. It strengthens pleading standards to help winnow out meritless cases. It adopts the Fair Share Rule of proportionate liability for year 2000 claims. It sets reasonable parameters for punitive damages. And it adopts important pro-consumer class-action reforms in Y2K cases. I'm delighted to have cosponsored this important, common-sense reform, which will help consumers and preserve our country's high-tech edge in the global economy.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 129) extending the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the retired citizens of the newly founded city of Laguna Woods, formerly known as Leisure World of Laguna Hills, CA. As California's 472nd city, Laguna Woods represents the Nation's first city designed exclusively for retired homeowners. Laguna Woods is a 3.2-square-mile senior community that lies adjacent to Laguna HIlls in what are now the last remaining natural coastal canyons open to the public from Los Angeles to San Diego. With nearly 35,000 trees growing within the city, it is appropriate that Laguna Woods has already been titled ``one of the jewels of Orange County.'' The tireless efforts made by the citizens and homeowners' association of Laguna Woods are to be commended. March 24, 1999 will serve to remind us of the beginning of a community that will benefit retired homeowners and communities throughout our nation. It is my distinct honor to congratulate the citizens of Laguna Woods and to welcome them as California's next great city.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I rise today to honor Glen Stillwell, one of Orange County, California's finest and most generous philanthropists. Glen, after a long and courageous struggle, recently succumbed to a terminal illness. He has left behind his lovely wife Dotti of 53 years, and a rich legacy of service and leadership in the community of Orange County. His charitable and selfless influence upon the McIntosh Center for the Disabled, the Providence Speech and Hearing Center, the Olive Crest Treatment Center for Abused Children, the Assistance League, the Orange County Performing Arts Center, and the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, allowed these much-needed institutions to thrive. Glen Stillwell truly lived the American dream. He came to California at the end of the Great Depression and became a pioneer in the budding aerospace engineering industry--a California industry, that, with Glen's help, has become a world-leader. In time, through his own grit and determination, Glen built his own aerospace-manufacturing company, which under the example of his guidance, continues to flourish. But throughout his brilliant career, however, Glen always considered the upbringing of his two sons, Thomas and Richard, his most important calling. Glen Stillwell was a visionary. He planted the seeds that ultimately became Chapman College and the world-renowned Orange County Performing Arts Center. He also had a passion for civic involvement, and his voice was often heard in the public arena on important issues of statecraft. Indeed, Glen was the best kind of patriot; he loved his country and he loved the community of Orange County, and he loved his family. Orange County will miss Glen Stillwell, but will enjoy the fruits of his hard work and dedication for many generations to come.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 17, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, we are gathered here to deal with a problem that none of us wants and we are agreed upon much more than we admit. The censure resolution, not the articles of impeachment, but the censure resolution states that William Jefferson Clinton has violated his oath of office, damaged and dishonored the presidency, engaged in reprehensible conduct with a subordinate and wrongly obstructed discovery of the truth. This debate, therefore, is not about whether the President has abused his office. He has. And both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge it. Some have said we should not deal with this question now while our troops are in the Gulf. It might be added that they are also in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and nose to nose with North Korean soldiers in the DMZ. A quarter million American soldiers are positioned at trip wires of global conflict, and they will be there long after this debate ends. They are protecting our freedom and our democracy. It is for them as much as for any Americans that Congress meets today. Every one of our soldiers is held to a code of conduct. None of them could keep his or her job, the privilege of being ordered into battle, if they had committed the crimes of our Commander in Chief. For committing just the underlying acts, the so-called personal elements of the Commander in Chief's offenses, the Clinton administration has prosecuted no fewer than 67 American officers and enlisted men and women. Hundreds of Americans who have served their country in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps have lost their careers, even though they did not once lie under oath to a judge or to a grand jury or obstruct justice or tamper with a single witness. They were dismissed because of a more simple reason: They failed in their duty. Every single man and woman in operation Desert Fox at this very moment is held to a higher standard than their Commander in Chief. Let us raise the standard of our American leader to the level of his troops. Let us once again respect the institution of the presidency. Let us see to it indeed what the censure resolution says merely in words, that no man is above the law. Let us not fail in our duty. Let us restore honor to our country.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman's understanding of S. 1260's legislative history. I also note that courts correctly treat so-called post-enactment legislative history as virtually worthless. But to the extent that courts have any interest in what the 105th Congress thinks the 104th Congress did in 1995, I trust they will compare this year's Senate Banking Committee report language with what both Houses ultimately agreed to in this conference committee Managers' Statement. Where the Senate report on S. 1260 states that the 1995 act ``establish[ed] a uniform Federal standard on pleading requirements by adopting the pleading standard adopted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals'', the more authoritative Managers' Statement states that in 1995 we ``establish[ed] a heightened uniform Federal standard based upon the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.'' The House managers insisted on these changes to reaffirm what the conferees said in 1995: We adopted a pleading standard higher than the then-existing Second Circuit standard. Mr. Speaker, once more, Congress is making huge strides toward protecting investors and workers in public companies. I'm pleased that the House will today complete work on S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. I want to congratulate my colleagues, Mr. White and Ms. Eshoo, for their leadership in introducing this legislation, as well as Chairmen Mike Oxley and Tom Bliley for their tireless efforts on behalf of this issue. S. 1260 builds on two landmark achievements of the 104th Congress: the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a key element of the Contract With America, and the 1996 National Securities Markets Improvement Act. In the 1995 Reform Act, we acted to stop the egregious perversion of federal securities laws into weapons to injure investors and companies rather than safeguards to protect investors from securities fraud. Trial lawyers, using professional plaintiffs, were filing class action lawsuits against publicly traded companies alleging fraud, often with no more evidence than a drop in the price of these companies' stock--something quite common in the highly volatile high- technology markets. Indeed, over half of the top 150 companies in California's Silicon Valley were hit by such suits. Due to the considerable cost involved in fighting such a lawsuit, innocent employers were routinely forced to pay investors' money as tribute to the trial bar. Yet the enormous price they had to pay--according to one study, on average nearly $9 million for each settlement--did little for defrauded investors. The plaintiffs, the supposed beneficiaries of this system, on average received between 6 and 14 cents on the dollar. A strong bipartisan majority of the House and Senate acted in 1995 to reorient federal securities litigation to encourage investors to bring meritorious claims while protecting innocent employers from meritless extortion suits. We acted to protect the millions of innocent investors who were bearing the cost of abusive lawsuits while gaining little or no recompense for genuine fraud. In 1996, strong bipartisan majorities of the House and Senate again turned to the issue of securities law, this time addressing the appropriate division of labor between state and federal securities regulators. In that historic bill we determined that ``covered securities''--basically, those traded on national exchanges--would be subject to federal regulation, while non-covered securities would be regulated by the states. Today we are going to continue our work in this field of law by protecting the gains we made in the 1995 Reform Act from circumvention by entrepreneurial trial lawyers, and by harmonizing the 1995 Reform Act and the 1996 National Markets legislation. Trial lawyers have sought to get around our 1995 reforms by bringing their suits in state courts, where those reforms do not apply. Yet as our capital markets are national, and thus investors may live in any of the 50 states, bringing a suit in one state unfairly imposes a financial burden on residents of another state. To address this inequity and assert that national markets require nationally applied rules, this legislation will make federal courts the exclusive venue for large-scale securities fraud lawsuits involving securities subject to federal regulation under the 1996 National Markets Act. Like the 1995 and 1996 enactments, Representative White's bill enjoys wide bipartisan support. Throughout the process leading up to enactment, we have sought to address the concerns of majority and minority members in the legislation. Our success in so doing is reflected in the wide bipartisan support this legislation received in the House and Senate. In addition, I want to particularly thank Chairman Bliley and Chairman Oxley for including in the bill a technical correction to the 1996 Fields national markets legislation. This correction restores the viability of Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides a voluntary state-law alternative to federal securities registration. This provision--which has been an unamended part of the 1933 Act since the enactment of that legislation, exempts from federal registration securities issued in exchange for other securities, claims, or property interests, if the terms and conditions of the issuance and exchange have been approved as fair by state authorities. It is purely voluntary; issuers may still seek federal registration if they wish. Although the 1996 Act does not amend Section 3(a)(10), it inadvertently impeded its operation. I appreciate the Chairmen's consideration in including in the bill a curative technical amendment endorsed by the California Department of Corporations. I look forward to final passage of this conference report, and I thank the Chairmen and my colleagues, Rick White and Anna Eshoo, for their tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation.

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

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Virginia will entertain one, I would like to engage him in a colloquy. As the gentleman knows, I was the principal author of the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act. During consideration of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which will extend the 1995 act to State courts, some questions have been raised about the pleading standard that we adopted in 1995. Specifically, some have argued post facto that we adopted the pleading standard of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rather than a higher standard derived from it, but without the Second Circuit caselaw. The same questions have been raised in a different way concerning the so-called Specter amendment to the 1995 act, which would have added language related to motive, opportunity, and recklessness. The House strongly disagreed with the Specter amendment and insisted that it be dropped before we would agree to the conference report. Since we were both conferees in 1995, I would ask the gentleman his views on both points. Specifically, I would ask the gentleman whether he agrees that in 1995 we adopted a pleading standard higher than any in existing law. Although it was based on the standard from the Second Circuit, it was significantly higher because our hearings showed that even in the Second Circuit the existing standards were failing to screen out abusive cases. As the 1995 Statement of Managers stated, ``the House and Senate hearings on securities litigation reform included testimony on the need to establish uniform and more stringent pleading requirements to curtail the filing of meritless lawsuits.'' For that reason, the 1995 Managers' Statement explained that the act incorporated a pleading standard derived from, but higher than, the highest standard in existing law, the Second Circuit standard. Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the 1995 Managers' Statement, the most authoritative construction of the 1995 act: ``The Conference Committee language is based in part on the pleading standard of the Second Circuit . . . Because the Conference Committee intends to strengthen existing pleading requirements, it does not intend to codify the Second Circuit's caselaw interpreting this pleading standard.'' The 1995 Managers' Statement went on to explain that this was the very reason the conferees dropped the so-called Specter amendment on motive, opportunity, and recklessness, because we wanted the standard higher than the Second Circuit's, not because the Specter language authorizing shortcuts to pleading rigor was somehow implicit in the act's language. The House prevailed on this point. Again, I quote, ``For this reason, the Conference Report chose not to include in the pleading standard certain language relating to motive, opportunity, and recklessness.'' So, the record in 1995 is clear: we adopted a higher standard than the Second Circuit and in particular we rejected the Second Circuit caselaw embodied in the Specter amendment regarding motive, opportunity, and recklessness. Indeed, the President's veto, according to his own veto message, was based on the fact that the 1995 act adopted a higher pleading standard than the Second Circuit standard, and rejected existing Second Circuit caselaw embodied in the Specter amendment. Both bodies of Congress overrode that veto. In the conference report Managers' Statement for the bill that is before us today, the House expressly rejected Senate report language that would have rewritten the 1995 legislative history on the pleading standard. That language is not in this conference report Managers' Statement.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding to me. I am particularly pleased that Congressman Paxon is here with us tonight in the chamber. It is something of a tradition as Members retire and we have an opportunity allowed them on the floor of the House, that they are forced to sit here and listen to us talk about them. But it is especially nice for those of us paying tribute to be able to look you in the eye tonight and tell you from the heart how sincerely we are going to miss you here and how much we have appreciated the opportunity over the last many years to work shoulder to shoulder with you. It was 10 years ago that Bill Paxon and I, and 16 others, were elected as part of the same freshman class. And 10 years goes by rather quickly. We did not know at the time when we set out to exercise in our own way what degree of influence we might over the Congress that one of us would become the leader of our National Congressional Campaign Committee and spearhead an effort to change the management of Congress for the first time in two generations. But that was Bill Paxon's fate at the time, and certainly now in retrospect we know how much that means to our country. It certainly meant a lot to each of us to participate with him in that venture. I have been in politics only 12 years; 10 here and 2 downtown working with Ronald Reagan in the White House. That makes me a piker compared to Bill Paxon, because he has been an elected official for more than a generation, representing Erie County in the legislature as its youngest member at age 23. He then went on to the New York State Assembly where he was elected in 1982, 6 years before we were seated together in Congress. So by the time Bill Paxon started out in the United States House of Representatives 10 years ago, he was already an accomplished legislator and an accomplished legislative leader. It is not surprising, therefore, that he was tapped to run the National Republican Congressional Committee, although infusing the NRCC with new management at that point might have been viewed as much as a desperation pass as a sure thing at the time, because it was $4.5 million in debt. Fortunately, we had strong leadership at the helm at the Republican National Committee where Haley Barbour was in charge, and Haley and Bill Paxon working together were an amazing team to behold. In particular, I think because of Bill's energy and his dynamism, Haley was taken in and became a big supporter of what was going on there. I served on Bill's Executive Committee and watched as he pared down what had, over many, many years become a rather large staff that we could not afford, into a real lean organization that went out and got the job done for our candidates across the country and for the American people. The result, of course, was not only the first Republican Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in 40 years, and the first back-to- back majorities in 68 years, but the first balanced budget since 1969. It is just an extraordinary thing to think one can take an organization as big as the Federal Government, not just the NRCC but the Federal Government, and turn it around from hundreds of billions in projected deficits to surpluses now as far as the eye can see. But that has been the consequence of Bill Paxon's leadership in the United States Congress. Probably the most important moment for Bill Paxon in the House of Representatives was not the passage of the Telecommunications Act, which he shepherded through the Committee on Commerce where we served together; not the passage of the first tax cuts in 16 years, which he like his predecessor in Congress, Jack Kemp, so strongly championed; but, almost certainly, it was when he proposed on the House Floor here to Susan Molinari, another one of our classmates, and naturally she was as impressed with him as the rest of us. Unlike the rest of us, however, she joined with him in a very special partnership which a year later resulted in an extraordinary marriage and an extraordinary union between two people that are as close to us in congressional family as anyone can possibly be. But seeing them married together just makes us all thrilled every time we think about it. And as has been mentioned earlier, we are now coming to know your daughter, Suby, Susan Ruby, almost as well as our own kids because we get a chance to see her around the House of Representatives. I think of that time in San Diego when you were out in California, when all of us were out in California on the Republican side, for the National Convention, the Republican National Convention, and your wife was the keynote speaker to the country at that National Convention. And all the attention was focused on her, she thought. But the cameras moved to you feeding Susan Ruby with a bottle and, as a dad myself, I know exactly what that is like. We have a new one at home, just a month old, and 5-year-old and a 4-year-old. I am sure as our kids grow up they will get to know each other, I hope as well as our moms and dads know each other. Bill Paxon is unlike anyone in this Chamber, unlike anyone in the Congress that I know for one simple reason. Despite all of the responsibility that he has taken, despite all of the energy and effort that he has put into it, despite the superhuman effort and results that he has achieved, he is always equanimous. It is hard to find an example of Bill Paxon being anything other than upbeat and telling us that we can do it. We can get the job done. And think back over a decade, that is just extraordinary. There is not a day that goes by here when there are not 6 good reasons to be down in the mouth because somebody said something that they should not have said, a reporter printed something that she or he ought not to have, that we lost a close vote somewhere, that somebody was speaking behind our backs. That is what politics unfortunately entails every day. Yet every day, as Ronald Reagan used to say, when he told the story about the boy who was told to clean up all the manure in the stable, and the boy says, there must be a pony in here somewhere, there is always something good if you are willing to find it. Bill Paxon has found day in and day out all of the good that we can find in ourselves and all of the good that Congress can produce, and the result truly is extraordinary. I think as we, as Bill Clinton is fond of saying, cross this bridge to the 21st century with surpluses now in hand, with tax relief now a real prospect because we do have the government's fiscal house increasingly in order, with jobs increasing, with the United States as a rock of economic stability in a world that is having a lot of economic troubles, we can say that some of this is historically inevitable, that America is just so strong that these things are bound to happen, but those of us who work in government and in the legislature and the executive branch know that it ultimately boils down to a few people. It matters what each of us does when we get up in the morning. It matters whether we succeed instead of fail. It matters if we can motivate our colleagues and our countrymen to join in an effort to make America a better place. And I know that even though, Bill, you are retiring, that you are only retiring from this particular aspect of your very public commitment to public service. And whatever you do in the future and whatever your remarkable family does in the future, I know that America is going to benefit from it. We have all personally benefited from knowing you, and I am very, very proud to have served with you and even more proud to know that we will be friends in the years ahead. Thank you very much for brightening our lives and bettering the country as you have done. We look forward to hearing even more and better things from you in the years ahead.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I wish to thank not only the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) but also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the very solid work they did in bringing this legislation to the floor. The concerns about sovereignty by the People's Republic of China ought not to take precedence over public health, certainly not over the health of children in Taiwan. Taiwan's access to the resources of the World Health Organization is a matter of morality. I am thrilled that we are making this common sense step forward, putting good judgment and public policy ahead of politics. This is a very, very welcome resolution to support, it is sound foreign policy for the United States, and it reflects the best in bipartisanship in this Congress as we close our session. The solid work of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), in particular, working across the aisle, is very much to be commended, and I strongly support this resolution.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to recognize Theodore Roosevelt with the Medal of Honor, and in support of the two veterans of the armed services, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) who have dignified us with this effort to bring it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I want in particular to recognize one of those two sponsors, because he is going to be leaving us at the end of this Congress which is close upon us. I listened the gentleman from Pennsylvania read about Teddy Roosevelt and describe to us the qualities that he possessed and the very reasons that he should receive this honor. Mr. Speaker, during the gentleman's tenure in Congress, he has been exposed to severe fire, metaphorically, but nonetheless truly. He has led his colleagues and his countrymen by his conduct and his example. I came to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania when the President was preparing to send troops to Bosnia, and I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) did as well. In meetings with him, with the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and other Members of the administration, the gentleman from Pennsylvania was always enormously well prepared, always articulate, and always made his points with compelling logic. His patriotism has always been evident. Upon his retirement, we can do no less than to honor him by passing this bill and by recognizing that the extraordinary qualities that Teddy Roosevelt displayed are qualities that the gentleman also possesses.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, a member of the minority stated during the debate that the decision to limit the debate to 2 hours on this resolution is partisan. In allocating 2 hours for debate on a resolution authorizing an inquiry of impeachment, the Congress is adhering to precedent, the precedents established by the House of Representatives when it was under Democratic control. It is in fact doubling the amount of time that was spent in debate on the identical resolution in February, 1974. Likewise, the wording of the resolution adheres directly to precedent. The minority argues today that an impeachment inquiry should be narrowly limited to the evidence we already know, but on February 6, 1974, when the Democrats were in the majority, Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Rodino stated: ``To be locked into . . . a date (for completion of the inquiry) would be totally irresponsible and unwise.'' The inquiry, he said, must be ``thorough, so that we can make a fair and responsible judgment.'' The resolution does, as it must, follow precedent. We, in undertaking this solemn constitutional duty, must follow precedent. A vote for the resolution is a vote for a fair, full, and complete inquiry today, just as in 1974.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding time. It is fitting that we are here on the floor giving tribute to Jerry Solomon under a structured rule that limits the time for debate. Most of us would like to take an hour at least to say what we have on our minds and in our hearts. When 48 years ago Jerry Solomon left college to volunteer for the Marine Corps, to deal with the Communist invasion of South Korea, he started a lifetime of service to his country. As I look on the floor and see the portraits of George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette, I see two men whom we can see in Jerry Solomon, soldier statesmen who loved their country even when for them it was just an idea, the idea of freedom to which Jerry has committed his life. There was somebody else that I met and had a chance to work for that I thought was unique, President Ronald Reagan. I worked for him in the White House. I was quite sure that I should have given up my job in California and come to work for Ronald Reagan because there would never be another one like him, but I found here in the House of Representatives one like him, one very much like him, Jerry Solomon, the chairman of the Rules Committee, who is tough as nails on issues, just like Ronald Reagan was, but who interpersonally is friendly and courteous and respectful of his colleagues and of his constituents. He smiles a lot. Because just as much as he loves his country, he loves life. He loves his family, he loves this institution, and I daresay in our better moments all of us. Your way, Jerry, your sense of patriotism, your love of everything in which you have involved yourself is contagious. You have brightened this institution for a generation. You have brightened my life. Even when you are not here, when you come back as maybe a Supreme Court Justice to give us shorter, more to the point opinions, we will always know that we are your friends and you ours. Thank you so much for the opportunity to serve with you.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be up here with my colleagues on such a wonderful occasion to pay tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). It has been mentioned that he came here so many years ago during the Kennedy administration. He was a wonderful lawyer in private practice after having graduated from law school at Penn. He went to the University of Notre Dame, which befits his Irish background. It is hard for me to pay tribute to that part of his background, inasmuch as I am an alum of the University of Southern California, and Notre Dame has, particularly in recent, I should say decades, whupped the Trojans. What can we say about a man who comes to Congress, serves 10 years as a Republican, and while he is picking up the Republican nomination, wins the Democratic primary as a write-in? What can we say about someone who, at this juncture, still more decades later, can sit here on the floor and listen to Democrats and Republicans come up and praise not only what he has done for all of us, leading by example, being our friend, but what he has done for the country? One of my colleagues just mentioned that no one in Congress has done more for the national security. For all those years that we had a military buildup, the appropriators, the Committee on Appropriations, was looked to to put money into the Pentagon in order to win the Cold War, but we too little recognize what they have done even more recently. Since America won the Cold War, due to the determination and leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) and a handful of others like him, we have been able to pare back that spending. Since America won the Cold War, we have saved a cumulative total of $1 trillion on Pentagon spending. We owe that, as well as the victory that preceded the peace dividend, to leaders, chief among whom is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to go out to dinner with Joe and his family, and in particular, his youngest son, who is just a shade older than my oldest. It is a lot of fun to see the family side of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) and Sarah. I cannot imagine, after having been in politics as long as the gentleman has, that he can be so upbeat and provide so much spirit to the rest of us, having taken the body blows that are often traded in politics, survived them, but excelled, in spite of them, to remain a gentleman, to remain humble, and to always keep his smile. That is the strongest and best example the gentleman can provide to every one of us. The gentleman has served our country well, he has bettered this institution, he has led by his example, he has left many friends. We love him very much.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud Chairman Spence and the Conferees for legislation vital to our country's national security. I am especially pleased to note that the bill includes a number of key elements of the ``Policy for Freedom in China'' that passed the House last fall with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. They include: H.R. 2647, Representative Tillie Fowler's bill enhancing the President's authority over enterprises in this country controlled by China's People's Liberation Army under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Section 1237). H.R. 2195, Representative Chris Smith's bill strengthening Customs Service interdiction of products made by China's infamous Laogai slave- labor camps (Sections 3701-3703). H.R. 2232, Representative Ed Royce's Radio Free Asia Act, increasing the free flow of information in the major dialects of China and Tibet (Sections 3901-3903). H.R. 2386, Representative Duncan Hunter's bill providing for design of a theatre missile defense system for Taiwan (Section 1533). This key provision, which passed the House 301-116, was designed initially to respond to the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1996, in which Beijing conducted missile firings into the international waters adjacent to Taiwan's key ports. In light of the emerging evidence of North Korea's missile threat to U.S. allies and forces in the region, the Senate and the conference have improved this provision by broadening it to include not just Taiwan but all our other key regional allies in the Asian-Pacific region. As a result, this important provision will serve to enhance security not just for Taiwan but for other key allies like Japan and the Republic of Korea. I strongly support this enhancement of the bill. Mr. Speaker, with approval of this conference report both the House and Senate will have enacted our Policy for Freedom in China, thereby abandoning the Clinton Administration's empty approach and making important progress in ensuring peace and security in East Asia. I appreciate the consideration the Conference has given to these issues and appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of passage of the report.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for his clarification of this matter. I commend the conferees for taking the critical steps to secure peace and stability in East Asia.

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

Mr. COX of California. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.