C. Cox

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gesture that the chairman has made; and, inasmuch as I have not been able to alert my colleagues to my concern about this, I myself just discussed this with lawyers in recent days and in our leadership meeting yesterday, Madam Chairman, I would accept the chairman's generous offer. I will note that because I will just now, as the gentleman suggested, ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, that because the underlying bill lacks this amendment, I will not be able to support it today. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. I wonder if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. COX of California. I thank the whip, and I thank him especially for his inspiring remarks about an inspired man, a hero of mine and his and so many Americans. What happened during the 20th century, which really spans Ronald Reagan's lifetime, was nothing less than the rise of totalitarianism as a model of the state and its defeat in the great war, World War II, that our folks, some of us here in Congress, fought in, and its defeat subsequently in the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, when he led the victory of the West in the Cold War, and he led the intellectual victory that results now in Democrats and Republicans agreeing on the central point that free enterprise, not a state-run economy, is the model for America and the whole world and for the creation of jobs and opportunities for people everywhere. In that sense, Ronald Reagan, while he was a Republican by registration at the end of his life and a Democrat to campaign for FDR and Harry Truman earlier in his career, was really a person who transcended partisan politics. He had Democrats and Republicans voting with him every single time he did one of the great things for which we remember him. Of course, that was the good Democrats and the good Republicans who always were siding on the majority with Ronald Reagan. But it took those Boll Weevil Democrats to join with the Republicans in the House to bring us those incredible tax cuts. I remember when President Reagan spoke when I was a freshman here in Congress, having worked for him in the White House, he spoke to us towards the end of his term, in January, but he did not stand at your lectern, he stood at the one on the other side, which is, of course, where the Democrats address the House, not Republicans. Halfway through his remarks, some of us, since he was speaking only to the Republican Conference, I am sure you remember it, some of us thought he just made a mistake and didn't understand how the House worked and showed up on the wrong side of the aisle. But halfway through the remarks he crossed over to the lectern you are speaking at right now, and he said, I am crossing the aisle right now to talk to you because that is what I did midway through my adult lifetime: I changed parties, and, as he was always so fond of saying, I didn't leave the Democratic Party, some of the people in the Democratic Party left me. Nowhere was that more true than in the area of foreign policy and national security, because while Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War in Europe, bringing about ultimately the collapse of the whole Soviet empire and the freedom of what we then referred to as the captive nations of central Europe and the Baltics and so on, he also was fighting for democracy right here in our hemisphere, nowhere more forthrightly than in Central America. I remember what was at stake at that time. I remember that the Sandinistas, the Communists, with the aid of Soviet troops, Soviet military spending, Soviet advisors, Bulgaria and East German advisors, were building a very expansionist Communist state that threatened the new democracies of Central America in the 1980s. Not only Ronald Reagan but many in Congress felt very, very strongly this had to be stopped and contained. The Sandinista Communist Government of Nicaragua, which had come to power by force, told all the workers who they were supposed to be liberating that the right to strike was now abolished; it would be illegal to go on strike, because this was, after all, a Communist government and they didn't allow such things. They shut down La Prensa, the main newspaper, that had been such a wonderful outlet for the views of competing political interests in Nicaragua, and they assassinated the editor of La Prensa. The editor's widow, Violeta Chamorro, quit the revolutionary government of Nicaragua to fight for democracy and to talk about democracy, to the extent that the government would let her, in the pages of La Prensa. Well, in this climate, the President sought humanitarian and military aid to the people who were fighting to get democracy back in Nicaragua, and the United States Senate went along with him. He asked, because everything hinged on the vote here in the House of Representatives, to come and stand where President Clinton just stood the other night, to address us about the importance to the whole world, and certainly to the cause of democracy, of winning this battle and of sending that aid to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. But the Speaker of the House turned him down. So I got a request from Don Regan, then the Chief of Staff, to answer this legal question, if you will: Can the Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, turn down the President of the United States when he asks to come and address the body? Has this ever been done before in American history? Is there precedent for it, and can he get away with it? Well, it turned out as a matter of tact, judgment and political comity, it was a huge mistake, but as a matter of law, yes, the Speaker of the House had the right to bar the President from coming to address the Nation and the Congress, which he did. President Reagan was not a lawyer, so while I was disappointed to have to give him that legal answer, what he said in reply, very quickly, was, ``They have TV's up there on Capitol Hill in their offices, don't they?'' Of course, you know what happened. The President went on national television and addressed the country and, incidentally, all the Members of the Congress in their offices, and as a result of the speech that the President made explaining his case, laying it out, just as Harry Truman did, he pointed out in that speech when he was seeking aid to stop communism in Europe after the war, he won. Here in the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, where the Speaker of the House prevented the President from speaking and making that pitch, the vote was 221 to 209 for the Edwards-Skelton-Ray- Chandler amendment to the MILCON bill, the military construction appropriations bill, and we provided $100 million in humanitarian and military aid, which the Senate had already agreed to, to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. Of course, Violeta Chamorro became the democratically-elected President of Nicaragua, and Nicaragua, along with Guatemala, Honduras and the rest of the nations enjoying democracy in Central America, became part of this late 20th-century tide against statism, against communism, for free enterprise, for democracy, for individual rights, for the right to strike, for free press, for all of the things that communism was against. So, when I think of that story, I think not only of what Ronald Reagan accomplished, but what it tells us about who he was. He was not a creature of Washington. He was much closer to the American people than he ever was to politicians on Capitol Hill. Even those of us who are now in Congress who so strongly support and agree with everything Ronald Reagan did understand the reason we love him is because he is just like we are when we are at home with our constituents, not like all the back room wheeling and dealing that we see here on Capitol Hill. He is a remarkable figure, and I considered it an honor to have worked for him. I am delighted that very shortly in honor of his birthday we will be naming, in bipartisan fashion, I am quite sure, just like everything Ronald Reagan ever accomplished, we will be naming the National Airport in bipartisan fashion, the National Airport, the Ronald Reagan National Airport. It is a small thing to do in honor of a very, very great man.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, my heart, along with the hearts of all of my colleagues, is with Sonny Bono at this time. I would like to submit my tribute for the Record. I am delighted that we are spending this time, and I am delighted we are having a memorial service that we will all attend tomorrow for this same purpose. This Chamber will deeply miss Sonny Bono. Mr. Speaker, the world watched and mourned as Sonny Bono was laid to rest in Palm Springs a few weeks ago, and many of our colleagues here were among those present. It is a rare person whose passing causes us all to stop and reflect, and I want to take a moment and explain why, to my mind, Sonny Bono's life touched so many people. I think it is because he was uniquely American. His life was proof of all the things that we believe make America special, and like Ronald Reagan before him, he did it all with the smile and the kind words that come from a man who is at peace with himself and who believes in what he is doing. The more I got to know Sonny, the more respect I had for him, and the more I counted him as a friend. I don't think anyone in the last 10 years has made me laugh so hard as Sonny, but most importantly, he made all of us laugh at the right times. Sonny knew when things had become too serious, when we were all becoming swollen with our own importance, and when instead of anger and recriminations we needed laughter and unity. He had a unique ability to use humor to remind us of who we are and what we should be doing. Sonny's parents wanted him to be a doctor. But he wanted to be in show business, so he went to Hollywood, and took a job that allowed him to pursue his dream--he drove a meat truck. What does this have to do with Hollywood and the music business? Nothing, except that by taking this job and delivering meat along Sunset Boulevard, Sonny was able to drop off recordings of his songs at record companies along his route. This was typical of Sonny's persistence in pursuing his goals--he always believed there was a way, whether it seemed obvious or not. And as we all know, he was right--his records became hits, and he ended up entertaining millions of Americans every week on national television. This kind of confidence is uniquely American--Sonny knew that there would be opportunities, and that all he needed was talent and determination to succeed. When Sonny left show business, he went into the restaurant business, and in the private sector he learned a lesson that too many people in Washington, DC have either never learned or have forgotten--the government interferes far too much into the private lives of citizens. As a businessman, Sonny found that government thought it could tell him what kind of a sign he could put on his restaurant. Unfortunately, he discovered, it could--so Sonny ran for mayor and made the changes that he thought needed to be made. The people who had seen what he could do overwhelmingly voted to send him to Congress to give him a chance to make some needed changes here as well. Sonny was just getting started when he was taken from us, but he had already made a difference. We passed legislation here in the House that he wrote which was designed to protect the voters in my state, legislation that would prevent a single judge from overturning the will of the people as expressed through a statewide ballot initiative. In short, though Sonny Bono was successful, and though he did serious work, he never took himself, or this body, too seriously. He knew that the important things in life should be enjoying your family, enjoying your work, and chasing whatever dreams you have, whether it's a gold record or a Senate seat. In that, he set a good example for us all.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse this bipartisan letter in support of NATO enlargement, which was unveiled earlier this autumn by Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and Ambassador Richard Perle. Attachment: Letter, with list of signatories. New Atlantic Initiative Statement on NATO Enlargement (The New Atlantic Initiative, an international network dedicated to revitalizing and expanding Atlantic ties, released the following statement in support of NATO enlargement on September 9, 1997. The statement was released by Richard Holbrooke, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Anthony Lake, and Paul Wolfowitz at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium, where the original North Atlantic Treaty was signed in April 1949. For more information about the NAI call: (202) 862-5850) NATO was the bulwark of America's successful Cold War strategy of containment. Largely due to NATO, Europe has enjoyed more than fifty years without war among its major powers, the longest such period in modern history. NATO succeeded not only by providing a shield against aggression from without but also by helping to knit together a community of democracies in which old quarrels faded, the civic culture of democracy sank deep roots, and market economies prospered. In part because of NATO's success, the Cold War has ended, and with it NATO's original mission. In larger purpose of ensuring peace and freedom in Europe and the Atlantic region endures. To continue to fulfill this purpose NATO is adapting to an undivided Europe. NATO is no longer an anti-Soviet alliance; nor should it engage in the self-fulfilling prophecy of pre-selecting new enemies. Rather it is defining itself in more positive terms: as an alliance aiming to promote peace and stability in the Atlantic region, devoted to the spread and consolidation of democratic ways in Europe, and capable of protecting Western interests against such future threats as may emerge. At bottom, NATO remains a mutual defense pact, and this solemn commitment gives all of its acts a weight and seriousness that distinguish it from other international organizations. Crucial to this process of adaptation is NATO's willingness to admit new members able to meet meaningful criteria of democracy and military effort. Otherwise it will remain a relic of the Cold War of diminishing relevance to the contemporary world. Admission to NATO will consolidate democratic transitions, and the prospect of admission will spur reform and the resolution of disputes, as indeed has already happened. In addition, NATO has made clear its desire to develop cooperative security relations among all of the states of the Euro-Atlantic region including Russia. Czech President Vaclav Havel has put it: ``NATO expansion should be perceived as a continuous process, in which the nations of Central and Eastern Europe mature toward the meaning, values and goals of the enlarged and revived alliance.'' To those who say that the nations of central Europe face no threat today, we say that the most likely way to preserve this situation, which has been all too rare, is to extend NATO to that region. To those who say that the addition of these new members will somehow dilute NATO, we say that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, where freedom is dearly cherished having been so recently won, will add strength to NATO. To those who say that expanding NATO will draw new lines in Europe, we say that it will erase old lines, relics of a bitter time, and that NATO's openness to additional accessions means that new lines are not in fact being drawn. To those who worry that Russia will feel threatened, we emphasize that NATO is a defensive alliance that threatens no one and extends a hand of cooperation to Russia. The decision on NATO expansion is of historic importance. The stakes are high. The issue is clear. Admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO will strengthen the alliance, reinforce new democracies, renew the American commitment to Europe, and reaffirm American leadership. To turn back now would be a tragic mistake. Signers to New Atlantic Initiative NATO Enlargement Statement (Organizational affiliation given for identification purposes only. Views reflected in the statement are endorsed by the individual, not the institution) Richard V. Allen, Former National Security Advisor; Morris B. Abram, Chairman, United Nations Watch, Former Permanent Representative of the U.S. to the United Nations office in Geneva; Elliott Abrams, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center, Former Assistant Secretary of State; David M. Abshire, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; Michael H. Armacost, President, The Brookings Institution, Former Undersecretary of State; Richard Armitage, President, Armitage Associates L.C., Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; Bernard Aronson, Chairman, Acon Investments, Former Assistant Secretary of State; Norman R. Augustine, Chairman, Lockheed Martin Corp., Former Undersecretary of the Army; James A. Baker, III, Former Secretary of State; Mira Baratta, Vice President for Programs, Freedom House; Dennis Bark, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Michael D. Barnes, Partner, Hogan & Hartson, Former Member of Congress. Douglas J. Bennet, President, Wesleyan University, Former Administrator, USAID; Lucy Wilson Benson, President, Benson Associates, Former Undersecretary of State; Jeffrey T. Bergner, President, Bergner, Bockorny, Clough & Brain; Coit D. Blacker, Senior Fellow, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University; J. Kenneth Blackwell, Treasurer, State of Ohio, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UNHRC; Joh Bolton, Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute, Former Assistant Secretary of State; David L. Boren, President, University of Oklahoma, Former U.S. Senator; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor; Richard Burt, Chairman, IEP Advisor, Inc., Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany; Frank C. Carlucci, III, Former Secretary of Defense; Ashton B. Carter, Ford Foundation Professor, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; Hodding Carter, Knight Professor of Journalism, University of Maryland, Former Assistant Secretary of State. Richard Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense; Warren Christopher, Former Secretary of State; Clark M. Clifford, Former Secretary of Defense; Chester A. Crocker, Research Professor for Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; Ivo H. Daalder, Associate Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland; Arnaud de Borchgrave, Senior Advisor, CSIS, Dennis De Concini, Former U.S. Senator; Midge Decter, Author; James Denton, Executive Director, Freedom House; I.M. Destler, Professor and Director, Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland; Paula J. Dobriansky, Vice President, Director of Washington Office, Council on Foreign Relations; Bob Dole, Former U.S. Senator; Pierre S. DuPont, Former Governor of Delaware; Lawrence Eagleburger, Former Secretary of State; J.J. Exon, Former U.S. Senator. Dante B. Fascell, Partner, Holland & Knight, LLP, Former Member of Congress; Douglas J. Feith, Managing Attorney, Feith & Zell, P.C.; Sandra Feldman, President, American Federation of Teachers; Francis Fukuyama, Hirst Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University; Evan G. Galbraith, Chairman of the Board, LVMH Inc., Former U.S. Ambassador to France; Richard N. Gardner, OF Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Former U.S. Ambassador to Italy; Charles Gati, Senior Vice President, Interinvest; Jeffrey Gedmin, Executive Director, New Atlantic Initiative, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Gary L. Geipel, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; David C. Gompert, Professor, U.S. Naval Academy, Former Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council; Stephen J. Hadley, Shea & Gardner, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Former Secretary of State; Edward T. Hanley, General President, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees, International Union; Marshall Freeman Harris, Director of Publications and Public Outreach, Freedom House. Carla A. Hills, Chairman and CEO, Hills & Company, Former U.S. Trade Representative; Richard Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Credit Suisse First Boston, Former Assistant Secretary of State; Walter D. Huddleston, Former U.S. Senator; Samuel Huntington, Weatherhead University Professor, Harvard University; Kenneth Jensen, Executive Director, The American Committees on Foreign Relations; John T. Joyce, President, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers; Robert Kagan, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Max M. Kampelman, Chairman, American Academy of Diplomacy, Former Counselor, U.S. Department of State; Adrian Karatnycky, President, Freedom House; P. X. Kelley, Gen. USMC (ret.), Former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps; Jack Kemp, Co-director, Empower America, Former Member of Congress; Zalmay M. Khalizhad, Director, Strategy and Doctrine Program, RAND Corporation; Lane Kirkland, President Emeritus, AFL-CIO; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State. William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard; Melvin Laird, Former Secretary of Defense; Anthony Lake, Professor, Georgetown University, Former National Security Advisor; F. Stephen Larabee, Senior Staff Member, RAND Corporation; Arnold G. Langbo, Chairman of the Board/CEO, Kellogg Company; Ronald S. Lauder, Chairman, Central European Media Enterprises Ltd.; Michael Ledeen, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; I. Lewis Libby, Partner, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Former Principal Undersecretary of Defense; Robert J. Lieber, Professor of Government, Georgetown University; Seymour Martin Lipset, Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University; Bette Bao Lord, Chairwoman, Freedom House; Winston Lord, Former Assistant Secretary of State; Will Marshall, President, Progressive Policy Institute; Paul McCracken, Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan Business School, Former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors. Dave McCurdy, Chairman, McCurdy Group, Former Member of Congress; Robert C. McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor; John Melcher, Former U.S. Senator; Walter Mondale, Former Vice President of the United States; John E. Moon, Commander in Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Joshua Muravchik, Convenor, New Atlantic Initiative Working Group on NATO Enlargement, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Michael Nacht, Former Assistant Director, U.S. ACDA; Matthew Nimetz, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Former Undersecretary of State; James J. Norton, President, Graphic Communications International Union; Michael Novak, George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, American Enterprise Institute, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UNHRC; William E. Odom, Ltg. USA (ret.); Director, National Security Studies, Hudson Institute, Former Director, National Security Agency; Daniel Oliver, Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission; John O'Sullivan, Founder and Co-chairman, New Atlantic Initiative, Editor, National Review. William A. Owens, President, COO, Vice Chairman of the Board, Science Applications International Corporation; Charles Percy, Chairman, Charles Percy & Associates, Former U.S. Senator; Richard Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; William Perry, Former Secretary of Defense; Daniel Pipes, Editor, Middle East Quarterly; Norman Podhoretz, Editor-at-large, Commentary Magazine, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Colin Powell, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Former National Security Advisor; Dan Quayle, Former Vice President of the United States; David Rockefeller, Retired banker; Peter Rodman, Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, Former Director, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State; William Rogers, Former Secretary of State; Henry S. Rowen, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; Edward L. Rowny, Ltg. USA (ret.), Former Chief U.S. Negotiator to START talks; Donald Rumsfeld, Former Secretary of Defense. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, Harvard Institute for International Development; Jeffrey T. Salmon; George Shultz, Former Secretary of State; Dmitri K. Simes, President, Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom; Paul Simon, Former U.S. Senator; Alan Simpson, Former U.S. Senator; Joseph J. Sisco, Former Undersecretary of State; Leon Sloss, President, Leon Sloss Associates; Stephen Solarz, President, Solarz Associates, Former Member of Congress; Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Guest Scholar, The Brookings Institution, Former Counsellor, U.S. Department of State; Fritz Stern, University Professor Emeritus, Columbia University; Robert S. Strauss, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia; William O. Studeman, Adm. USN (ret.), Former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; Stephen Szabo, Academic Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS; Gregory F. Treverton, Director, International Security and Defense Policy, RAND Corporation, Former Vice Chairman, National Intelligence Council. Cyrus R. Vance, Former Secretary of State; Stephen W. Walker, Director, Balkan Institute; Ben J. Wattenberg, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Vin Weber, Partner, Clark & Weinstock, Former Member of Congress; William H. Webster, Former Director of Central Intelligence; George Weigel, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center; W. Bruce Weinrod, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; Ross Williams, President, Secretary/Treasurer, Oklahoma State AFL-CIO; Paul Wolfowitz, Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS, Former Undersecretary of Defense; Ronald B. Woodard, President, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group; R. James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence; Dov S. Zakheim, CEO, SPC International Corporation; Robert B. Zoellick, Vice President, Fannie Mae, Former Undersecretary of State; E.R. Zumwalt, Jr., Adm. U.S.N. (Ret.), Former Chief of Naval Operations.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank especially the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]. I want to commend the sponsor of this vital bill, my colleague from California, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, for his leading role in policymaking. Prior to his committee chairmanship on the Subcommittee on Africa, he was the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He went with the Speaker of the House this year to the People's Republic of China, to Taiwan and to Hong Kong, and today, after literally years of work, he is bringing to us this bill which is rightly praised by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Radio Free Asia builds on Justice Louis Brandeis' great axiom of civil liberties, that sunshine is the best disinfectant. That is what this is all about. That is what in fact makes our system so wonderfully resilient. Driving to the Capitol on a recent day, listening to our local news radio station, WTOP, I heard no fewer than 3 separate China Moments, China Moments paid for by government-owned firms in the People's Republic of China. They lionized President Jiang Zemin. They hyped Communist rule in China. They propagandized in the best Madison Avenue style that money can buy, and I listened to it, because I am an American. The Government of the People's Republic of China can talk directly to us as Americans whenever they wish to do so, through their own magazines, which they do in this country, through the Internet, through talking heads on television and via authentic, unbiased, competitive news media in our country. Information, not just in America, but in the world, is the oxygen of freedom, and at the same time, censorship is the staff of life for a dictatorship. The People's Republic of China's Government knows this full well, and as a result, control and suppression of information is of paramount priority for them. The PRC's oligarchy controls all newspapers, all radio, all television, through suffocating direct ownership or, just as stifling, censorship and regulation. It controls informal flows of information through the pervasive use of wiretapping, informants and surveillance, and it is even building an infrastructure so that the state in the 21st century can control the Internet. It is now seeking to jam broadcasts of Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America, an issue that our leadership raised directly with President Jiang when he was here in the Capitol just days ago. The bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce]) is going to allow 24-hour-a-day broadcasts of Radio Free Asia in Mandarin, Cantonese and Tibetan as well as broadcasting in other major dialects. It will allow the creation of a Cantonese Language Service with 16 journalists. I strongly commend this bill which will let sunlight shine into every corner of China. When Jiang Zemin visited the United States of America, he went to visit the Liberty Bell, and he read the Biblical verse on the Liberty Bell that reads: ``Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.'' That is what Radio Free Asia will do in Communist China. Let freedom ring across the length and breadth of China, Madam Speaker. Pass this bill.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the author of this bill, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], for her courage in bringing it to the floor, and for her hard work and making sure that 90 days from its passage, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Justice will combine their resources to produce a list of People's Liberation Army fronts doing business in the United States. The reason we are here is because we love the peoples of China, and we know the difference between the Communist government in Beijing and the people. We know that the people are not the regime. We also know that free enterprise is not communism and communism is not free enterprise, and we know that the People's Liberation Army, the largest standing military on Earth, is not a commercial enterprise. And those of us who are for free trade understand that free trade must take place between commercial actors, market forces, driven by a profit motive, and competition is what makes markets work. The People's Liberation Army is not interested in that. The People's Liberation Army has very different aims, and we understand what armies are all about. The money that is generated from the subsidized industries in which the People's Liberation Army is engaged as so-called profits provide off-budget financing for the People's Liberation Army to expand even more than it already has. In nominal terms, that is what they report, the People's Liberation Army has doubled its spending since the collapse of the Soviet empire. They have literally moved to fill the void created by the collapse of the Soviet Union militarily. But the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency tells us that that is understated by a factor of probably 8 times. The People's Liberation Army is enormous, but it is also growing, and it is growing because of these rather unique and creative financial arrangements. A good example of these financial arrangements is Poly Technologies, about which we have heard some in the course of this debate. Poly Technologies, Inc., which is engaged in everything from the sale of small arms to the latest weapons of mass destruction in the People's Liberation Army arsenal has as its chairman a PLA officer. Bao Ping is none other than Deng Xiaoping's son-in-law. This People's Liberation Army organization, using, for example, $2.5 billion that it earned in a single Middle East arms transaction, those were its net profits in that one deal, occupies almost one full city block near Beijing's Forbidden City. Poly Plaza comprises two large gleaming white marble towers connected by a 4-story high exhibition hall and theater. Across the face of the building in gold letters in English and Chinese characters, it says, Poly Plaza. They own property all over the People's Republic of China. Luxury villas in Beijing and a large piece of the Shanghai Securities Exchange building. They also have commercial interests in California, where they were arrested for trying to smuggle into our country 300,000 machine guns for sale to street gangs. This is the indictment. They happen to be caught because there was an FBI sting operation, and in fact, a PLA agent offered to sell the FBI officers engaged in the sting operation Red Parakeet missiles, like Stinger missiles, the Chinese call theirs Red Parakeets, which he boasted, and it is written out here in the indictment, could take a 747 out of the sky. That is the kind of enterprise that the People's Liberation Army conducts. Fortune Magazine, as has been alluded to earlier in the debate, reports that profits from People's Liberation Army's so-called commercial enterprise, the PLA fronts, yield about $2 billion to $3 billion in hard currency off-budget financing for the People's Liberation Army. The People's Liberation Army, more than anything, is the instrument of internal repression in the People's Republic of China. We ought not to pretend that when they are using their commercial fronts to do business in the United States that it looks anything like free trade. It is not. What this bill does is very modest. It will produce a list and it will produce it in relatively short order so that we can then know who we are dealing with. That kind of information the American people need; that kind of information this bill will provide, and I congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I just spoke with the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and he said he would vote for the bill.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and I thank all of the speakers that preceded for their careful attention to the bill before us, which is, as the other bills have been in the last day and a half since we have been debating them, focused and targeted on a specific problem with a very measured response. The problem is actually an opportunity. The problem is that what was once a developing nation, nation in poverty, is now a growing nation. In fact, it has one of the fastest growing economies on Earth. It has the largest foreign exchange reserves on Earth and ready access to the world's capital markets, as witness the fact that it has sold $6.75 billion worth of U.S.-dollar-denominated bonds. Since July 1, the People's Republic of China includes the thriving market of Hong Kong, with its access to world capital markets. It is true, as has been stated in debate already, that it is administration policy, Clinton administration policy, to end China's access to so- called concessional lending. Concessional lending is, of course, well below market lending at either little or no interest, with long maturities, such as 20 years. The Treasury has been making progress, and the Treasury has this policy precisely because of China's large foreign exchange reserves and their access to capital markets. Already they have terminated the People's Republic of China's access to the concessional loan facility of the Asian Development Bank. It is important that we are working in concert with administration policy. It is important because their opposition to this legislation makes it clear that all that they oppose is Congress having a say-so in the matter. In truth, the administration was supposed to have and intended to terminate below-market, subsidy, taxpayer-financed lending to the People's Republic of China and to Communist Chinese enterprises a year ago. Now they are talking about doing it a year henceforth. The reason Congress needs to act is that, in our system of government, we control the purse strings, it is the taxpayers' money, and the time has come, as all can see, to recognize that the nation with the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world, with so much outstanding credit, that is, loans that it has made to others, $48 billion in outstanding loans from private creditors as of 2 years ago, and that number has gone up, that that nation no longer needs to have access to concessional lending from multilateral development banks that is meant for nations in poverty who do not have access to capital markets. This is precisely the right remedy. It is precisely the right remedy. This bill clarifies policy, applies sensible policy, and applies it across the board in a fair way. It is a pro-free-market bill. It is a pro-American bill, and it is a pro-China bill. As we have seen in the debate over so many of these other bills, if we are to be a friend of China, we have to be a friend of an increasingly free China. We have to be honest with ourselves and recognize that trade with China, which, as we all recognize, runs mostly one way right now, they have an enormous trade surplus with us, we have a lot of money over there, but, frankly, we import from them, whereas they do not buy our things, that it is, unfortunately, one way to their advantage. Whereas Taiwan, a much smaller country with a fraction of the population, buys 60 percent more from the United States than does the People's Republic of China, China is hoarding these foreign exchange reserves, apparently to a purpose. That is their right. They have access to our capital markets. They are selling their bonds and stocks, so on, over here. That is their right. But then the appropriate response is not for the United States to subsidize lending back to that same trading partner. And so this bill, the Communist Chinese Subsidy Reduction Act, which targets only those loans that are below market, that are clearly subsidies from the taxpayer, is exactly the right thing to do. It is why the chairman is right to bring it. It is why the Committee on Banking and Finance is right to send it to the floor. And it is why I hope all of my colleagues will vote now in favor of it.

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

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and I also thank the ranking member for his very, very worthwhile comments and important perspective on this, because, frankly, we are this close, even though he opposes the bill, to agreeing on all the fundamental points. The ranking member, after all, makes the point that while this bill would support a study of cooperation with Taiwan on theater missile defense, that is already our policy. We already supply missile defense systems. We have supplied four Patriot systems to Taiwan. We already cooperate with them on missile defense. But, whereas the fact that this bill is consistent with our policy is my reason for supporting it and offering it, it is the ranking member's reason for opposing it. As we heard in debate, the Patriot systems that we have made available to Taiwan, and which, incidentally, Taiwan purchases, we do not provide them as foreign aid, they have long since outgrown that, are inadequate to deal with the very realistic threats that Taiwan now faces and that this Congress faced in one of its finest moments last year. We all recall when Franklin Delano Roosevelt called the United States of America the arsenal of democracy, making it very plain that sometimes in order to have freedom one has to fight for it, and the United States was then and is now the arsenal of democracy. But the People's Republic of China we saw last year is essentially the arsenal of antidemocracy, because they used their military power to try to prevent legislative elections in 1995 in Taiwan and the first ever presidential elections in 1996, in 5,000 years of Chinese history. The People's Republic of China, the government run by the Communist Party in Beijing, is fond of saying that Taiwan is but a province of China, it is part of China. If that is so, then we in America should reward the progress that democracy is making in Taiwan. We, in America, should look favorably upon this, and we should look with grave concern upon any effort by the largest standing military on Earth, the People's Liberation Army, to use force to prevent democracy in Taiwan, and that is exactly what went on in 1995 when missiles were launched in order to intimidate the electorate. When that preceded in 1996, when 150,000 troops were amassed in Fujian Province right on the border of the Taiwan Strait, 220 fighter aircraft, and when the effect of launching the missiles was to blockade, effectively, the entire island, both ends of the Island of Taiwan and interfere not just with Taiwan's shipping, but with the United States, to interfere with commercial shipping, to interfere with commercial air travel by the United States, we took it very, very seriously, and we also responded here in the Congress. The United States House of Representatives moved a very pointed resolution on the floor of this House that I introduced, the Policy Committee prepared, that stated that if the People's Republic of China should try to invade the Island of Taiwan by force, without provocation to attack Taiwan, then the United States would defend Taiwan, and that resolution passed this House of Representatives with 435 Members, with only 14 votes against. It was a strong and clear statement, a strong and clear statement in response to what theretofore had been the Clinton administration's utterly ambiguous policy. In fact, the Clinton administration called their policy strategic ambiguity. But abandoning immediately their policy of so-called strategic ambiguity in the teeth of this very, very clear statement from the United States Congress within days of the passage of our resolution, stating clearly that if, without provocation, the People's Republic of China would attack the Island of Taiwan, the administration sent two carrier battle groups into the Taiwan Strait, a clear show of support for the democratic elections that were about to take place on the Island of Taiwan. And within days of that measure, the People's Republic of China canceled the scheduled balance of their military exercises of the missile test and called off the blockade. The scheduled presidential elections, the first ever in 5,000 years of Chinese history, took place on schedule. The months following have been peaceful. That is all to the good. But it is ironic that the Clinton administration described its own policy of strategic ambiguity when that would be my criticism of it. How is the government in Beijing to know what would be the United States response if they did attack, and why would we want them to be in the dark about that? We were risking war through weakness, rather than advancing a policy of peace through strength. The missile threat to Taiwan is very, very clear. That is why our policy of cooperating with them on theater missile defense is the right policy, and that is why congressional leadership on this issue remains important. What this bill seeks is very simple, a study by the Defense Department, by the Clinton Defense Department, of an appropriate defensive system for the Asia Pacific region. There is a July 1, 1998 reporting date back to the Congress, and the Clinton administration will make its own determination in that report to Congress whether or not an adequate missile defense, adequate to the new threats, the very real and existing threats that Taiwan now faces, is available for sale to Taiwan, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, and in fact, that is the language of the bill itself. That is what this bill does. It is utterly reasonable, and because this Congress has so strongly in the past supported the Taiwan Relations Act, made it clear to the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party in Beijing that aggression is no way to deal with the cross-strait problems, it is important that we not back away from that tonight. It is important that we vote in favor of this legislation, because the peace of the strait depends upon it, because the peace of Asia and the Pacific depend upon it, and the peace of the world depend upon it. I congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for bringing this bill to the floor, and I congratulate its author, the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, slavery is an ugly institution, and its most hideous and virulent form is prison slave labor. Slavery was not officially abolished in imperial China until the end of the Manchu dynasty in 1908, and even then, the law permitted families in time of famine to indenture their children for over 20 years. But even though slavery was not officially abolished in China until earlier in this century, it was the ignominious achievement of Chinese communism to reinstate it in the form of the notorious Laogai slave labor camps. The Laogai, or reform through labor, camps have been an integral part of Chinese totalitarianism since the inception of the People's Republic of China in 1949. They are designed for the dual purposes of political control and forced development modeled on Stalin's Soviet gulag. An estimated 50 million Chinese men and women have passed through these camps, of whom 15 million have perished. Today, anywhere from 6 to 8 million people are captive in the 1,100 camps of the Laogai, held and forced to work under grossly inhumane conditions. The People's Republic of China tells us that this does not go on at all, but today the United States does not impose punitive tariffs on these products, we ban them. Mr. Speaker, 27 specified products of the Laogai camps are already kept out by our Customs agents and yet the Customs authorities tell us they just do not have the resources to do the job and this bill gives them those resources. The United States has two agreements with the People's Republic of China, binding agreements executed in 1992 and 1994, that not only bar trade on prison-made slave labor products, but also allow the United States to inspect those forced labor camps. But the Chinese Government, in 1996, allowed us access to just one of those. This bill requires the President to renegotiate that MOU and rectify the situation. I congratulate the author, and I urge support of the gentleman's bill on slave labor products.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for yielding time. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act is at bottom what we are discussing here and requires a joint resolution of Congress before any nuclear-related trade between an United States company or the United States Government and any other country, so Congress has to act. Senator Glenn amended this law in 1978 with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, and that law forbids nuclear-related exports to any country that, after March 10, 1978, assisted, encouraged or induced any non-nuclear Nation to engage in nuclear activities. That includes civilian nuclear activities. On December 16, 1985, Congress passed a joint resolution prospectively approving a U.S.-People's Republic of China nuclear sale, provided that prior to the implementation of that agreement the President certifies that the People's Republic of China is a member in good standing of the community of nonproliferating nations. As my colleagues have heard from all that has gone before, the People's Republic of China takes the view that we do not do it, we do not proliferate, and in any case, we will not do it anymore. They have, in fact, been proliferating, and they have been doing it all the way up to the present time. Mr. Speaker, this is the report of the Director of Central Intelligence to Congress dated June 1997, and what it says, it has been quoted in this debate previously, is that China was the primary source of nuclear-related equipment and technology to Pakistan and a key supplier to Iran during the reporting period. Incidentally, Iran also obtained considerable chemical weapons-related assistance from China in the form of production equipment and technology. The Chinese Foreign Minister told us at our breakfast here just a few days ago with President Jiang Zemin and the Foreign Minister that China has never done these things. So we cannot accept their assurances, and yet that is all we have. The Presidential certification required by law is based on a prospective promise, a piece of paper, even though we know that what they are telling us today that they have not done in the past is untrue. China has a huge credibility gap. The assertion by China's foreign ministry that China would refuse to provide America with assurances on nuclear cooperation with Iran since China was not engaged in such cooperation which led up to the summit are an indication of what we are up against. This bill, this amendment to the bill, does nothing more than give Congress adequate time to discharge its responsibility, which we have had since 1954. In the circumstances, since China's cooperation is going to be entirely prospective, it is utterly reasonable, and I urge the support of my colleagues for this very reasonable amendment.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], author of the bill, for yielding me time. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleagues in the majority and minority parties on such an important measure that is not just a sense of the Congress resolution, that does not just express outrage, it is not just a cry of pain, but rather, that does something, something within our control. We can, and we will as a result of this legislation, keep track of what is going on in the People's Republic of China as never before. As my colleague the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has just pointed out, when President Jiang visited with us and when we breakfasted here with him in the Capitol, he simply denied that there were human rights problems in the People's Republic of China. He told a nationwide TV audience, ``China does not feel that it has done anything wrong in the field of human rights.'' And yet, we know from the Clinton administration's report, which has been cited several times on the floor during this debate, that exactly the opposite is true. Not only has the human rights situation not been improving as a result of or in connection with or coincidence with our policy of engagement, it has been getting worse. Quoting, from the Clinton State Department's report, ``The authorities stepped up efforts to cut off expressions of protest or criticism. All public dissent against the party,'' that is the Communist Party, the only party permitted in the People's Republic of China, ``and the Government was effectively silenced.'' We are discussing this legislation and the need for it immediately in the wake of President Jiang's visit. And it is fair to ask whether anything happened at the summit that militates now against this initiative or whether this initiative will jeopardize any of the summit's accomplishments. That requires us to pierce the fog of the summit's atmospherics and realistically assess its concrete results. In this respect, the remarks of my colleagues who spoke immediately prior to me make it very, very clear that, yes, President Jiang, just as conventional wisdom holds, had a successful summit. He stuck to his agenda. He got his way. But the people of China, particularly the political prisoners of China, particularly those few whose human rights cases have been so visibly raised and so consistently raised by the United States that we expected perhaps in the glow of the summit they might win their release, got precisely nothing. For Wang Dan, for Wei Jingsheng, this was not a successful summit at all. Wei Jingsheng, whom some have called the father of Chinese democracy, was once, just like solidarity leader Lech Walesa, an electrician. But this son of a Communist Party official has spent most of his adult life in Communist Chinese prisons and reeducation camps. In 1978, Wei posted his essays on freedom, his writings on freedom, written in large characters, on a stretch of masonry that became known as Democracy Wall. And in return, the Communist government sentenced him to 14 years in some of Communist China's worst prisons. Just 6 months before his final year in confinement, he was briefly released on the eve of the International Olympic Committee's deciding whether to let Beijing host the year 2000 Olympics. When the People's Republic of China lost its Olympic bid, Wei was immediately arrested again. For nearly 2 years after that, he was held in secret detention without any specific charges. And finally, in 1996, Wei Jingsheng was given a show trial on shamelessly straightforward charges of writing in behalf of democracy. The Communist authorities kept the trial closed to the public and the press and even denied him the legal counsel offered by two United States Attorneys General, one a Democrat, Nicholas Katzenbach and the other a Republican, Richard Thornburgh. Today, Wei Jingsheng is 46-years-old. He suffers from heart disease and arthritis at this early age, he is my age, that caused him debilitating back pain. The last time his family saw him, he was unable to keep his head upright. As part of a campaign to break his spirit, the Communist authorities have cut off the heat to his solitary confinement cell in winter, kept him under lights to deny him sleep, and refused him medical attention. This is the kind of abuse that we are after in this legislation. This is the reason that the Ros-Lehtinen bill is so important and the reason I am so proud to join with my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in support of this legislation.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time. The recent visit of President Jiang Zemin has focused the attention of the American people on our relations with the People's Republic of China in a very constructive way. To the extent that the summit was meant to promote cordial relations between our two states and friendly dialog, it was a success. For President Jiang was warmly received, he was provided a 21-gun salute, a State dinner, a breakfast here on Capitol Hill with our congressional leadership, and he even had a chance to address the American people on the ``McNeil-Lehrer News Hour.'' Because we respect his position as the head of the Communist Party and as the President of the People's Republic of China, and because we recognize the importance of cordial relations with the world's most populous nation, we received him properly and openly. But there is more to our relationship than summitry and warm expressions of goodwill. We also must do the hard work of hammering out our distinctions on security issues, on the proliferation of technology for weapons of mass destruction, and on human rights, all of which are of fundamental importance, not just to the peoples of our countries, but to the people of the whole world. For many years, United States policy toward the People's Republic of China has been mired in debate over MFN status, most favored nation trade status for the People's Republic of China. This is a stalemate that has frustrated all sides of the debate and hindered the development of a coherent China policy that addresses the diverse aspects of our relationship, many of which have little, if anything, to do with trade. The attempt to refract every element of our policy toward the People's Republic of China through this single annual debate on trade policy has failed to do justice to what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] rightly observes as a complex relationship. Because the choice presented in the MFN debate was binary, it was like a light switch on and off, we could not calibrate our responses to the nuance and change in the relationship. Even worse, the threat of MFN denial lost credibility with China's Government, providing the United States with little leverage on either trade or nontrade issues. To move beyond this stalemate, the House adopted House Resolution 461 a year and a half ago, in June 1996. This resolution passed the House with bipartisan support. Let me quantify what I mean by ``bipartisan support.'' The vote was 411-7. It is stated, the debate over Communist China's most favored nation trade status cannot bear the weight of the entire relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Instead, the bill enumerated in detail a series of concerns about the activities of the Communist Chinese military, about China's human rights record and about their economic and trade policy, and it charged the standing House committees of jurisdiction with holding hearings and reporting out appropriate legislation tailored to these separate concerns. Six of our standing committees have now fulfilled that charge and sent to the floor nine separate pieces of legislation that contain discrete and measured responses to each of the serious issues in our bilateral relationship with the People's Republic of China. Together these bills comprise a very positive policy for freedom that does not involve MFN but that does provide needed clarity to these important issues. This effort remains thoroughly bipartisan. I want to recognize the hard work and the positive contributions of the Democrats as well as Republicans who have put this package together. It is the reason that I am addressing Members from the minority side of the aisle. I wanted to walk across to tangibly illustrate just how much we have worked together with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader; with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], as well as the authors of the legislation that we will be considering: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce] as well as scores of our colleagues. Our policy for freedom supports a growing, positive relationship with a free China and it recognizes that the people of China are not the same as the regime in China. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with a brief story from Chinese history, and a thought: When the Ming Dynasty replaced the Mongols in the 14th century, China embarked on its own Age of Exploration, an era that antedated, and rivaled in every respect, the exploration and the discovery that was going on in Europe at the time. Chinese fleets scoured the Indian Ocean. They visited Indonesia, Ceylon, even the Red Sea and Africa, where they brought back giraffes to surprise and amaze people back home. But this is where Chinese exploration ended. Who knows? With a little more wind, they might have rounded the Cape of Good Hope before the Portuguese. They might have reached Europe. They might even have discovered America. Today, the irrepressible dreams of human freedom live on in China's diverse and tolerant peoples. But China's explorers and discoverers are kept down by the worst of the 20th century's legacies, the last vestiges of totalitarianism, which also live on still in Communist China. It is my hope that as we close the 20th century, America, whose unique mission in the world is to promote freedom, can provide the Chinese people with a little wind at their back so that this time they will round the corner, this time they really will be free, and so that our friendship will truly be strong and the world will be a much safer place. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for bringing this package together with the cooperation of both majority and minority Members and for the splendid debate that I know that we will have in the next 10 hours.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 1997, for morning hour debates.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to defend the late William French Smith, who cannot be here to defend himself. When the Attorney General of the United States determined that it was not appropriate to institute on behalf of the Congress of the United States enforcement proceedings for a congressional subpoena, he was doing something very different than what we are talking about here tonight. What we have before us is a subpoena that has been authorized by the United States District Court. No such authorization was given in the case of the Gorsuch subpoena. That was a subpoena issued by Congress without any court involvement.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and appreciating fully the arguments just advanced by my colleague from Massachusetts and former law school classmate, if there is just one Federal district judge that has ruled here, then we ought not to listen to the Federal courts when he ruled that a subpoena is not validly enforceable and what really matters is that people be given time to appeal, then one would think that we would not hear from the gentleman, that this thing has got to be over and shut down, that we cannot have an investigation, that it is taking too long. However, there are two simultaneous arguments. One is, this investigation should be dropped, it has not turned up anything after all of these months. The other is, we have litigated this through the district court and lost, but we deserve an opportunity now to litigate further and appeal. If you get to appeal and argue some more, even though you have already lost in Federal district court, obviously that consumes weeks and months and so on, and meantime, the subpoena issued under the Federal Contested Elections Act is not honored, the documents are not returned, the investigation cannot go forward, it is stalled. So pick your arguments. Either say we are going to have more time for this investigation because we need to wait for the Court of Appeals to rule on the validity of the subpoenas, or say we are in a rush and therefore the way the district court has ruled has to be adequate here, and let us go and enforce the subpoena based on the district court ruling. Obviously, we cannot walk north and south at the same time, but we are trying to get this done in a hurry. The Federal Contested Elections Act contemplates that we would decide this in what we would consider to be real time, that is, an election cycle, rather than what in the Federal courts typically is a normal period of time for civil litigation, which can be 4 and 5 years and so on. I think we are doing the right thing here by drawing the attention of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's office to the issuance of a valid subpoena, something that has been litigated in district court, as you point out, Hermandad lost, they tried to resist the subpoena, and at this point Congress, in support of our own process, the Federal Contested Elections Act, and it would not matter if this were the Democratic Congress in control and so on, it would be the same story. We ought to stand behind the legal process, both of this Congress and of the Federal courts.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. I wish in turn to recognize the efforts of the chairman on this very subject and I look forward to working with the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, in light of the committee's intention to terminate U.S. funding of KEDO if the original premises are no longer valid, my amendment is rendered unnecessary, and I would withdraw it.

Mr. COX of California. I thank the chairman once again. Mr. Chairman, an amendment to strike the funding in the bill for KEDO was made in order. My amendment was prompted by reports that North Korea has in fact developed nuclear weapons, that it has thus far failed to permit third-party inspections of its nuclear facilities adequate to account for its stocks of highly enriched weapons-grade plutonium and that KEDO has sought to borrow funds in excess of its direct international funding. Since the committee's inclusion of KEDO funding is premised on the administration's representations about these very matters, I once again inquire, will the chairman be willing to revisit the provision of this bill at a future date if the reports to which I have referred prove to be true?

Mr. COX of California. I thank the chairman. I wonder if I might inquire whether it is the chairman's further understanding that KEDO is assuming substantial debts with some estimates that these debts total over $40 million?