C. Cox

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Immigration in the National Interest Act, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman, for the work he has done in bringing this balanced bill to the floor. In addition to my chairmanship of the policy committee, I am the vice chairman of the Speaker's task force on California, and our task force has made reform of illegal immigration, fighting illegal immigration, our No. 1 State priority here in the Congress. This bill answers that call. In 1994, the voters of California sent a very loud message all the way here to Washington, DC, all the way to the floor of this Congress: Immigration, a Federal responsibility, needs to be looked after by the Federal Government. Illegal immigration, which affects California disproportionately; we have over half the illegal immigrants in America in our State, needs to be looked after. Prop 187 was simple. It denied welfare and social service benefits to illegal aliens. This bill will fulfill that promise at the Federal level. This bill and amendments that Chairman Smith has made in order on the floor will succeed in ensuring that the procedures for deporting people who are in the country illegally and who should be sent back to their own countries, that those procedures will be streamlined, that it will not take forever and a day to go through the judicial process for this purpose. It will add sufficient Border Patrol agents, 10,000 of them, so that we can actually enforce the law. It will end welfare dependency among illegal aliens by tightening the existing restrictions against receipt of benefits by illegal aliens and putting teeth into the sponsorship regulations that have been long on the books, but never enforced. This law will permit us to enforce them. There is something else that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman, has permitted to come to the floor in his manager's amendment that I think is going to be very, very important for us in southern California. Residents of Orange County were reminded of the costly delays in the current deportation process 6 months ago when Officer Tim Garcia of the Anaheim Police Force was shot and seriously wounded by an illegal alien with a criminal record. This was not an isolated instance in Anaheim. A recent 60-day survey indicates that 35 percent of all the inmates sent to the Anaheim jail are illegal aliens. The manager's amendment in this bill is going to correct this tragedy through the establishment of a 6-month project in Anaheim which will lead the way for the rest of the country. An INS agent will be stationed, the city of Anaheim's incarceration facilities to perform frontline documentation and appropriate questioning of criminally charged suspected illegal aliens. This and other provisions to this bill make it a remarkable achievement. I want to congratulate the bipartisan leadership that has brought this bill to the floor. It is, in fact, a bipartisan effort, and it is long overdue.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the inclusion of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] in the manager's amendment, the inclusion of provisions that will help us make sure that our law really means what it says; that is, that you cannot come into this country illegally, but you must follow the rules in the process. Mr. Chairman, if the Federal Government has a law that requires an honest procedure for admission into the country, and people violate it willfully, once they are successful in doing so, once they make it across the border, they are not subject to any realistic threat of enforcement of the law if there is no realistic prospect of deportation. We are going to have ever worsening problems of illegal immigration, and with millions, millions of lawbreakers in this respect, millions of people crossing our borders illegally, it is quickly becoming beyond the capacity of the INS to keep up. There is not any realistic threat of enforcement, because they simply are not doing the job. Mr. Chairman, if the Federal Government were in charge of prosecuting all murders, rapes, robberies, or what have you in America, we would have a big bottleneck, and nobody would ever get prosecuted for anything, but we have a marvelous system for dealing with that problem. All the important laws in America are enforced by our police, are enforced in our State courts. The amendment included in the manager's amendment would permit the Attorney General of the United States to deputize States who elect and who are willing to use their own resources to assist in the enforcement of these Federal laws. Only when we do that, only when we expand the number of personnel who are involved in picking up people in violation of the law, only when we expand the court facilities that we have to process deportation matters, are we going to have a realistic threat of enforcement of the law. That is why this amendment is so important. I note in response to my colleague from California's concerns that the Attorney General will enter into agreements with States requiring ongoing Federal supervision of these efforts so that everything will be conducted under the watch of the INS and the Attorney General in conformity with Federal standards. I think this is a very wise and sound amendment, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] for including it in his manager's amendment.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the preceding speaker's remarks concerning the events now taking place in the Taiwan Strait. It is very, very important that this Congress is treating this issue today on the floor. It is very, very important that the United States of America make clear to the People's Republic of China that a war of aggression waged against the democracy on Taiwan will not be accepted, not by the United States, not by the free world, and that is the world that Taiwan is joining, because right now, in the days ahead, Taiwan is preparing for the first ever free, fair, open, and democratic elections of a head of government in nearly 5,000 years of Chinese history. This is an extraordinary achievement which all of us applaud, and we should. Communism, which continues to reign in the People's Republic of China, is the antithesis of democracy. Wei Jingsheng, who was recently sentenced again to prison for his role as a democracy activist in the People's Republic, is recent testimony to how stark that difference is. The People's Republic of China is free to maintain its Communist dictatorship. It is free to abuse human rights. It is free to in every respect, economic and political, differ from the free people on Taiwan and do all of this without military threat from the United States or anyone. In fact, we openly trade with the People's Republic of China. But what they are not free to do, what they have no right to do, in nature or in law, is to mount an unprovoked military assault against the island democracy on Taiwan. Right now, the People's Republic of China is threatening freedom in the world because they are threatening this military invasion. The United States policy has been and shall remain that we will trust any outcome peaceably achieved through diplomatic negotiations and ongoing discussions and all other peaceful meetings between the Government on Taiwan and the Government in Beijing, the Communist Government of the People's Republic of China. Unilateral imposition of a solution, least of all by military force, is not acceptable. in the Shanghai Communique, which the preceding speaker referred to, in 1982, the People's Republic of China agreed that they would seek a peaceful resolution of any disagreements they have with Taiwan. That is what everyone in the world should support. Naked military aggression targeted against a democracy is something that everyone here should understand threatens each of us. What we want in that region is peace. What we do not want is inadvertent war. Right now the Communist leaders in Beijing are pushing and pushing and pushing as hard as they can, competing in fact with one another, to see which of them is going to succeed to the head of that dictatorship, and they are trying to show who is the most muscular, who is the most Communist, who is the most opposed to democracy. As they push and push and push, they must understand that there is a line beyond which they must not go, and that is launching a military assault against Taiwan. If the United States is ambiguous on this point, we risk war through weakness. We will not have war. We will have peace if we are quite clear in this aspect of our foreign policy. But there is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost from saying we are not sure what would happen if the People's Republic of China were to launch a military invasion of Taiwan, because the truth is we do know the answer to that, and we ought to tell Beijing first before it happens. The People's Republic of China is our sixth-largest trading partner. Taiwan is America's seventh-largest trading partner. Because the PRC runs a huge trade deficit with America, it is true that Taiwan actually buys more from the United States than does the Communist government in China. Because they are respectively our sixth- and seventh-largest trading partners, we have nothing to gain from a war in the Taiwan Strait. We in America must be the peacemakers, and there is only one way for the world's only superpower to maintain peace here, and that is to be clear. We have no diplomacy that can help us once there is a war that is started on a mistaken premise that the United States will not respond. But we do have a means--because of our relationship with both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China--have a means to keep the peace, and that is to let them know that America stands by its friendship with the peaceful government on Taiwan. Taiwan is not a threat to the PRC. The PRC, the People's Republic of China, must not be a threat to the free government on Taiwan.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues, particularly on the Committee on International Relations, the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the Democratic and Republican cochairs respectively of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and all of the Members, Democrat and Republican, who stand in support of the principles of freedom and democracy embodied in this resolution today. This is a strongly bipartisan resolution. It is in strong support of America's longstanding foreign policy vis-a-vis both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China since 1979. Specifically, we do and will continue to support the peaceful dialog between Taiwan and Communist China. We will support whatever arrangements they peaceably make between themselves. We shall not impose our own view as to their futures. But we expect the People's Republic of China and Taiwan to live up to their respective commitments to a peaceful process. In the Shanghai communique of 1982, the People's Republic of China pledged to the United States that they would pursue peaceful rather than violent means of settling the question of the future of Taiwan. Since that time, in fact since 1979, and the Taiwan Relations Act, this Congress and every President has supported democracy and its development on Taiwan. What we will see this Saturday is the full flowering of that successful policy. We will see following last year's free, open, fair, and democratic legislative elections on Taiwan, the first ever free, fair, open, and democratic election for the head of Government in Chinese history, in over 4,000 years of recorded Chinese history. Everyone in America and everyone in this Congress applauds that development. But the Communists who are jockeying for position and power in Beijing this moment feel threatened alone by that democracy and that freedom and, therefore, they are using this military campaign to influence the vote on Saturday, to intimidate Taiwanese democracy and to make it plain that they believe they have a right, not accorded them in law or nature, to seize Taiwan, its people, and its Government by military force. If that happens, there is no question what would be the United States response indeed what would be the response of the free world. We would be there to defend the free people and the open society and the democracy on Taiwan. Since that is the case, it is vitally important that we make that plain, diplomatically, privately, and publicly to the rulers in Beijing. They must not wage a campaign of assault and military aggression against Taiwan on the mistaken premise that the United States would not use force. Unfortunately, some in the administration made comments to this effect over the period of the last year and a half. Right now there is not much question. The United States military is present in the Taiwan Straits as we speak, and another carrier is steaming its way there from the Persian Gulf. The President needs to be supported in these communications with the P.R.C. There cannot be any doubt. The time for ambiguity is over and the time for clarity is upon us. Our friendship with the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, different in each case, based chiefly on mercantile and trade interests in the one and on our sharing of democratic values on the other, would only be disrupted by war in the Taiwan Straits. We have a strong interest in peace. The People's Republic of China is America's sixth- largest trading partner. Taiwan is our seventh-largest trading partner. The P.R.C. runs, in fact, the largest trade deficit with America. It is true that Taiwan, in fact, buys more from the United States of America than does the People's Republic of China. We certainly have nothing to gain in a material sense from war in the Taiwan Straits. Likewise, we have nothing to gain from the loss of the gains of freedom and democracy on Taiwan over these last many years. Today we will send a strong message of support and encouragement for our foreign policy of so many administrations, so many years and decades, of friendship toward the democracy and free and open society on Taiwan and of support for continued peaceful discussions between the People's Republic of China and the Government on Taiwan about their future relationship. The free world will defend democracy, if it should come to that. But we wish to have peace through clarity and through strength rather than war through weak negotiation. Lest we be misjudged, we pass this resolution today. Again, I want to congratulate my Republican and Democratic cosponsors, including all of the House leadership behind this resolution today.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentlewoman from Colorado say that the death penalty is another issue; we do not need to deal with the death penalty in this year. The death penalty is the essence of this bill. In fact, the name of the bill is the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act. Why then should we amend the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act to take out the death penalty, to gut the death penalty provisions? We might then just call this gutted bill the ``no more death penalty act.'' In California we have had only three executions of convicted first degree murderers since the 1960's. One of those three convictions was of a man named Robert Alton Harris. Earlier last year I came to the floor with what I called the Robert Alton Harris bill. It was approved by an enormous bipartisan majority of this House. The purpose of this substitute would be to gut the bill of those provisions that would give us an effective death penalty. President Bill Clinton supports the provisions that this substitute would strike out. Let me read from what the President said recently on television. Bill Clinton said: In death penalty cases, it normally takes eight years to exhaust the appeals. It is ridiculous. If you have multiple convictions, it could take even longer. So there is a strong sense in the Congress I think among Members of both parties that we need to get down to sort of one clear appeal. We need to cut the time delay on the appeals dramatically. And it ought to be done in the context of this terrorism legislation, so that it would apply to any prosecutions brought against anyone indicted in Oklahoma. I think it ought to be done. So said President Clinton. Those who say that the death penalty has no place in this bill, it is another issue, and want us to pass this substitute to gut the bill, are just wrong. There is a big bipartisan majority in this House in favor of the provisions. We voted before strongly in their support. Let us do it again. Let us defeat this amendment.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, many Government rules and regulations now on the books are obsolete and just plain burdensome. Today, with bipartisan support, and in behalf of taxpayers across the Nation, I am introducing the Fast and Efficient Tax Filing Act to correct one of these obsolete regulations. Every April 15, thousands of Americans nationwide wait in long lines at the U.S. Postal Service to mail their tax returns and receive their registered mail receipts which prove that their documents were mailed on time. So even though the tax documents might arrive at the Internal Revenue Service 2 or 3 days after the due date, it is counted as being delivered on the date of the registered mail receipt. This is a good rule--it gives taxpayers peace of mind that they will not be fined or penalized if the Postal Service takes longer than expected to deliver the documents. However, like so many other things, the devil is in the details. This timely-mailing-as-timely-filing rule applies only to documents delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. So if the same taxpayer sent his or her tax documents on the due date via Federal Express, United Parcel Service, or some other reliable private delivery service, the timely- mailing-as-timely-filing rule would not apply, and the tax documents would be considered officially late. The timely-mailings-as-timely-filing rule was written at a time when only the U.S. Postal Service delivered mail. Today, it doesn't make any sense to limit the timely-mailing-as-timely-filing provision just to documents delivered by the U.S. Postal Service when many alternative methods are much more reliable and quicker. The Fast and Efficient Tax Filing Act will correct this inequity by permitting the Secretary of the Treasury to expand the timely-mailing- as-timely-filing rule to include qualified private delivery services. This would both increase the efficiency of the IRS and make it easier for taxpayers to file their tax returns on time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the Record letters of endorsement for the Fast and Efficient Tax Filing Act from the National Taxpayers Union, the United Parcel Service, and even from a former IRS Commissioner. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill, so that we may make life a bit easier for millions of American taxpayers. National Taxpayers Union, Alexandria, VA, March 7, 1996. Hon. Christopher Cox, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cox: The 300,000-member National Taxpayers Union strongly supports your Fast and Efficient Tax Filing Act, which would permit the Secretary of the Treasury to designate qualified delivery services for purposes of timely filing of tax documents with the Internal Revenue Service and Tax Court. Many aspects of the Internal Revenue Code and its enforcement seem outmoded and inconsistent, but few are as archaic as the policy on the filing of tax documents. Few taxpayers are aware of the fact that the IRS will only accept a receipt from the U.S. Postal Service as evidence that a document was delivered to the tax agency on time. Every year many citizens have been placed in financial peril simply because they made a reasonable assumption that a receipt from a delivery service was adequate. With the onset of the Information Age, many national delivery services have proven to be more reliable than the U.S. Postal Service. Indeed, private companies from law firms to financial industries often entrust Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and many others to quickly deliver documents upon which their livelihoods depend. Yet, current IRS policy forces taxpayers to patronize the postal monopoly. Your legislation would also make the filing of important documents more convenient for taxpayers who do not have easy access to a Post Office, or do not have time to wait in long lines for Registered Mail receipts. Private delivery firms can provide the personalized, door-to-door service many citizens prefer. A federal appeals court in San Francisco recently upheld a lower court ruling that the judicial branch cannot compel the IRS to recognize the receipts of reputable delivery services. According to the ruling, while a taxpayer may ``put forth what may be a legitimate policy rationale for extending the rule to private delivery services, it is for Congress, not the courts, to make such a change.'' For this reason, taxpayers are now looking to Congress to remove this onerous and pointless compliance burden. Congress should modernize the tax filing law by enacting the Fast and Efficient Tax Filing Act. Sincerely, David Keating, Executive Vice President.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Madam Speaker, just in reply to the remarks of my colleague from Colorado I have to say I agree completely, that women have been leaders in every field of human endeavor, including conservative politics, and for that reason there are women all over America who cheerfully disagree with the gentlewoman from Colorado on many subjects. Let me talk about something that I think all of us here in the House can agree with, and that is the importance of a united U.S. foreign policy in Asia at this moment. In just 2 weeks Taiwan will have its first direct presidential election, the first fully free and democratic election of a head of state in nearly 5,000 years, in 4,700 years, of Chinese civilization. This is a remarkable achievement, and Americans should be enormously proud of Taiwan's democracy. The thriving democracy on Taiwan stands in marked contrast to the continuation of communism across the Taiwan Strait and the People's Republic of China. Madam Speaker, Taiwan is America's seventh largest trading partner. The People's Republic of China is the sixth largest trading partner of America, and yet the People's Republic of China has 250 times the territory of Taiwan, it has 60 times its population. Consider then that Taiwan, and its people, and its economy actually buy more goods and services from America than does the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China is our sixth largest trading partner as compared to Taiwan, our seventh, only because they have an enormous trade deficit, in fact the largest in the world, with us. We have, from a trade standpoint, a very strong interest in being friendly to both the People's Republic of China and to Taiwan. But because the Communist government in Beijing believes that democracy on Taiwan threatens its continued existence, they have been intimidating, through military brut force, the voters on Taiwan. Today the People's Republic of China began launching missiles over the Taiwan Strait. It will do so, we are told, for 8 days, between now and March 15, in particular in 2 target areas 20 miles east of Keeling, a port city in the northeastern part of Taiwan, and 30 miles west of Kaohsiung, a port city in the southwestern part of Taiwan. I want to underscore as we meet here tonight that Communist China has already begun firing these missiles. Over 70 percent of commercial shipping enters Taiwan through these two port cities that I mentioned. Already military actions undertaken by the Communist government in Beijing have amounted effectively to a partial blockade of Taiwan. They have disrupted already commercial shipping in the Taiwan Strait. They have even disrupted airline traffic which has had to be rerouted around the island. This is not the first time in the runup to these elections that Communist China has sought to intimidate freedom and democracy in Taiwan. The People's Republic of China has conducted large scale military maneuvers to intimidate Taiwan before its legislative elections in December. The latest round of intimidation, just recently, includes amassing 150,000 Chinese troops and 220 fighter aircraft just miles from Taiwan. And China, when the People's Republic of China sought to intimidate voters as they went to legislative elections, they fired nuclear capable missiles about 100 miles north of Taiwan last July. The People's Republic of China has officially and unofficially told the United States that they have developed plans for a 30-day missile attack of Taiwan. People's Republic of China officials told former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia, Chas Freeman, that they have developed such plans. They told a Stanford scholar, John Lewis, who is close our Defense Secretary Perry, that they have developed plans for a sustained 30-day missile assault on Taiwan. These same military leaders have even made a thinly veiled threat against the United States, communicating again with Chas Freeman, that they might attack the United State with nuclear weapons should we concern ourselves with the preservation of democracy and freedom on Taiwan in the face of a Communist Chinese military assault. Madam Speaker, it is outrageous that Communist China is planning and threatening a military invasion of Taiwan. Nothing in law or nature gives the communists the right to launch a military attack on millions of innocent civilians there. It is doubly outrageous that they are doing so to intimidate democracy, and for this reason today a bipartisan group of House Members has introduced a resolution. It is numbered House Concurrent Resolution 148. I just note that it is House Concurrent Resolution 148, sponsored by every Member of the House leadership and bipartisan leaders, particularly of the Human Rights Caucus, the Democratic and Republican membership of the House of Representatives, and I urge all of my colleagues to sponsor this very important resolution.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, at a recent executive session of the House Republican Policy Committee, which I chair, the Salvatori Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, Dr. Ariel Cohen, made a presentation on the state of affairs in Russia and implications for American foreign policy. He offered an analysis of the December 1995 legislative elections and the presidential elections scheduled for next June, focusing on the growing influence of Communists and ultranationalists. His observations about Russia's stalled economic liberalization, military onslaught against the citizens of Chechnya, and sale of nuclear reactors to Iran force one to reconsider American economic assistance programs for Russia. His briefing report follows. Russia and the New Independent States [NIS]: Promoting U.S. Interests Briefing to the House Republican Policy Committee, Hon. Christopher Cox, (R-CA), Chairman the issues The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations Remains Uncertain. The future of U.S.-Russian relations is uncertain. Much depends upon the outcome of the presidential elections in Russia, currently scheduled for the summer of 1996. In December 1995, elections communists, nationalists and their allies captured over 50 per cent of the popular vote to the Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament). Currently, President Yeltsin is trailing the pack of presidential candidates, with his popular support in single digits. The most popular candidate is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an anti-American ultra- nationalist. Another dangerous contender is Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the unreformed communist party. He, too, could win the presidency of the second largest nuclear power on earth. Victory for either Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov would gravely endanger Russia's young democracy and market reforms. A communist or a nationalist at Russia's helm could eventually place that country, with its considerable military power, on a collision course with the United States in Central Europe or the Middle East. Yeltsin's Presidency Faltering. President Yeltsin's own prospects look grim. He has all but announced that he is about to run for the presidency, but his health is failing, and Russia's internal economic and political crisis continues unabated. The war in the breakaway republic of Chechnya, and economic difficulties are eroding the popularity of Yeltsin's administration. No one knows who will rule in Moscow by the end of 1996, but the period of romantic partnership with the U.S. and the West is over. Russia is striking out on its own, taking a path that has already led toward confrontation with the West. In fact, Russia is in the midst of a political turbulence fraught with dangers for the West. The chances are good that the next American president will have to deal with a new set of players in Moscow, different from the current team. The U.S. cannot afford to appear partisan. Washington should be firm in expressing American support for democracy, elections, free markets and the support of individual rights in Russia. But the continuous and unquestionable support that the Clinton administration is providing Boris Yeltsin makes less and less sense. Questions about how closely and for how much longer Yeltsin should be embraced need to be addressed. From Sphere of Influence to Empire? Anti-Western, anti- American, and xenophobic sentiments are growing in Russia. Moscow is attempting to re-establish its influence in neighboring regions that were once a part of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin is employing combination of economic, diplomatic and military means to achieve a sphere of economic and military influence in what Moscow calls its ``near abroad.'' Yeltsin's newly appointed foreign minister, Yevguenii Primakov, and other influential policy makers insist that the West scale down relations with former Soviet states, including Ukraine, and conduct these ties via Moscow. But in fact, preventing the emergence of a Russian empire in the lands of the former Soviet Union should be a top Western priority. Nothing less than Russian democracy and a future threat to vital Western interests are at stake. Moreover, an anti-Western policy may lead Russia to forge alliances with anti-Western forces in Iran, Iraq, China and Lybia. The War in Chechnya. One of the main goals of the Russian attack on the quasi-independent republic of Chechnya in December of 1994 was to ensure control of a vital oil pipeline and stem illegal activities, such as drug- trafficking and smuggling, that were being conducted or condoned by the former administration in the Chechen capital of Grozny led by President Jokhar Dudayev. Russia launched massive but covert military actions to support Dudayev's opponents. In 1994, Dudayev turned to radical Islamic elements in the Middle East and Central Asia for support. This exacerbated the religious aspect of the conflict between the Muslim Chechens and Christian Orthodox Russians. Overt Russian military action began on December 12, 1994, when the army marched on Grozny. The city was destroyed by a brutal aerial, tank and artillery assault. Since the start of the campaign, over 30,000 people have been killed, and more than 300,000 became refugees. Hostilities continue, with hostage taking crises having erupted in July of 1995 and January of 1996. The southern border region of the Russian Federation increasingly resembles Lebanon or Yugoslavia, replete with hostages, refugees and vendettas. The sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. The Islamic regime in Teheran has launched a bid to acquire nuclear weapons. It is buying two Russian-made nuclear reactors that will produce radioactive plutonium which can be enriched to become weapons-grade raw material for the manufacture of atomic bombs. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself does not support this sale, which could endanger both Russian and Western security. Iran, with its formidable oil and gas resources, does not need nuclear power. If Teheran wants an additional source of electricity, Russia could sell electrical power from its own ample resources. In addition, to compensate Russia for the lost reactor sales, the U.S. could increase its Russian uranium quota, or cooperate in building safer nuclear reactors on Russian soil. Aid to Russia. The Bush and the Clinton administrations have provided over $4 billion dollars in aid to Russia since 1992. Over $20 billion has been provided by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Western governments and multilateral organizations, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Combined aid monies and loans to the USSR and Russia for the period 1985-1995 amounted to over $100 billion. The results of these aid programs have been mixed. The primary agency which implements aid is the U.S. Agency for International Development (US AID), which often disregards Russia's real needs and pushes its own ``development'' agenda, utilizing personnel with expertise gained in Third World countries. The AID approach is hardly appropriate for Russia. Technical assistance in the transition to free markets and democracy is vital. It should be administered by an independent board of U.S. policy makers, Russian area experts, and U.S. business representatives, and with guidance from the U.S. Department of State. The Russians need training in Western-style finance, accounting, management, law, and many other issues. They also need support in the development of the democratic institutions of an emerging civil society, as well as student and scientist exchanges. arms control treaties with russia Four treaties were signed by the USSR and the Russian Federation that require improvement, revision, rethinking. These are: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II). This treaty, limiting the number of strategic nuclear weapons on both sides, was signed between President George Bush and the last leader of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1990, and has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Senate or the Russian Duma. In the U.S., START II is facing a challenge in the Senate. The senators understand that START II makes sense in Washington only if the treaty is compatible with a sound and rational policy that includes missile defense. But the main obstacles to START II ratification are not in Washington. They are in Moscow, where a majority of deputies in the newly elected Duma will probably refuse to ratify. While raising objections based on American intentions to build a missile defense, the real reason for the Russian intransigence lies elsewhere. The Russian military establishment wants to keep large, land- based multiple warhead missiles, such as the SS-18, SS-19 and especially the mobile SS-24. The reason for that is twofold. First and foremost, the Russian elite mistakenly thinks that these are the attributes of a superpower, and that with these tools of destruction Russia will retain the place of its predecessor, the USSR. Secondly, the Ministry of Defense wants to retain the level of investments that were made during the Soviet era. Such old thinking indicates that the lessons of the past have not been learned. Russia cannot become a superpower through such a muscle-bound strategy. Only a democratic Russia with freedom, prosperity and opportunity for all can build wealth and strength commensurate with superpower status. Ballistic Missile Defense/Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. In an era of nuclear proliferation, the American mainland needs to be defended from accidental or terrorist missile launches. This is especially pertinent with Russia selling nuclear reactors and China selling ballistic missiles and technology to the extremist regime in Teheran. The efforts of Saddam Houssein to develop a nuclear ballistic missile capability are also well documented. Ballistic Missile Defense is a limited and achievable goal for the U.S. It should not be thwarted by the obsolete 1972 ABM Treaty signed with the USSR, a country that no longer exists. Russia today claims to be heir to the now-defunct Soviet Union, and is demanding that the U.S. abide by the 1972 treaty. Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Robert Smith (R-NH) have informed Majority Leader Robert Dole that they will ``object to any unanimous consent agreement that would call up START II for final Senate action'' if either the treaty or the Clinton administration prevent the U.S. from deploying a ballistic missile defense system. Despite what critics in Moscow and Washington say, a BMD will not cause a new upward spiraling arms race. The deployment of a defense system will lessen reliance on offensive missiles and will allow the U.S. to achieve lower levels of strategic arms as delineated in START I and II. The limited National Missile Defense will not be aimed against Russia. It is a purely defensive system, and, as President Reagan envisaged, America can cooperate with Russia and its Western allies on developing and deploying such a system. Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Russia joined the CWC and expects the U.S. to do the same. America should support the creation of an arms control regime in the area of chemical weapons. However, such a regime needs to be enforceable and verifiable. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the current CWC, and therefore, the Congress should oppose it and refuse to ratify. The CWC is not verifiable because of the nature of chemical weapons. The ease of secret production, low tech equipment--all make verification extremely difficult. Secondly, the convention is unenforceable, as it places this authority in the hands of the U.N. Security Council, which would be hampered from doing an effective job as all of its permanent members have veto power. It is easy to foresee this body becoming deadlocked precisely when incidents of serious violation arise. Instead, the U.S. should propose a different regime, similar to the NPT, which will divide countries (including the permanent members of the Security Council) into weapon states and non- weapon states. Such a regime would circumvent the issue to veto power in the Security Council. Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). This treaty places limits on the numbers of conventional weapons, such as tanks and cannon, permitted in the European theaters of operation. It was signed with the now-defunct USSR in 1990, after more than two decades of negotiations. In the fall of 1995, the U.S. agreed to Russia's unilateral revision upwards of the limits imposed by the CFE on the northern and southern flanks of Russia. However, the threat to Russia used to justify these revisions is far from obvious. Beefing up the numbers of tanks and cannon on the borders of Russia's neighbors, be it the Baltics or in the Caucasus, raises questions about Moscow's intentions. This is especially relevant with all the rhetoric currently circulating in Moscow about reconstituting the Soviet Union and denunciations of the accords which led to the dissolution of the USSR. Moreover, Russia is far behind on meeting the weapons system destruction targets stipulated by the CFE. other issues on the u.s.-russian agenda Peacekeeping in Bosnia. Many conservatives have misgivings about sending American troops to enforce peace in Bosnia. But if the U.S. has to do it, it is better to keep Russia in than out. The Russian military will gain experience interacting with NATO in Bosnia. This is a positive development. Peace in the region is in the interests of both the U.S. and Russia. However, this peacekeeping mission has to have clearly defined goals and objectives. It must neither exacerbate differences on the ground between NATO and Russian commanders nor magnify them into a political confrontation. It is important to guarantee that the command and control system in Bosnia ensure a close interaction between NATO and Russia. Such a structure should be able to withstand the stresses and strains of a ``worst case scenario,'' and keep tactical disagreements in check. The Partnership for Peace (PFP). This is a gateway for NATO-Russian cooperation. Through the PFP, Russia and NATO can learn to work together, and learn about each other. It goes without saying that after the end of the Cold War the security architecture in Europe is going to be redesigned, and that a democratic and peaceful Russia should have a place of honor at the European table. NATO will feel more comfortable with a Russia that is not entangled in a bloody war in Chechnya, with a more democratic military without the hazing of recruits, and with a strong professional component. U.S.-Russian security cooperation and NATO Enlargement. The issue of NATO enlargement to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic has become a bone of contention in U.S.- Russian relations. NATO expansion does not threaten Russia and is not a move toward encirclement. It is not a new cordon sanitaire. Simply stated, Central and Eastern Europe is that area of the European continent where bitter confrontations between the Slavs and the Germans have taken place over the last several hundred years. Two world wars have started there. If NATO is not expanded, Russia and Germany will find themselves locked in a new race aimed at dominating this key area. In this century the West abandoned the Poles, the Czechs and the Hungarians, first, to Hitler's aggression, and next, to Stalin's tyranny. This should not and must not happen again. These sovereign countries have the right to apply for membership in NATO, and NATO members should decide when and how new members will be accepted. Moscow cannot have veto power over this decision. The Republican Party has decided to include NATO expansion in its Contract with America, which was enthusiastically endorsed by the American people in the elections of 1994. There will be support in the U.S. Congress for NATO enlargement. And in the future, when the time is right, Russia, too, can explore the possibility of full membership in NATO. The alleged promise that the Clinton administration gave to Russia not to expand NATO in order to secure Russian military cooperation in Bosnia is a mistake. If a hardliner comes to power in Russia or the Bosnian operation concludes, the U.S. should work to accept the three Central European states into NATO and keep the doors open for others if and when they are ready. Crime and Corruption. Russia and other New Independent States (NIS) have become leading ``exporters of crime,'' together with Columbia, Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, Iran, and others. Law and order in Russia has collapsed; organized crime is merging with ``legal'' government structures, and it is difficult to say where the mafiosi end the government begins. The main export items are weapons, drugs, and illegally obtained raw materials, such as oil, gasoline, timber and lumber, and precious metals. Today, organized crime syndicates are taking over whole manufacturing companies with tens of millions of dollars in sales. The total criminal exports from the NIS is in the billions of dollars. Many Russian and Eurasian criminal organizations operate internationally, including in the United States and Western Europe. Russian organized criminals and corrupt officials have access to weapons and technology of mass destruction, including uranium, chemical and biological weapons and the raw materials and components for their manufacture, as well as scientists with specific weapons-related expertise. facts On August 17, 1991, hardline elements of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Russian army, and the KGB attempted a coup against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The coup was repelled by the Russian people under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation, who had been elected only two months earlier. The coup leaders were put on trial and jailed--but were released in 1993. Yeltsin emerged as the strongest political leader in the USSR. The Soviet Union dissolved on December 25, 1991. Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and other Newly Independent States (NIS) appeared on the map instead of the USSR. On September 21, 1993, Boris Yeltsin disbanded the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation (the Soviet-era parliament). The recalcitrant Supreme Soviet became the site of intense opposition to Yeltsin and his market reforms. After a week- long standoff, Yeltsin ordered the Russian to shoot at the parliament building (the ``White House''). At least 130 people were killed. The new parliament (the Duma) was elected on December 12, 1993. Today, Boris Yeltsin's health is failing. He has had two heart attacks in four months. His behavior is sometimes erratic; and intelligence services report that he has a heavy drinking problem. Presidential elections are scheduled for June, 1996, but it is not certain whether they will take place. Hard-line nationalist and communist forces are on the rise, and the democratic reformers are retreating. The main contenders include President Boris Yeltsin; ultra-nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky; economist Grigory Yavlinsky (a moderate reformer); retired General Alexander Lebed (an authoritarian and charismatic nationalist); and Gennady Ziuganov (leader of the communist party). During the Bush and Clinton administrations, Russia received over $4 billion in direct US aid, over $20 billion total in Western aid, and over $50 billion in loans from the G-7 countries and multilateral financial organizations, such as the IMF, the World Bank and EBRD. Together with the Soviet debt, Russia owes just under $130 billion. In 1994, Russia started a war in the break-away republic of Chechnya, that has to date killed over 30,000 people, made over 300,000 others refugees, and cost over $6 billion. In the spring of 1995, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace (PFP), a ``halfway house for some to join NATO.'' However, today there is little likelihood that Russia will join in any time soon. Russia's reaction to NATO expansion East has been shrill and hostile. Most Russian politicians are erroneously claiming that NATO has aggressive designs against Russia and are using the NATO expansion issue to build up nationalism and anti-Western sentiments at home. Russia agreed to cooperate with NATO in a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, allegedly in exchange for a Clinton administration promise not to expand NATO, acquiescence to an increase in the number of conventional weapons in place on Russia's northern and southern flanks in violation of the CFE treaty, and freedom of action in the former Soviet area. Russia has over 2,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia. Russia's unilateral violation of the CFE treaty, signed in 1990, threatens other former Soviet states, such as Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. The build-up also jeopardizes the oil resources of the Caspian Sea. Russia has signed agreements to supply at least two nuclear power reactors to the militant Islamic regime in Iran, which is implementing a nuclear weapons program. Trafficking in radioactive materials and chemical weapons by corrupt Russian officials is well documented. Germany alone has made over 100 arrests related to nuclear material components exported from the NIS. General Anatoly Kuntsevich, head of the Russian Presidency's Chemical Weapons Department, illegally sold over 1600 pounds of chemical weapons components to a Middle Eastern country. Kuntsevich was subsequently fired and is currently under investigation. One of the top Russian mafiosi, nicknamed ``Yaponets,'' is in U.S. custody on racketeering charges. Russian organized crime in the U.S. netted over $1,000,000 in medical insurance fraud and hundreds of millions in gasoline tax fraud from 1992-1995. A large portion of these illegal proceeds is invested in Western and off-shore banks and real estate in California, Florida, and other locations. The Russian mob is successfully building ties to the Chinese ``triad'' gangs, Japan's Yakuza, the Sicilian La Cosa Nostra and Central Asian mafias. The strategic airlift capabilities of the former Soviet army are often used for illicit transactions, such as drug smuggling and stolen car transportation. the record President Clinton has made relations with Boris Yeltsin too personal. As Yeltsin's popularity plummeted, Clinton fed the flames of Russian resentment toward the U.S. with his unequivocal support of the Russian president, especially after the dramatic shooting at the Parliament building in October of 1993 and the beginning of the Chechen war. As a result, the U.S. is now perceived by many in the Russian political elite as partisan and uncritically supportive of Yeltsin's faltering policies, such as the Chechen war. The Clinton policy has endangered the ability of the U.S. to maintain relationship with segments of the Russian society that oppose President Yeltsin. The Clinton administration has also been too slow to recognize the importance of countries other than Russia. For example, without Ukraine, the Russian empire cannot be recreated and will have only limited access to the heart of Europe. Azerbaijan controls vital oil and gas reserves, while Georgia is situated in a strategically crucial location in the Caucasus. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration has often neglected these countries, promoting a ``Russia-first'' policy. The Clinton administration failed to prevent the sale of nuclear reactors to Iran, despite America's share in the massive financial aid provided to Moscow by the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, and other multilateral financial institutions. The reactors are a vital component in the Iranian bid to acquire ``Islamic'' nuclear weapons. U.S. assistance to the reform efforts in Russia and other former Soviet states has been poorly executed. Much of the $4.1 billion dollars in U.S. assistance allocated to date has been wasted. The Bush and Clinton administrations made an error in choosing the U.S. Agency for International Development as the main implementing agency for assistance. AID has its expertise in the developing world, not in post-communist transitional economies. The organized crime from the former Soviet Union is becoming a global threat. In FY 1995, Congress funded and the FBI established a law enforcement academy in Budapest, Hungary where law enforcement officials from the region will train. There is now a small FBI liaison office in Moscow. The FBI is allocating more resources towards countering the Russian mafia than previously. what to do in 1997 To promote democracy and the interests of the United States in Russia, The U.S. should: Develop a Russian policy based on the support ideas and interests, not on the fate of individual politicians. The U.S. should support democracy and free markets, as well as political forces advocating these ideas, not controversial individual politicians such as Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin is the elected president of Russia and was a key figure in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet communism. However, today some of his policies and his personal style are controversial, and his popularity is plummeting. Moreover, there are other reform-oriented politicians in Russia with whom a dialogue should be maintained. Advocate broad-based cooperation with Russia and other NIS members to ensure their integration into global markets and the democratic community of nations. The U.S. should continue selective and targeted technical assistance programs and provide support to prodemocracy forces and nascent market institutions in the NIS. The U.S. must design and implement trade, investment and assistance programs for Russia and the NIS that reduce inflation, lower market barriers and stimulate growth. Congress should support these programs. Thriving Russian and Eurasian markets would create jobs and export opportunities for American businesses. U.S. assistance programs should be taken away from AID and given to an independent board of policy makers, area specialists and business representatives. Such a board can be jointly appointed by the president and Congress. Condemn Russia's interference in the affairs of its neighbors. The survival, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all NIS countries are important to future peace and prosperity in Eurasia. The U.S. should support the independence of Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Central Asian states, many of which are being drawn into the Russian orbit against their will. Washington should intensify its ties with Ukraine, the Baltic states, and countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The West should provide them with support in developing foreign and domestic policy decision making bodies and mechanisms, training their bureaucracies, and increasing security cooperation. Technical assistance in privatization of industry and agriculture should also be provided. Make clear to Moscow that the use of brutal force against states or areas of the former Soviet Union, based on the model of Chechnya, is unacceptable and will trigger Western retaliation against Russian economic and political interests. While the U.S. should support the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, the West should oppose the brutal methods of the Russian military in handling internal dissent, such as in Chechnya. The Clinton administration should cease issuing declarations of support for Russia's actions in Chechnya and boost OSCE efforts to resolve the Chechen crisis peacefully. A high profile OSCE mission to Chechnya and Russia, followed by a mediation effort, is in order. Maintain Dialog with Moscow over NATO Expansion. The U.S. should maintain a constant dialog with Russia on this topic, pointing out possibilities for Russian-NATO cooperation and stressing that NATO is not a threat to Russian security. While NATO enlargement will occur, Russian participation in the Partnership for Peace and the dialogue with Brussels should be expanded simultaneously. A secure Western border is in the interests of Russia, Belorus and other Eastern European countries. Oppose Russian moves, such as sale of nuclear reactors to Iran, that threaten international security and the interests of U.S. allies in Eurasia. The U.S. should take all the steps at its disposal to prevent Iran, Iraq and other rogue states from gaining nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities. For example, voluntary export controls, similar to the COCOM regime during the Cold War, on technology sales to these countries should be put in place. Pressure should be applied against the governments arming rogue states, up to and including the imposition of selective economic sanctions. At the same time, other options, such as an increase in Russian uranium sales and civilian space launches, should be explored with Moscow, that may bring about a voluntary cancellation of the reactor deal. The U.S. should also cooperate with pro- Western circles in Turkey and Azerbaijan to promote democracy and oppose radical Islam in Eurasia. Assist Russia and other NIS countries in fighting against organized crime and corruption. This can include help with writing comprehensive criminal and criminal procedure codes. Some of the old Soviet legislation lacks important legal concepts, such as conspiracy to commit a crime. In addition, U.S. law enforcement agencies should cooperate, to the degree possible, with trustworthy and reliable law enforcement personnel in the East. In particular, they can assist in developing a witness relocation program. They should strive to track and penetrate Russian and NIS criminal rings dealing in weapons of mass destruction and narcotics. American law enforcement agencies should monitor East-West financial transactions more closely. Deposits that originate in the NIS should be carefully screened and the legitimacy of earnings established. questions and answers: Why should we provide aid to Russia? The window of opportunity for the West in Russia may be closing. While there is still time, we should provide aid that strengthens free markets and free minds. Communism destroyed both of these for seventy years. Many Russians still want to learn about democracy and capitalism, and we should provide them with a fighting chance before it is too late. What if hard-liners take Yeltsin's place? We should act now to strengthen relations with all countries in the region, which will be under even more threat than the West if hardliners come to power in Moscow. We should expand NATO to include Poland, the Czech republic and Hungary, and prevent any U.S. or international assistance to an aggressive, anti-American or anti-Western government in Moscow, should one emerge. We should still maintain a dialogue with Moscow, explaining what we will see as unacceptable policies and clarifying what price Russia may pay if ``red lines'' are crossed. Eventually, if the need arises, we may need to plan for military contingencies. Doesn't NATO expansion endanger Russia? No, it does not. NATO enlargement is aimed at creating a zone of stability and security in Eastern and Central Europe, and to hasten the integration of the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary into the West. NATO expansion is also aimed at preventing competition between Germany and Russia in the area which triggered the two world wars. NATO is a defensive alliance, and its posture in Central Europe should remain defensive. Why shouldn't we be more cooperative with Russia? After all, the cold war is over; Russia is a democracy and a great power, too. Why shouldn't we allow Moscow a greater role in policing unstable regions, such as the Caucasus or Central Asia? We can cooperate with those in Russia who are interested in building a market economy and democratic polity. Democracy is still struggling for survival in Russia. More time needs to pass before we are sure that it is there to stay. As for Russia's role in the region, it will always be considerable due to Russia's sheer size and economic, political and cultural weight. However, there are forces in Russia that dream of re-establishing the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire. These circles are anti-Western and anti-American. They cannot be ignored. We should oppose Russia's heavy- handed interference into the affairs of its neighbors and attempts to violate their sovereignty and territorial integrity. In view of Chechnya, what should the U.S. do to prevent Russia from invading its neighbors? We should boost our relations with Ukraine, the Baltic States, and countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. There are as many people there as there are in Russia. We should draw ``lines in the sand'' and stick to them. For example, we should tell Moscow that we will block all IMF and World Bank assistance if an NIS country is invaded. We should clarify to Russia that the U.S. will lead the international diplomatic campaign to restore the independence of a violated country. If Russia crosses these lines, we should consider imposing restrictions on exchanges and economic and trade sanctions against Russia. We should also demand from Moscow that the war in Chechnya stop. What about organized crime in Russia? There is wide-spread crime and corruption in Russia. Crime undermines reforms. People mistakenly think that the cause of crime is free market capitalism, but this is, of course, not true. Crime is rampant because there is no rule of law in Russia. Moreover, real democracy barely exists there, and the country still has a long way to go before a free market system is fully established. Is Russian organized crime a threat to U.S. and Western security? Yes, it is, because Russian criminals are very sophisticated, well-educated, and well-connected world-wide. They often boast advanced college degrees, KGB and special forces training. There is great potential danger in the merger of former communist, KGB and criminal elements in that part of the world. In particular, access of organized criminals to weapons of mass destruction and technology to produce those makes this threat particularly acute. How can we stop the Russian ``mafia?'' The Russian government will have to deal with its own criminal organizations one day, but many in the current Russian government, including law enforcement officials, are themselves corrupt. Until such time as NIS governments are able to effectively combat criminal organizations, the West has to apprehend and prosecute criminals from Russia and the NIS affecting its interests. Are all people from the former Soviet Union criminals? No, because many of them travel for legitimate business, education and tourism purposes.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, as our colleagues know, we have done our job here. We did it last summer. We passed all our appropriations bills. The truth is that the President has now vetoed appropriations bills that would keep our parks open, appropriations bills that would keep our prisons and the guards paid. We passed not only a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, by a two-thirds vote here, which would have kicked in in 7 years, but failing the one vote necessary to get a two-thirds margin for a constitutional amendment in the Senate, we, the House and Senate together, passed the Balanced Budget Act to balance the budget in 7 years, and the President has vetoed that. Then we passed a resolution that the President signed that said you, Mr. President, will come up with a balanced budget, scored by the CBO, in 7 years, and he has not done that. There is a good reason that now we have this seeming impasse. It is that the President has not done his job. We will continue to do ours and we will balance the budget.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, Christmas is only a few days away. A balanced budget may be nearer than that, because as we speak, our budget chairmen from the House and the Senate are conducting negotiations with Mr. Panetta who now works in the White House, and President Clinton, to bring us to a balanced budget. This Congress, of course, not just the House of Representatives, but also the Senate, has passed long since a balanced budget scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as the Clinton administration agreed it should be. We have the document, it is there, it is ready. The issues that are under discussion could be resolved in a day if the White House is only willing to do so, because the White House has yet to produce a balanced budget. The budget passed by the Congress is the only one balanced 7 years that we can work with. As long as we are needed to vote on a final budget, I suggest that we not adjourn; I suggest that we be here. The resolution that is proposed is not an adjournment resolution, it just says, recess subject to the call of the Chair. We do that around here all the time. The moment the bells ring, we are back in here and we will vote. If they cut a deal at the White House and the White House says we have not produced a balanced budget yet, but we are willing to agree to the following changes in your balanced budget, then you know we are going to be right here on the floor, and that is as it should be. Balancing the budget is what this is all about. Yes, it is hard. Yes, we are in session later this year than we had hoped, but we are going to stay here, and the reason we are going to stay here is that it is the first time in 30 years that we are going to have solved this crisis of a generation. It is the first time in 30 years that we will, not cooking the books, but using honest numbers prepared by the CBO as the President has agreed, that we are going to have taxes and revenues equal one another and, for the first time, not increase the national debt. I would just point out before I yield back to the Members of the Committee on Rules who are conducting this debate that interest on the national debt is the cruelest entitlement rip-off of all. It is an entitlement program, because it is completely out of control; there is nothing we can do about it. If we want to appropriate less for interest on the debt, we cannot. We are paying it as the national debt goes up and up and up and every single year of the Clinton unbalanced budget that has been proposed. Right now, the status quo which everybody is trying to maintain: please, let us open the Government without changing anything; let us just open the Government right now and not do the hard stuff, the people who want to maintain the status quo have to recognize that interest on the national debt right now consumes over half of all of the individual income taxes paid by everybody in America. Now it is the end of the year and people are starting to think about paying their taxes, just imagine this: everybody in my home State of California, 31 million people, can take all of their 1040's, all of their income tax forms and the checks that they send with them, and everybody west of the Mississippi, every single individual American and all of those income taxes will buy not a single social service. They will not fund a single welfare check, no national security, no education, no environment. Mr. Speaker, all of that money will go for nothing but interest on the debt: about $300 billion wasted. It is a tragic and cruel thing. That is what we are here finally to stop after 30 years. For the first time, we are going to produce a balanced budget. I guarantee you as we all sit here, we are not going home. Yes, we will be in recess subject to the call of the Chair because they are negotiating at the White House, not here on the floor of the House of Representatives, but as soon as that deal is ready for us to vote on, as soon as the President agrees: I am going to sign on to a 7-year balanced budget with honest numbers, it is going to be voted on here in the House, it will sail through the Senate, and the American people will have the best Christmas present of all, and they deserve it.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Christmas Day is approaching. We are still hard at work because we are in the midst of a historic effort to pass the first balanced budget in 30 years. It is a difficult time. There is some partisan rhetoric on the floor. But in the midst of this we have managed to produce one of the most bipartisan, carefully crafted pieces of legislation in congressional history. It is no accident that this bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate by overwhelming, more than two-thirds, more than veto-proof margins. Fraudulent litigation, everyone has accepted, is a serious problem in America. The manipulation and abuse of our securities laws by unethical multimillionaire bandits is a serious problem in need of a remedy. This bill comes after long and hard work, not just between the House and the Senate, not just Democrats, a majority of whom have voted to support this legislation, and Republicans, but with the administration and with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We wanted to craft a careful balance because this is such a serious issue that affects all of us. In California, it affects us at least as much as anywhere else. That is why the Governor of California has asked for your support. That is why you have seen so many California Democrats and Republicans on the floor today asking for an override of this ill-considered veto. The President made three points. First, he believes that people who bring cases in violation of existing Federal rule 11 should not be subject to sanctions. Let me read you what rule 11 says: Only those cases that are brought for the purpose of harassment are subject to these sanctions; cases brought for an improper purpose, to intentionally delay; frivolous cases. That is what rule 11 says. Those cases have no place in our system. And, yes, at the end of a lawsuit after the judge has heard all of the evidence, he should, or she should, be able to impose sanctions in those cases. Second, the President said the pleadings standards, which are changed in our bill to prevent fishing expeditions, should be weakened. But we do not wish to see fishing expedition lawsuits. That is why the President's own Securities and Exchange Commission did not level this objection to this part of the bill. * * * complaint about the safe harbor. The SEC chairman approved it. The Administration's own SEC approved this part of the bill. It took 12 months to craft this legislation. It took 12 seconds for the President to set these efforts back. Let us put ourselves back on track and vote now to override the President's veto and support this most bipartisan and most important legislation.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the stock and bond markets sent a unmistakable signal to Washington: Balance the budget. Congress, the House and the Senate, have passed a balanced budget, the first in decades. The President has vetoed it, claiming that it cuts Medicare spending. In fact, as Hillary Rodham Clinton testified on Capitol Hill very recently, the President's own proposal was to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending from around 12 percent to around 7 percent. The budget that was passed by this Congress increases Medicare spending more than 7 percent in every year. The President of the United States is hiding behind this distortion, this lie, about Medicare, because he wants to avoid balancing the budget. Yesterday this Congress sent him another message: Balance the budget using honest numbers. Do not cook the books. Do as you promised, standing right here; use the Congressional Budget office figures. The budget the President submitted is $115 billion out of balance. Let us get to work. Let us do it for America's future, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the People's Republic of China imposed a harsh new prison sentence on its most prominent human rights campaigner, Wei Jingsheng. Today the New York Times in translation has presented us with the reasons that the People's Republic of China has meted out this draconian sentence against its leading human rights activist. The charge, according to the People's Republic of China, was overthrowing the government, overthrowing the government, and what did this man who is nominated by many in this body for the Nobel Peace Prize do to cause the People's Republic of China to charge him, and convict him, and sentence him for overthrowing the government? Let me read from the Chinese Government statement about the conviction, quote: The court's investigation showed that Wei, in attempting to overthrow the government, developed a plan of action which included establishing an organization to raise funds to support democratic movement activities. Well, that is true enough. Wei Jingsheng has long been an advocate for democracy in the People's Republic of China. He was a leader in the democracy wall movement which took its name from the wall near the city where democratic activists hung their pro-freedom manifestos. He served over 14 years in prison labor camps in China where, according to reliable reports, he was beaten and tortured. Now having been out of prison for only a few months, Mr. Speaker, he was charged and convicted again for promoting democracy. Let me read further from the government's statement: He is responsible for purchasing newspapers, setting up a company in charge of organizing cultural activities. All of these things got him a prison sentence, keep in mind, colleagues: Organizing nongovernmental painting exhibitions, performances, and publications. Wei Jingsheng worked actively to implement the above plans, quoted the Chinese Government. He bought 12\1/2\ percent of the shares of an urban credit cooperative in Beijing to start setting up a democracy movement bank, and he wrote and set an introduction to projects for assistance to people in charge of an overseas organization and asked for hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to fund his activities. He also registered a company in Hong Kong and used the name of the company to prepare art exhibitions in Beijing so as to recruit people in organizations that would be sympathetic to him. Wei Jingsheng also secretly connected some people both in China and abroad to study struggle strategies, conspiring to unite the illegal organizations in China, by which they mean the illegal pro-democracy organizations in China, and act when the right moment comes. He also used illegal means--now I am again quoting from the People's Republic of China official statement of yesterday: ``* * * and published a series of articles overseas to slander and attack the Chinese Government, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the Socialist system, and to advocate the independence of Tibet, something that another Nobel laureate, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, is guilty of. He and the enemy forces overseas, among which we may number ourselves in this body, echo each other and try to create publicity. Certainly that is worthy of a prison sentence, to overthrow the people's democratic dictatorship, sabotage the Socialist system, and separate the country. Wei Jingsheng will be in jail for another 14 years, and the response from the Clinton administration has been deafening. One of our Democratic colleagues said yesterday, ``I think the administration policy is a dismal failure in every respect, and I think the sentence is a slap in the face.'' The New York Times notes today that the Clinton administration, while criticizing China, stopped conspicuously short of threatening specific retaliatory action. Mr. Speaker, even our Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights said only, ``We urge the Chinese authorities to show clemency.'' Clemency, colleagues, is due someone who is guilty. Wei Jingsheng is innocent, he is an innocent man wrongly charged, and this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, should band together in his support.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise, as well, in strong support of H.R. 325. I too am an original cosponsor, and as vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, we have had 12 hearings on the Clean Air Act, and we have heard repeatedly testimony in support of this commonsense reform and opposed to continuing this unfunded and ineffective mandate. We ought to call H.R. 325 the Victory for Common Sense Act, because the truth is it relies on our native common sense. The ability to reason, to learn from experience, is what distinguishes human beings from other life forms. If you are doing the same thing over and over again, and you continue to get no results but you continue to waste money in the process, it is time to learn from that experience. It is time to stop and do things a better, a different, another way. That is what we are setting out to do here today. It is not just the waste of money, yielding no results for businesses that we are worried about. It is the waste of money for our schools, for almost everyone whose employees drive to work. Listen to some of the comments that we have received from school districts in southern California. The Tustin Unified School District was forced to spend $73,000 for their ride-sharing plan for teachers that did not work. Another school district wrote: ``The mandatory trip reduction plan has been very costly to us. It has diverted already scarce funds away from the education of children, from classroom use,'' to support a program that does not work. The Capistrano Unified School District said: ``The additional financial hardships we are facing make this mandated program extremely detrimental to meet the educational needs of the children in our districts.'' McDonnell Douglas, a big employer of the kind that we have been hearing about on the floor today, tried in earnest to get this Federal mandate to work. They spent millions of dollars training employee coordinators, providing direct financial incentives to workers so they would car pool. They bought bicycles. They built showers and locker rooms so employees could bike, run, or walk to work. None of this, even hosting ride-share events, made even a dent in the average vehicle occupancy rate of their employees. Today we are saying enough; enough to the vast expense that in California, under our similar program, was costing $200 million a year. Let us spend this money on the education of students. Let us spend it on employee wages. Let us spend it on other efforts to clean up our air that really work. I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the other Members who have brought this legislation to the floor. I look forward to a swift vote on passage.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Communist government of the People's Republic of China will put China's leading advocate of democracy on trial. This so-called trial speaks volumes about the abysmal state of human rights and the complete and utter denial of political freedoms in the People's Republic of China. Wei Jingsheng is China's foremost dissident, and has become a personal target of Deng Xiaoping because he demanded that Deng's ``Four Modernizations'', agriculture, industry, science, and defense, be supplemented with a very important fifth: Democracy. Wei's magazine, ``Exploration'', repudiated not just Maoism and Leninism, but Marxism itself. Mr. Speaker, for this he spent 14\1/2\ years of his life in some of Communist China's most brutal and remote prison camps. Much of that time was spent in solitary confinement. His alleged offense was counterrevolutionary activities. The truth is that he led the Democracy Wall Movement. That movement, as the Speaker knows, took its name from the wall near the Forbidden City which activists used to displace their prodemocracy manifestos. When the People's Republic of China recently was seeking international acceptance so that it could host the Olympic Games, forthcoming in the year 2000, Wei was paroled just 6 months before the expiration of that grueling 15-year sentence. This was done obviously in order to curry favor with Western governments and the International Olympic Committee. But when Wei was released, he did not stop speaking. He called on the members of the Olympic Committee to punish Beijing for its abysmal human rights record by denying it the opportunity to host the Olympic Games. Shortly after that, in April 1994, Wei disappeared. For the past 20 months the Communist authorities have refused to tell anyone, even his family, his whereabouts. Mr. Speaker, it is now probable that Wei will be put on trial tomorrow for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government. In truth, the sum total of his offenses against China's Communist Government has been his underlying support for democracy and human rights. His likely punishment will be a minimum of 10 years, and perhaps death. The Chinese Government may return him to Laogai, the notorious Chinese gulag. They may expel him after imposing a Draconian sentence, which is what they did to Californian Harry Wu. The Communist regime is no doubt retaliating against Wei because he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and because the Olympic Committee decided not to award the People's Republic of China the Olympics. Mr. Speaker, the Wei case demonstrates the nature of justice under the current Communist government in China. Wei was arrested 20 months ago without warning and without explanation. For nearly 2 years he has been held incommunicado. Only afterward did the Communist government initiate its investigation of Wei. Then, and only then, did the Communist government announce the charges against Wei and set his trial for tomorrow. But sadly, Mr. Speaker, this will be a sham trial. There is no doubt, absolutely none, about the result. Wei will be found guilty. The trial in China's Intermediate People's Court will be anything but the open proceeding announced in the press of the People's Republic of China. It will not be public. American and European requests to monitor the trial have either been rejected or gone simply unanswered, and the Chinese regime has refused to allow a distinguished international team to assist Wei. In addition, two former United States Attorneys General, Nicholas Katzenbach and Dick Thornburgh, one Republican and one Democrat, have been trying to assist in Wei's defense, and the Chinese Government has told them coldly, harshly, ``No.'' Wei Jingsheng, like the heroic students of Tiananmen Square, is living proof that China's people are not indifferent to democracy. They are not indifferent to human rights. They are not content with lawlessness, dictatorship and corruption. Tomorrow, the People's Republic of China will attempt to put Wei Jingsheng on trial, but it will be China's Communist dictatorship that is in fact on trial. Mr. Speaker, the message in this resolution is clear. Wei Jingsheng should be immediately released and his sham trial should be stopped. The detention and trial of Wei Jingsheng is only the latest and most striking case of China's systematic infringement of political freedoms, individual liberties, and human rights. This Congress and this resolution intends to make clear that communist China's continued violations of human rights will have consequences.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a comment by CALPERS, by our publicly funded retirement system in California, which takes care of the retirement assets of all of our workers. They are very concerned about the status quo, because right now there is not sufficient disclosure for them to make decisions about how to invest. They want to make sure that when a company tries to help them with what is called forward-looking information, that they do not risk a lawsuit. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible, if we are being fair in our definition of ``fraud,'' to say that when we are talking about future events someone did it fraudulently. Existing law requires that there be statements.

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the qualification, but if the gentleman is yielding to me I would be pleased to respond to the question that he earlier raised. Mr. Speaker, I have before me a letter from CALPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, which as you know is the largest publicly funded retirement system in the country.

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

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

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate the fiery rhetoric of the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce who led 99 of our colleagues to vote against this bill when it was overwhelmingly approved, over half the Democrats voting in favor of it and virtually all the Republicans earlier this year. But I have to take issue with what the gentleman said, because it simply is not true. What the gentleman said is there is an extraordinary bipartisan national consensus against this bill. The truth is, there is an extraordinary bipartisan national consensus in favor of this bill, which originally was, after all, the Dodd-Domenici bill. Chris Dodd, presently the cochairman of the Democratic National Committee, is obviously not a Republican. Pete Domenici, the very respected chairman of the Committee on the Budget in the Senate, worked together with Chris Dodd on this, well in advance of this bill becoming part of the Contract with America. Because it was not conceived in sin by Republicans, but initiated in this bipartisan way by Chris Dodd and Pete Domenici, we found that the bill yesterday passed the Senate once again with more than two-thirds voting in support. At last check, Ted Kennedy, who is not a flaming Republican, but Ted Kennedy, who represents so many high-technology companies in Massachusetts who are being victimized by fraudulent lawsuits by crooks and lawyers, working in tandem in many cases, these people need protection from our securities laws too. That is why Phil Gramm, Ted Kennedy, Pete Domenici, and Chris Dodd, people on both sides of the aisle, have all come to agreement on this very important investor protection. The safe harbor, which my colleague implied was some sort of Republican attack on small investors, was in fact an investor protection offered on the floor of this Chamber, not by a Republican, but by my good and wise colleague from California, Norm Mineta. The safe harbor provision of this bill was carefully drafted in concert with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and no less than the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, appointed by President Clinton, Arthur Levitt, has said yes, this is a sound, safe harbor. The reason that we have it, of course, is so that investors and the market can get the very best information possible, so that they can protect themselves. That is what this bill is all about. But, more than anything, we are not just protecting investors with this bill, we are protecting everyone in America. Yes, those who might have invested through their pension plan, or those who might have invested through a mutual fund, but everyone in America ultimately who uses the products manufactured by high-technology companies, who are the special victims of this kind of securities fraud, fraud through the device of a lawsuit. I just want to mention one example of the kind of fraud we are going to [[Page H 14034]] crack down on with this legislation. A company in San Diego, Alliance Pharmaceuticals, a very, very fine company, manufactures innovative drugs to treat critically ill patients with acute lung injury. Their drug, now in development, a highly oxygenated liquid which allows the lungs to breathe liquid, reportedly could help as many as 80,000 premature babies with insufficiently developed lungs to have the gift of life. This bill is for Adriana Mancini, who was born weighing 1 pound 10 ounces, with a 1 in 10 chance of living. The drug, manufactured by Alliance Pharmaceuticals of San Diego, saved her life. Her mother, in a television report about this story, said, ``I prayed, please God, save our baby, and God did.'' The agent of God's miracle was Alliance Pharmaceuticals. The company came through with the medication that, as I said, can be used on 80,000 premature babies every year. What Adriana's mother said, and it is important for everyone in this Chamber to hear this, is: I just wish that everyone could have been in that room to see the joy and excitement on everybody's faces. A baby who was about to die made an exciting 180-degree turnaround. Alliance Pharmaceuticals for its role in helping baby Adriana found itself on the wrong end of a fraudulent lawsuit, that is the only way to describe it, a fraudulent lawsuit, that was brought within 24 hours of the public announcement of nothing more than a delay in a new product development. The president of this company wrote to the President of our country, and I would like to quote from his letter: Reform of the private securities litigation laws is needed to protect the companies that are victims of frivolous suits. I should add that Alliance won its lawsuit, but they have received no compensation for all the lost time of their workers who were developing drugs. They received no compensation for all of the legal fees that they had to spend. There was nothing that could be done about the fact that all of the management were taken away from their critical job. These suits, which are brought to extort settlements, do nothing more than injure all of us. Let me continue reading from his letter. Reform of the private securities litigation laws is needed to protect the victims of frivolous suits, while preserving the ability for shareholders to recover in instances of fraud. It is unconscionable that greedy lawyers are allowed the virtual unrestricted ability to promote their own self- interests. Companies like Alliance are developing truly innovative and potentially life-saving products. Every dollar we spend defending these meritorious suits is one less dollar available for meaningful research and one less dollar available for shareholders. Mr. Speaker, let us move forward with this critically important legislation, which is so bipartisan and has overwhelming support.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. It has been said that a lawyer is someone who defends his client's interest and takes the principal. It is a cruel joke; it is an old joke. In fact, the best I can tell, it is at least a century old. There has always been a conflict of interest between lawyers representing themselves and lawyers representing their clients. What we are seeking to do here is to protect investors so that they are in charge of these kinds of lawsuits. It is very important for us to know what exactly it is we are doing here today. There has been a lot of rhetoric. What we are doing are the following things: We are outlawing professional plaintiffs. We heard testimony that one guy, who was described by a judge as truly the unluckiest investor in the world, was a plaintiff in 300 of these lawsuits. That will not happen anymore. We have outlawed attorney conflicts of interest. So if the lawyers own the shares, the judge will scrutinize that and keep them out of the case if it is a conflict of interest. We are mandating full disclosure to the investors, to the plaintiffs, of any proposed settlements, including what will be the lawyer's share of the settlement and what will be theirs. These kinds of reforms are the reason that this is such bipartisan and popular legislation. And the truth is that half the Democrats here, half the Democrats in the Senate, Republicans who sponsored the legislation, all favor this. More than two-thirds of both bodies favor this. The economists, whom we heard quoted many times as an opponent of this bill, are in favor of this bill. They have editorialized in their most recent magazine as follows: More than 650 class action strike suits have been filed in the past 4 years alone, including ones against each of the 10 biggest firms in Silicon Valley. There is nothing wrong with investors who use the courts to protect their rights, but a growing number of these suits are being brought by those who are victims not of corporate misinformation, but of their lawyer's greed. The Washington Post has editorialized in favor of this legislation. It is sound, it is good, it is bipartisan. It is high time investors got the kind of protection that this legislation affords. Fraud, through the device of a lawsuit; extortion, through the device of abuse of our securities' laws, hopefully will be no more after we pass this very popular bipartisan bill.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, whose leadership has in fact brought us to this point, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw us back a bit to consider why we are here. The purpose of our securities laws, after all, as enacted in 1933 and 1934 in particular, I mention to the former chairman of the full committee, is to protect investors and to maintain the confidence of the public at large in our markets so that we can increase our national savings, our capital formation, and our investment for the benefit of all Americans. Investors today are not protected from crooks and swindlers who seek to line their own pockets by terrorizing honest men and women through the device of a strike suit. They are literally using, these crooks and swindlers, our Nation's securities law, to undermine confidence in our markets, to attack investors, who are the victims of their extortion. That, over and over again, has been what happened when investors found themselves targeted for extortion by abusive and manipulative lawsuits. There is no relief for the victims of these fraudulent lawsuits at present. The investors are cheated, always. In every case they are the ones who are made to pay. Now, it is true that the same people whose financial self-interest is about to be regulated in this important legislation have lied about this bill. They have lied about its effects, about its purpose. They have spent millions of dollars in order to defeat the regulation. They are not forgiven for this, it is not a forgivable act, but it is predictable. [[Page H 14054]] Let us escape from the hyperbole and focus on what this bill does. It bars professional plaintiffs. We have heard testimony in one case, a lead plaintiff had appeared in over 300 lawsuits. The judge said this surely must be the unluckiest investor in the world. Another man over 75, another plaintiff over 200 times, bringing suits of this kind. We ban attorney conflicts of interest so people who are purportedly represented by class action lawyers, even though they may not know they themselves are members of the class, will be taken seriously as the client. One strike suit lawyer rather famously said ``I have the best practice in the world. I have no clients.'' Well, now they will. We mandate in this bill full disclosure to the investors, to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, what are the terms of any proposed settlement, so that the lawyer's conflict of interest will not disadvantage them, so that routinely we will not have lawyers getting millions of dollars while the investors get but pennies on the dollar. More than anything else, we want to protect our free enterprise economy from this kind of predation. In my district in Southern California, there is a company that has I think experienced this as badly as anyone else, the problems of the strike suit. The company in Rainbow Technologies. They make a software key that prevents piracy of software. It is a fundamental foundation of the entire software industry. They faced one of these suits 2 years ago at Christmastime. In fact one of the directors was served on Christmas Eve. All the employees were terrorized, there was a great deal of bad press. I have some of it here: ``Software maker insiders accused of investor fraud.'' In fact, the lawsuit itself was filed with reckless disregard of the truth. These were fraudulent claims made against honest people. The employees, the honest people who worked for this company, were completely demoralized. But it was worse than that. It was worse than all of the money that these people had to spend to vindicate themselves. Their efforts to obtain a qualified outside director fell through. They have to date been forced to drop their directors and officers liability insurance. The kinds of damage that this company suffered, they won their case, it went away, are of no interest to the lawyers who recklessly filed the lawsuit. The chief architect of the lawsuit was quoted in paper saying ``We dropped the suit. That is how the system is supposed to work.'' But getting away with this kind of damage to honest people is not the way the system should work. Alliance Pharmaceuticals in San Diego, CA, was sued 24 hours after announcing merely a delay in new product development. They make a miracle drug that can help as many as 80,000 premature babies every year whose lungs are not yet formed enough to breathe air. In a television report about this company and its product, we learned from a mother of a baby who was on the verge of death that she prayed, ``Dear God, please save our baby,'' and God did. The agent of this miracle was Alliance Pharmaceuticals. The company came through with the medication I described which could be available for 80,000 kids nationwide. The mother said, ``I just wish everyone could have been in that room to see the joy and excitement on everybody's faces. A baby who was about to die, made a 180 degree turnaround.'' Yet this company too was victimized by a baseless suit, for which there was no recompense. We want to make sure that in the future the people, the honest men and women in America who are helping us advance, that these people have protection against this kind of suit, and that is why this legislation is supported by Democrats and Republicans, by the Washington Post, by the economists. It is bipartisan, it is enormously popular, it is much needed, and I thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and unable to return to the Capitol in time to record a ``yes'' vote in favor of H.R. 2564, legislation to toughen disclosure rules for lobbyists. The passage of H.R. 2564--on the heels of last week's landmark vote to completely ban all gifts from lobbyists--adds to this new Congress' already impressive list of achievements in changing the way Washington does business. On the first day of this Congress, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives delivered on its promise to drastically cut congressional staff. We have continued to deliver on this pledge, cutting spending in the legislative branch, reducing committee staff by one-third, and completely eliminating three full committees and redistributing their duties. We have also instituted internal term limits on the Speaker and committee chairmen, and ended the practice of ghost voting in committee, requiring instead that Members themselves be present to vote. And, the crown jewel of our internal reforms thus far--the first Republican bill signed into law by Bill Clinton--was legislation requiring that the laws of the land apply to Congress as well. [[Page E 2262]] While there is still more to be accomplished on our congressional reform agenda, these significant reforms--including H.R. 2564--will do much to end business as usual in Washington, and to restore honesty and integrity to Congress.

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 828, I was necessarily detained due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. COX of California

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out several times in the course of this debate, the President came to the well of this House and told us in his 1993 message that it was time to stop relying on White House rosy estimates, and it was time to rely on the trustworthy estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. He got a standing ovation from the Democratic side of the aisle. We are asking him to keep that promise. It has been pointed out by some, by one of our colleagues in debate yesterday that, well, that was when the Congressional Budget Office was on our Democratic payroll. However, we have to keep in mind that the Balanced Budget Act that we are going to be considering, one that we already voted on yesterday and that we hope comes back to us from the Senate, is based on the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, made under the direction of Robert Reischauer, who was the Democrats' appointee to head the CBO. June O'Neill did not come on to run the CBO until afterward. These are the Democratic staff estimates at the CBO. All that happened in the August update under June O'Neill was to move those estimates slightly closer to what the White House had, so the White House is not going to be complaining about that. There is a videotape that some of my colleagues may have seen that collects all of President Clinton's statements on how long it should take to balance the budget, back to back to back to back, all of his statements, starting with his appearance on the ``Larry King Show'' when he said, I am going to present a plan to the American people to balance the budget in 5 years. Then he says, 7 years is the right period of time. Then 9 years, most recently 10 years, and then back between 7 and 9. Then he said 10 years and presented a plan to balance the budget in 10 years that, in fact, according to CBO, did not. It is time for the President, who most recently now has said he will veto any 7-year budget, then even later said, maybe we will talk about it, to decide this question.