Vito Fossella

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for giving me the opportunity to discuss an issue that is vital not just to New York, but indeed the entire country. As the gentleman knows, the dynamics of the Regional Airspace Redesign recently brought this issue to our attention. The FAA is currently undertaking the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia Airspace Redesign project, which is expected to take 5 years to complete. According to the FAA, the purpose of the New York-New Jersey Airspace Redesign project is to ``increase the efficiency of air traffic flows into and out of the metropolitan area, including Philadelphia, while maintaining or improving the level of safety and air traffic services that are currently in place.'' In accordance with the Federal law, the FAA must conduct an environmental review before implementing any new flight plans. A concern that I have is the environmental impacts of departure delays. Anybody on the runway of any of the major airports knows what I mean, particularly, for example, in Newark airport, where it is not uncommon to sit on the runway for 45 minutes or hour, an hour, 15 minutes in the morning. It is something that I feel deserves more consideration while conducting the redesign. By increasing efficiency, not only will delays be reduced, but the environments of surrounding communities will see a significant reduction in air pollution. Airports are significant sources of ground-level volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. In our Nation's largest and busiest airports, these idling planes can create as much, if not more, ground-level pollution as many of their large industrial neighbors. According to a July 2000 report by Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, at the 28 largest U.S. airports, the number of flights with taxi-out times of 1 hour or more increased 130 percent over the past 5 years, with nearly 85 percent of all delay times occurring on the ground. In addition, it was reported that the departure delays were significantly underreported, so the full environmental effects of idling planes is not known. The area included in the redesign contains four of the Nation's 10 most delayed airports. By encouraging the FAA to take the environmental impacts of departure delays into consideration while evaluating new departure paths, this could lead to not only more efficient airports with less delays and happier consumers, but also a cleaner environment; therefore, I respectfully ask that the gentleman include language in the committee report directing the FAA to consider these impacts while conducting its environmental review.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank him for his leadership, because without his leadership, we would not be able to bring this bill to the floor; as well as the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker), on the other side; my colleague, the gentlewomen from New York, Mrs. Maloney and Mrs. Kelly; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), among others. Today this legislation fulfills the promise with the American people. The original intent of the Congress was to fund the SEC, and it does a wonderful job enforcing our Nation's securities laws to protect investors. But what has happened over the years is that these fees have become a cash cow for the Federal Treasury. So while the SEC may need a budget or require a budget of about $420 million, the fees collected exceed $2 billion per year. Those fees become an indirect tax on capital and investors. So if someone is involved in an IRA, he or she benefits under this bill. If someone has a mutual fund, he or she benefits under this bill. If someone is involved in a 401(k), he or she benefits under this bill. If one is involved in a pension fund, they benefit under this bill. If one is an investor, they benefit under this bill. Indeed, almost 100 million Americans will benefit, because what Congress does today is to say to the American people, when we make a promise, we keep it. When we say we want money to fund the SEC, we will take that money, but anything over and above that, send it back to the American people. We know what happens when we send the money back to the American people. Not only do we encourage more investment, which is a good thing for America, but we put more money back in the capital markets to allow those entrepreneurs to create more jobs, to allow investors to have a little more freedom to do what they want with their own money. Talk about savings, I know we are going to hear a lot of numbers today. In my home State of New York, the New York State Pension Fund, teachers pension fund, pays $305,000 in excess fees because Congress has failed to act to date. That is one fund. Could Members think of the thousands across the country that will benefit from this? I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to reject the substitute, because that is not even half a loaf. It is not even a quarter of a loaf. The substitute continues the charade with the American people. The substitute does not go far enough in providing adequate relief for investors. At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman once again for his leadership.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment in the nature of a substitute. As someone who likes to look at the positive, I commend the gentleman from New York for reducing transaction fees; but not enough. That is the problem with the amendment. It does not go far enough. If we go back to the original intent here, what Congress promised the American people, and my colleagues have heard it here a number of times, we need enough money to fund the SEC, to allow the SEC to do its job. Above and beyond that, to the tune of an excess of $2 billion per year, let us send that money back to the investors. If we believe that we want to make more American investors, we should reduce the fee, as in the underlying bill. If we want to make more people participants in IRAs, support the underlying bill. If we want to make more people participants in 401(k)s or pension funds, then vote for the underlying bill and oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, the teachers' pension fund in New York alone paid $305,000 in excess fees. Why should we, Congress, force the teachers' pension fund of New York to pay $305,000 per year? Where does that money come from? It comes from their members. Think of the thousands of funds across the country. As far as those who are concerned about the budget of the SEC, and it is a reasonable concern, I ask unanimous consent that this letter dated March 15, 2001 be entered into the Record. ``I am pleased to write in enthusiastic support of the proposed Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act. This bill, as you described it today, will provide meaningful securities fee relief to investors, market participants, and public companies, while assuring full and stable long-term funding of the Commission.'' This was signed by the acting chairman of the SEC. Obviously there is a certain and reasonable level of comfort that the SEC is going to get the funding it needs to do its job. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is what provides investors across America the real purpose and intent of what it was all about. Congress broke its word for awhile. Now it is fulfilling its promise and giving Americans more incentives to invest. The letter previously referred to is as follows: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, March 15, 2001. Hon. Vito J. Fossella, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Fossella: I am pleased to write in enthusiastic support of the proposed ``Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act.'' This bill, as you described it today, will provide meaningful securities fee relief to investors, market participants, and public companies, while assuring full and stable long-term funding of the Commission. I commend you and Chairman Oxley, Subcommittee Chairman Baker, Representatives Sue Kelly, Felix Grucci, Carolyn Maloney, and Joseph Crowley, as well as the other cosponsors and your staff, for crafting such a considered approach to this technically complex and multifaceted issue. The pay parity provision is particularly important to the Commission's ability to attract and retain qualified staff. The proposed bill, together with commensurate authorization and appropriation, will help address this issue. Again, I express my sincere thanks for your leadership on these issues. Please let me know if there is anything my staff or I can do to assist you as this process moves forward. Sincerely, Laura S. Unger, Acting Chairman.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and pleasure to acknowledge the presence of Father Robert Gannon who offered the morning prayer this morning. Father Gannon, to those who know him, love him. Those who know him, honor and respect him. He was born in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, and spent much of his life on Staten Island. He is a positive role model and influence to thousands. He attended and graduated Fordham University as well as the St. Joseph Seminary in Dunwoody. For many years he has been a pastor of Lady Queen of Peace of Staten Island. He has been a guidance counselor to many high school students. It is estimated more than 15,000 students went through his doors on their way to college. In addition for the last 20 years or so, Father Gannon has headed a committee in the 13th Congressional District that screens and recommends nominations to our military academies: Annapolis, West Point, Air Force Academy, Merchant Marines. In that period of time, perhaps more than 150 students have gone on to those military academies and then gone on to serve our country. Many of those probably would not have gone on to those academies but for the help, guidance, and assistance of Father Gannon. Mr. Speaker, he has been a priest, a teacher, a friend, and really loved by thousands. I am very, very fortunate to have him as my friend, and I hope today that those Members of the House here understand why I found it an honor to ask him to be with us today.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this matter, as well as the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate enough to represent Staten Island and the Port of Brooklyn, that portion which is the gateway to the Port of New York and New Jersey, one of the largest most active ports in the entire world. I am also privileged to represent one of the largest Coast Guard operations. Indeed, Activities New York is the largest operational field command in the Coast Guard. Its responsibility stretches from Long Branch, New Jersey to New York City, up to the Hudson River to Burlington, Vermont. I have come to appreciate over the last several years, and we have heard it here but let me add my voice to the chorus of those commending the dedication and the commitment and truly the love and honor of their job, the men and women serving in the United States Coast Guard. We have heard about the law enforcement. Indeed, they are saving kids, they are preventing drugs from hitting our streets. When it comes to the environment, just last year we had an oil spill off the shores of Staten Island. There was the potential to damaging our beaches at a critical time of the year. The Coast Guard, without hesitation, was on that scene and curtailed what could have been a big problem. So they are out there protecting the environment. Above all, they need resources to do the job that they do so well every single day. So I commend all the Members who have shown a true passion to supporting the Coast Guard because they are out there for us. They do this job without real call for attention, without the desire to be heard. They do it for us, they do it for America, and I think it is wonderful that we are finally taking a moment, this Congress, to say we appreciate the job you are doing; we are going to give you the tools you need to do the job you do so well. Mr. Chairman, when men and women willingly and with honor serve our country, I think without a moment's hesitation we should respond in kind. And so I add my voice to the chorus of those who truly appreciate what the Coast Guard does.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time as well as to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for his efforts here just for two reasons. One is to pay honor to a man that I got to know in my brief time here in Congress. Obviously I did not know Joe Moakley as well as so many others here and regaling the stories over the years. But the brief time I did know him, I came to respect him and honor him. Those are things that I think if we can just set some time aside to pay tribute, that is why I am here. But the second and probably more important reason why I am here is that my great grandfather served in this body, 1935. He died when he was in Congress. He died from cancer. Obviously I did not know my great grandfather. His name was James O'Leary, probably not too dissimilar in his politics than Joe Moakley. Although one distinction, everyone has been focusing on Joe Moakley, the Irish politician. The fact is he was half Italian, and I guess the unofficial head of the Gaelic and garlic caucus, as he liked to put it, as am I. But the fact of the matter is, while my grandfather served in this body and, again, probably had similar views to Joe Moakley, a few years before my grandmother died, she gave me a leather-bound book. In that book were transcripts of a ceremony similar to this. That had my grandfather's colleagues on the floor of the House paying tribute to then-Congressman O'Leary. I read it, and it gave me an inkling of sort of the sense of what the man was like, an understanding that perhaps few great grandchildren could share, but to me was important. What I got out of it was he was a man of honor, of witness who had a sense of humor, who loved this country, who loved the Congress, who loved serving the people and never forgot where he came from, again, things that we have heard all today that Joe Moakley was and represents. So while this may be not necessarily for the folks who are here today, nor for the folks back in South Boston that truly loved Joe Moakley or throughout Massachusetts, but 55 or 65 years from now, perhaps one of Joe's relatives will open up a book and see what his colleagues thought about him. It is for those folks who may be reading it, let them know that we respected him and we honor him.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this amendment. I have no doubt that every Member of this body, Mr. Chairman, wants to improve education for every child in America. I know people have devoted their lives to try to achieve that goal, and there is no doubt that there are many great educators, teachers, principals across the country who want nothing but the best for our kids. Just a couple of days ago I was on PS 3 on Staten Island, a great school, great kids, you can see the enthusiasm, not only in themselves and their eyes, but the teachers who want the best for those kids. But that is not the issue. The issue is not those kids. The issue is not getting access to good schools, because that is what we want and we guarantee. The issue that you have to ask yourself or present to yourself is, if your child is going to a failing school day after day, year after year, and I want to change that and someone tells you you cannot, that your pride and joy, your child, is forced to endure, this offers hope. This tells those low-income families out there that they have a choice; that they now have an opportunity; that they now will have freedom; and that they can now get a better education where they are not getting it now. The bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, to those families who have little or no hope and are forced to endure, the families who are working, the parents who have two and three jobs just to pay a mortgage or the rent or to pay the car bill, they have no choice; all we are saying is give those families some hope. Give them that opportunity to send that child to a better school. I do not know what is so radical about that. What is so bad about that? What is so un-American about that? If anything, Mr. Chairman, I think what indeed is American is to provide freedom to those who do not have it right now.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I think, as has been said many times today, this bill is long overdue and it is a tremendous benefit for the American people. Essentially what it does and if you ask any American, I know if you ask anybody back home in Staten Island or Brooklyn, if they are given the opportunity to set a little more money aside for their retirement, will they take advantage of it? This bill does that. This bill for the first time in years says to that hardworking individual or two, you can take a little more money and save it for your golden years. Is that not what we should be trying to do? Should we not be empowering Americans to say that they should have the freedom to spend a little more money for their own retirement as they see fit? We all know that different families have different needs, young, old. But we also should have a fundamental agreement that when Americans, when individuals are given the freedom to invest and to save on their own, we are doing not only them a service but we are doing the entire Nation a service. On Staten Island, for example, we have a lot of police officers, firefighters, sanitation workers, a lot of civil servants, city workers. Right now, if they decide to change careers, which is their right, they cannot roll over their contributions into another retirement plan, a 401(k) or an IRA. This bill solves that problem, giving them more freedom and more flexibility. For the carpenter, the tradesman, right now he is limited upon retirement with his benefits. This bill allows him more money. It raises that cap. Is that not what we should be trying to do? In short, I credit the gentleman from Ohio and all Members of this body who support this legislation, because at its core it says to the American people, we trust you. We want to give you more incentives, more opportunities and more freedom to set aside your hard-earned money as you see fit for your retirement. Then you can go off and buy that second home, invest in your grandchildren's education, buy that second car but it is up to you.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the time, and evidently what I was about to say was so profound that the other side of the aisle wanted to adjourn and go home, and I can understand that, not that they wanted me to embarrass myself. Today, Mr. Speaker, we ask ourselves a very fundamental question, do we believe in the power and the spirit of the American people? Do we believe in their ability to create new jobs? Do we believe that they should have the freedom to spend as much money as they see fit on their lives, on their families, on their small businesses or do we maintain and continue the position that whatever money comes to Washington, regardless of how much it is, should be spent by folks here in Washington? The proposition is clear, the issue is clear. Now is the time, and it is long overdue, to send that money back to the American people for the refund they deserve so they can spend it on their kids' education, putting more people to work, on a vacation, a new car, whatever it is. Mr. Speaker, if we stand for freedom, if we stand for empowering people, this is the way to do it.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are adopting today the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). This important bill includes authorization of 50-foot deepening projects for all of the major channels in the Port of New York and New Jersey (the ``Port'')--including the Arthur Kill Channel. These deepening projects are critical to the port's ability to handle the larger ships that are now calling on ports throughout the world. This deepening will enable the Port to remain competitive with other ports already equipped with deeper drafts and help to maintain and enhance our region as a hub for international trade. The Port is the largest container port on the east coast, moving more than 2.3 million TEU's of containers annually and directly serving over 35 percent of the U.S. population. As a result of its strategic location in the middle of one of the nation's largest and most affluent consumer markets, the Port provides same day delivery of goods to more than 18 million people. Over the next 10 years, cargo volumes in the Port are expected to double and over the next 40 years, quadruple. The new generation of cargo ships will require greater depths to accommodate their enormous size and container capacity. Some portions of the Port are currently too shallow to accommodate most modern container and military ships. Given the increased competition from other ports, especially Halifax which has depths of 60 to 70 feet, this comprehensive deepening of the Port is imperative. This project has enjoyed the support of the New York and New Jersey delegations as well as the Governors of both states. I'd like to thank Chairman Shuster, Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Oberstar for all of their hard work on this crucial bill. I commend all of my colleagues for coming together to pass this bill important not only to Staten Island and Brooklyn, but to our Nation as a whole.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing on behalf of the more than 41,000 federal law enforcement officers a bill to more fairly calculate the formula used for disability retirement. Federal law enforcement retirement is based on a terribly complex formula which is less than equitable to the brave officers who become disabled when they put their lives on the line. My bill amends the federal disability retirement laws to properly reflect their retirement contributions and their public service. Our federal law enforcement officers, federal fire fighters, capitol police and their families are now often treated inequitably after suffering what amounts to a career ending disability. My bill will correct this situation. In too many cases, an officer injured in the line of duty may not have met the minimum years of government service required for disability benefits and survivor annuity. Their annuity and survivor benefits would then be computed at a lower rate than normal for law enforcement officers. it would be computed at the lower general civil service rate, despite the fact that the law enforcement officer paid a higher rate into his retirement. My bill provides retirement benefits and survivor annuities on an equitable and fair basis. I hope that my colleagues will join me in co-sponsoring this legislation so that we can help provide fair and equitable treatment to the men and women who so courageously serve our country.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 528, I was unable to be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 529, I was unable to be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall Nos. 510 and 511. I was unavoidably detained and therefore could not vote for this legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcall votes.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall Nos. 487 and 488. I was unavoidably detained and therefore, could not vote for this legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``aye'' on rollcall 487 and voted, ``aye'' on rollcall 488.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), as well as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and especially the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), for being such a strong advocate of this legislation but also for being such a strong advocate for law enforcement in general. This legislation rights a minor wrong, and that is it acknowledges those families that were left out of the original legislation. Despite the good intentions, that first draft clearly left some families out across the country. I am very proud to represent the folks in Staten Island and Brooklyn and probably represent the most police officers, active and retired, I would bet, in any congressional district in the country. They are my friends. They are my neighbors. But more importantly, they protect us every single day. It feels like every year I am going to another funeral for a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. And, yeah, it affects the New York City Police Department. It goes to the heart of society. It goes to the heart of these men and women who are willing to risk their lives to protect us. But it also destroys, in part, their families. I have seen the young boys who lost their fathers to gunshot wounds to the head trying to protect a local community. I have seen mothers who were pregnant expecting their baby when they are burying their father. I have seen families who have four or five or six police officers between two families devastated when a young husband, a young father is killed from some career criminal. So those are all the things that sometimes we forget that police officers are willing to do for us. But one thing we do not forget today, with the help of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and everyone else here today, is to tell those families that may have been left out, the Congress of the United States appreciates what they went through; and if they need help to help their child, we are there for them.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 437. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for pursuing this legislation because it is truly of benefit to the American people. And the distinctions are very clear, as I see it, because we believe that individuals should have more power, more freedom, and more opportunities to save for their retirement. This legislation allows individuals to do so. We believe that creating wealth for Americans and their families, for their retirement, are good things. This legislation allows those Americans to do so. We believe that small business owners who want to create pensions for their employees to keep them with them so that they and their employees can save for their retirement, should be able to do that effectively. This legislation allows them to do so. We believe that firefighters and police officers who want to save a little bit more each year for their retirement, for themselves and their families, should have the opportunity to do so. This legislation allows them to do it. Yes, we give to Americans the power, the freedom and the opportunity to save a little more if they want to. That is what this Nation is all about. And I think that is what this legislation attempts to do and, indeed, does. With that, Mr. Speaker, I compliment all those Members, Democrats and Republicans, who give Americans more power to save for their retirement.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, John Kelly was a young man, 31 years old, who grew up in the Oakwood section of Staten Island, attended high school there, was a parishioner at Lady Star of the Sea in Huguenot, had a wonderful wife, also a police officer with the New York City Police Department. John, after graduating, fulfilled his desire like so many of his family members, his brothers Thomas, James and Daniel, as well as other family members, to go become a New York City police officer. He did that for 8\1/2\ years. He had two beautiful children, a 2- year-old and a 9-month-old. He had his whole life ahead of him, until yesterday. This decorated New York City police officer was killed while he was doing his job protecting the people of New York City and specifically the people of Staten Island. He is the third police officer to die in the last 3 years in Staten Island alone, adding to the list of hundreds of others who have given their life for their country and for the community. So now a 2-year-old and a 9-month-old grow up without a father. Patricia, with our prayers, along with her family, will live on. John's mother, Margaret, as well as his brothers Michael, Robert and Patrick, hopefully will find some comfort and solace from the other people of our community knowing that Officer John Kelly, a decorated officer with four commendations during his career, who went above and beyond the call of duty for the people he loved so much, the community he loved so much, as well as for the job he took so much pride in performing day in and day out. His partners and everyone who worked with him on Staten Island have nothing but praise for him. I just thought it was appropriate that from time to time while others, like cats on mice, jump to disparage what good police officers do throughout our Nation, that we understand and pause for just a moment to remember that people like John Kelly, just 31 years old, gave his life for the very reason that he took the oath to be a New York City police officer. So if anything comes out of this, I just would hope that the people of this Nation remember the Kelly family in their prayers. We wish, on behalf of the people of Staten Island, that they find some comfort in knowing that John Kelly died a hero.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his efforts in championing this issue in this Congress and really fighting on behalf of the American taxpayer. The gentleman should be commended for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reject the substitute very simply because it is bad for the people I represent. Very often, there are those here who underestimate the people of this great country. They underestimate that the people of this country work hard, that they are out there toiling in the fields or working back home where I am proud to represent in Staten Island and Brooklyn every day, 5, 6, 7 days a week. When they send that check to Uncle Sam, it is okay to send a little bit back. So for those who underestimate the American people, it is understandable how they are here justifying keeping more money here in Washington. I and others who will vote for this legislation have a very simple principle, I think, in mind; and that is the people that we represent work too hard to be taken for granted, that when we have the opportunity to do so, like give them some of their money back, we should take advantage of it. So when I go back home this weekend and I see the cop who is married to the fireman or the cop married to the teacher or the nurse married to the small business owner, and they ask me, How did it go this week?, I can say, Do you know what, we voted for legislation that will give you almost $1,000 or $1,500 more in your family's pocketbook. That means that you, you the people of this country will have the freedom to choose what to do with their money. Folks right now are contemplating going on vacation. Some are saying, what if we had a few more bucks, we can go away for a week or 2 weeks this summer. Some of them cannot do it. Maybe with this money they can. They are going to send off their child to kindergarten this September or to college. They are contemplating, where are we going to get the money from for Johnny or Lisa's education. Well, with this money, they can do it. Or they are contemplating buying some new clothes for their kids. Right now they cannot do it. With this money, they can. There are those who are doing work on their house. They say, we would really like to put an extension on the back or put a deck on the backyard or perhaps get a swimming pool. Right now, they cannot do it. With this, they can. So I feel very confident in knowing that the American people who have worked so hard to achieve this surplus, that too many in Washington are taking credit for, those individuals, the people that I represent, I can go back home, the constituents of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), he can go back home, and say, Do you know what folks, you have earned this. Let us vote for true marriage tax penalty relief.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall numbers 373, 375, 376, 377, and 378. I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather, and therefore, was not present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 373, ``yes'' on 375, ``no'' on 376, ``yes'' on 377, and ``no'' on 378.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport facilities. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest, is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally, Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity. As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24 hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore, however, vacant of any real activity. Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey. The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard. In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax. Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year 2009. The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion. The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged today. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent. Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million. The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I think it would be a big mistake not to take action now. The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss with him this important project vital to my district. I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality. Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from California.