Vito Fossella

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time and also for his steadfast commitment to fight on behalf of the American taxpayer. I think it was the comment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) that this is about freedom, this debate. I think what we are going to have before us, first the rule, and then the underlying legislation, are two arguments. One that wants to strengthen personal freedom, one that recognizes that government has a responsibility to all of the folks that we represent throughout our great Nation. The other side of the argument is we have a responsibility and we also want to take as much of one's money as possible to spend it here in Washington. First, let us say what we are doing. We are protecting and strengthening and preserving Social Security and Medicare. There are those who are going to scare seniors, scare women, scare anybody within earshot if they can do it, and that is sad. I think the American people are wise enough to understand that the Republican Congress has set aside the Social Security taxes for Social Security. We are strengthening our national defense. We are funding education. We are protecting our environment. That is what we are doing. Then the question becomes, what do we do with this projected surplus? Our economy over the next 10 years is projected to grow to about $100 trillion. We are talking about tax relief of less than a trillion, which is less than 1 percent of our Nation's economy, to send back to the people who generated it. So if we are committed to continuing economic growth, if we are committed to preserving personal freedom for the people who are working hard every single day, then the question becomes, do we take that projected surplus and leave it here in Washington like leaving candy on a table with little kids around, or do we send it back to the folks who earned it? The question becomes, again, who benefits? Well, under this bill, every American who pays taxes benefits. If one is a small business owner, 30, 40 years or two or three generations, one has been building up one's small business and one goes to sell it, and one has Uncle Sam there waiting for his part of the pie, this eliminates the death tax so one can pass that business on to one's family so they can make that small business become a big business. If one sets money aside every paycheck to buy a few shares of General Motors or Ford or Coca-Cola or whatever, and then one goes to sell that stock so one can pay for one's child's education, if one has two or three kids these days in college, $100,000 a year practically, and one sets that money aside for 20 or 30 years, and one says, ``Do you know what? When Johnny goes to college, I am going to sell that to pay his tuition,'' capital gains reduction helps that person. Frankly, I think we can find a common ground here. The common ground is very simple. With this money that the people from Staten Island and Brooklyn generated, the people from Georgia, the people from California who work hard every single day to keep our engine humming, to keep this economy moving, whether one is a truck driver or worker behind the counter at Dunkin Doughnuts, the fact is, when we give one more of one's money back, the American people benefit. Yes, there are those who want to spend all of one's money. Do not believe them. We believe in the American people. We have faith in the American people. We trust the American people to spend their money as they see fit. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and stand up for the American taxpayer.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of weeks we have seen a vigorous debate here in the House and in the other body. I think it is one that resonates across the country. That is, what to do with the projected $3 trillion budget surplus. There are those who want to argue that the path to prosperity really begins and ends here in Washington, that bigger government and higher taxes and taking away control from our everyday lives is the way to go. There are those who feel that the path to prosperity is paved across every street across our great Nation; that rewarding people to go out and work hard, and to allow hard-working Americans to keep more of what they earn, that is the direction we believe is the right way to go; to strengthen personal freedom, to strengthen individual liberty, and to allow economic growth to create more jobs and to put more people to work. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that is just beginning, but one I think every hard-working American taxpayer needs to take note of. As a reference, I cite a statement that was given about 36 years ago from then President John Kennedy. These were his remarks. The most direct and significant kind of Federal action in aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payment situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and the economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend a penny more than can be justified on grounds of national need and spent with maximum efficiency. The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to- bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. Madam Speaker, President John Kennedy then, like Ronald Reagan several years ago, recognized what it meant to invest and truly believe in the spirit of the American people. This American spirit to produce, to invest, to create, and to give back is what this Nation is truly all about. Currently we engage, as I say, in this debate, and although it is 36 years later, the core principles still remain the same. On one side are those who do not believe in the American spirit or the American people. According to this view, bigger government, higher taxes, and more government control is the answer and the salvation. The alternative view, however, places trust and wisdom in the American people. Our views seem to strengthen personal freedom and reward individuals for the efforts they are willing to undertake. We wish to promote economic growth by reducing the tax burden on hard- working Americans and essentially telling the American people, we believe in you, we trust you, and we want you to keep more of your hard-earned money in your pockets, so you are allowed to spend that on your families, on your education, on your vacation, on your car, making that mortgage payment, buying the new washing machine. Because ultimately it is not about, well, we are going to destroy this program or destroy that program. No, it is about reminding folks what is important: to protect and strengthen social security and Medicare, to strengthen our national defense, and so many other vital programs that are critical to our Nation. But when we are confronted with a projected $3 trillion budget surplus generated by the American people, who are working hard every single day, I do not believe, nor do I think it is unfair, but in fact I think it is not right unless we give a portion of that money back to the people who earned it.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may give my special order at this time.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, over the next several weeks what this great country of ours is going to hear is an important debate. And that is what to do with the money generated by millions of American taxpayers who get up to work every single morning, some of whom work two jobs, the husband and the wife work as well. So, you have a husband and wife working two or three jobs a week, sometimes working 6 or 7 days to put food on the table, to pay the mortgage or to pay the rent, to make that car payment, to put away for your child's education, college, law school or med school. Whatever hopes and dreams you have for your family, you are getting up every single day to fulfill your dream. And at the end of the week, when that paycheck comes, a big chunk of that comes right here to Washington. And the American people have been working so hard in the last several years sustaining economic growth that we really have not seen in recent times and generating a surplus here in Washington. Now there are those here in Washington who think it is all their money. And there are those who want to spend every single dime on their favorite projects or programs. And then there are those who feel that, you know what our job here is to represent and do what is right for the American people, for those taxpayers who generated this surplus. And when we do things like address adequately Social Security and Medicare and education and protecting the environment and strengthening our national defense, then we can believe that those things are right. Then we decide, well, what is left? Right now Washington is projecting a $3 trillion surplus. Now for whatever those assumptions are worth, the bottom line here is there is money that is going to be left on the table. It is important for the American people and the people back home where I am from in Staten Island and Brooklyn to understand the core principles that are going to really drive this debate. There are those of us who believe in personal freedom more for the American people, and there are those who say we need more government control. There are those who want lower taxes, because we believe in the American spirit that when we reduce taxes and allow hard-working people to keep more of what they earn, it drives economic growth, it creates more jobs, and we reinforce what we all tell and what we all believe in, and that is that in this great country, one can follow their dreams if given the chance. On the other side are those who want higher taxes. There are those of us on this side who want limited government because we believe when government gets too large it infringes on our freedoms and liberties, and there are those on the other side who feel that government is just not big enough. Then there are those who want economic growth as opposed to those who want bureaucratic growth, who feel that the decisions made in our communities across this great country are not good enough, but if we grow our bureaucracies here in Washington to have faceless and nameless bureaucrats make decisions for ourselves, our families and our communities and our schools, our police departments, that somehow, that is a better approach to government. Finally, there are those who believe in the creation of more jobs in the private sector that has driven this engine to generate this surplus, and then there are those who believe we need a little bit more redtape to stifle innovation, to hurt small businesses, to add unnecessary rules and regulations that actually reduces the number of jobs it could create. Mr. Speaker, over the next several weeks there are going to be those who say everything imaginable to allow the American people or force the American people to take their eye off the ball. I believe in the American people, the common sense that they will prevail in the end, and not only that, but that we will place our faith in their wisdom and judgment to know that when there is too much money left here in Washington, too many people want to spend it. I say when we take care of Social Security, Medicare, strengthen our national defense and protect our environment and improve education, what is left over we send back home to the people who earned it, to strengthen freedom, to strengthen liberty, and continue our path to prosperity, not only for families that I represent so proudly and humbly in Staten Island and Brooklyn, but all across this great country. I suspect that when we have this debate, the American people will understand who is right.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 336, I was unable to get to vote due to inclement weather in the metro New York City area. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''. Stated against:

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 335, I was unable to get here to vote due to inclement weather in the metro New York City area. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I compliment the gentleman from Texas, because I believe this will be a lasting legacy of his, to argue for more freedom and more liberty for the American people. You are going to hear a lot of debate about how Washington wants to spend your money. But the reality is we are talking about a tax refund to the American people who work hard every single day. The debate is simple. Do we want more freedom and more liberty and more economic growth? Do we want to give a tax cut to every American who pays taxes? Or do you want to keep the money here in Washington to squander more and more of your money? The debate is simple. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall numbers 308 for the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act; 309 for the Sense of Congress Regarding the U.S. in the Cold war and the Fall of the Berlin Wall; and 310 for the Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. I was unavoidably detained and therefore, could not vote for this legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for all of the above resolutions.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding this time to me, and let me say I think what I believe at least is we should all accept what the common bond is here, and I think every Member of this body, Republican, Democrat, Independent, are committed to improving education for all American schoolchildren. But I think where the differences are is how best to improve education. Do we want to raise academic standards? Do we want to provide flexibility to the local communities? Do we want to ensure that the best and brightest teachers get rewarded with merit pay? Do we want to ensure that the teachers in the classrooms are the best for our children? I think this bill does all that and more, and when we talk about things like local control, let me state a fact that I believe to be true. I do not know what is best for the schoolchildren in Santa Clara, California, but I think we can work with the teachers and parents and administrators in Staten Island and Brooklyn where I live to determine what is best, whether it is reading and math skills, whether they need improvement, or smaller class sizes, or special education. I think when we bring control back to our local communities, whether it is Staten Island, Brooklyn, or all across the country, the average and ordinary common sense American will tell us, give us the ability to control what is best for our children and our local schools, and they will say that is the right way to go. And again, whether it is reducing class size or merit pay or increasing standards in math and reading and writing, this is the right approach. I urge adoption of the final passage. It is right for education, it is right for the children who are going to school every single day, and it is the right message to send to the teachers of America that we are with them and we want them to see nothing but the best for themselves and the kids in their classrooms.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall No. 265 for the Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act; 191 for the motion to go to conference on the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act; and rollcall No. 276 for the Financial Services Act. I was visiting the U.S. troops in Macedonia and could not vote for this legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' for both bills and the motion to go to conference.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, today we are hearing the debate as to what we are going to do with the projected taxpayers' surplus. As Americans follow this debate, I think they should just be concerned with where we are going in our core principles. In the way I view it, we have one side that agrees with personal freedom and the other side that wants more government control; one that says lower taxes, another that says we need higher taxes; limited government versus big government; economic growth versus bureaucratic growth here in Washington; more jobs across America or more red tape that will only stifle growth, stifle inhibition, stifle creativity and decrease the number of jobs. So as we debate the taxpayers' surplus that the Americans have generated each and every day, let us remind ourselves of what the core principles are: Do we believe in the American people; do we believe in the American spirit; do we believe in economic growth? Or do we believe that total faith on how to spend the taxpayers' money should be made here in Washington?

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). I know he was a great help at the committee in steering it through. We have 56,000 veterans in the 13th Congressional District. Again I can only hope and pray that we can do all we can to recognize their efforts. This bill would go a long way. I encourage its strong support.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 592 is a simple bill. If passed, it would rename a portion of the Staten Island Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area as World War Veterans Park at Miller Field. The purpose of this bill is simply to honor the brave men who served in World War I and World War II. Staten Island has a long and proud tradition of honoring our veterans, and this bill merely adds to that tradition. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) of the Committee on Resources and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo) of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for their assistance in moving this bill through the committee process, and, on my staff, Travers Garvin, for really carrying the load. Originally, as the ranking member indicated, H.R. 592 was intended to rename the Great Kills portion of the Gateway National Recreation Area. H.R. 592 would have renamed that park World War II Veterans Park at Great Kills. The National Park Service was concerned that the park being renamed should have a historical connection to the new name. Nevertheless in response to those concerns, we agreed to a compromise. H.R. 592 will now rename another portion of the Gateway National Recreation Area, known as Miller Field. Miller Field was originally named after a World War I aviator and was used as a military airstrip during World War II. In order to recognize veterans from both World War I and World War II, the bill seeks to rename the park World War Veterans Park at Miller Field. This change satisfies the National Park Service concerns and, more importantly, still recognizes veterans from Staten Island, Brooklyn and our Nation. I have spoken with veterans who had supported the original bill and they have agreed to the change. I believe strongly that without our veterans' dedication and sacrifice, we would not have the freedoms that we enjoy to this day. My concern is that as time goes by, perhaps the memories, particularly those in the World War I and World War II generation, may fade. The renaming of this park will stand as a timeless reminder of the heroism of the brave men and women who served our Nation. It is my wish that for generations to come, the thousands of people who use this park will stop for a moment and remember the heroism of these men and women. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of H.R. 592 will have no significant impact on the Federal budget. It is simple, again noncontroversial and bipartisan. The bill has 13 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country. H.R. 592 is legislation that takes pride in America. Because of this, I expect it will be an easy vote for. I think it would be especially appropriate to pass this bill for our veterans as we head into the Fourth of July weekend.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, in today's papers across the country typically it would be among the leading stories, if not the leading story, was that the Federal Government is now awash in a trillion dollar surplus. Now I have been here a year and a half, and it is amazing how many projections there are when it comes to the budget surplus. It seems as if every month there is a new projection, and I have a feeling, if we wait long enough, it will be a zillion dollar surplus. The point is that with the American people and I would hope that Members on either side of the aisle here remember is that those surpluses are the results of the hard work of the American taxpayer, whether it is from where I am from in Staten Island or Brooklyn, anywhere across New York and across this country. It is the folks who get up every morning 5, 6 o'clock, working two, sometimes three jobs, to put food on their table, to send their children to school, to pay the mortgage on their house, and then enough left over to send to Uncle Sam. And I understand the temptation in Washington for the most part to spend that money, and by the way, when you project a lot, you get to spend a lot. I would hope that we would exercise responsibility, understand that the basis for the surplus is not because in the last several years the Congress, controlled by the Republicans, has spent so much money, but has taken the responsible approach of not spending all the taxpayer money, and the seeds of this prosperity I would argue were sowed in the eighties, when we cut taxes, when we decided that regulations or too much regulation, only stifled productivity and creativity and inhibited growth, and I think that is what laid the foundation to this surplus. Now there are those who can argue that, well, we raised taxes, and that is why we have a huge surplus. What I think that does is underestimates the American people. We need to understand that when we lower taxes, when we reduce regulation, when we allow the American taxpayer, the small business owner, employee or the employer, to unleash their spirit to produce and to create and, yes, to give back to their local community; that is the America that we should all be proud of, not when we sit in Washington and say how are we going to divvy up this trillion dollars that the people across this country are working so hard to generate? We are fortunate enough these days that there is a lot of prosperity around, but the best days lie ahead, and again I can only urge those in Congress and in the White House that it is the taxpayer money that we are the stewards of here, and it is our obligation to do what is responsible, to promote economic growth and to lower taxes when we can, and if we want to keep this economy growing, we use a big chunk of this so-called surplus to cut taxes. And there is a lot of proposals on the table. The elimination of the marriage penalty tax or the capital gains tax to spur investment, which is a tax on capital. I would like to see a reduction in the personal income tax across the board, so that way any American who pays taxes receives a benefit, or, in short, more of their hard-earned money in their pocket because frankly when we provide the freedom and the liberty and the opportunity to the hard-working American to spend his or her hard-earned money as they see fit on their vacation or their child's education or a second home or whatever they desire, we are doing the right thing for America, the right thing for the taxpayer, and I hope in the days ahead the Congress and the White House recognizes the seeds of that prosperity are not sown here in Washington but across Main Street, across this great country of ours, the United States of America.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, today there were reports that Washington is awash in a surplus to the tune of projected $1 trillion. Well, congratulations to the American taxpayer. There are a lot of folks who would like to take credit for the surpluses. We all know where it is generated from, and that is the hard work of millions of Americans, who get up to work every single morning, sometimes 6, 7 days a week, sometimes 2 or 3 jobs, to generate this surplus. I would just encourage everybody in Washington to remind themselves of that fact, and that when it comes time to spend that money, that they set aside enough back to the taxpayers so they can spend it on their families and to continue to grow our economy as it has been growing like no time before. As it relates to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the San Antonio Spurs, congratulations, but there is also next year for our Knicks fans.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the essence of America, as we all know, is freedom, but somehow, that does not apply to education. Because the door slams shut on so many parents across this country when they want to have the freedom to choose the best education possible for their children. Too often, too many Federal dollars are wasted here in Washington and not enough spent back home in Staten Island and across this country where the parents and the teachers, the local communities know better how to spend their funds. Well, the Republican Party recently is embarking on a path towards freedom when it comes to education, and that is to allow States the opportunity and local communities to spend the money as they see fit. Can anyone in this country acknowledge that the folks here in Washington are in a better position to spend the money on education than back home where they are? Where the parents and teachers and administrators are? I think not. Mr. Speaker, let us support freedom for education. Let us support the opportunity to send Federal money back home across America, and not be wasted here in Washington.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I think the previous speaker, I think millions of Americans agree that, among the most important priorities for any family, particularly young family, is their child's education. Along those lines, I believe that the essence of this country is about freedom. However, it seems that too often when it comes to education, there is no such thing as freedom. There are many, many families across America who have no choice when it comes to selecting a school for their child. In fact, the controls dictate that they send the child to the school that has been zoned for them. Now, frankly, I think ultimately what we need to do is to ensure that every parent across this country, regardless of income, because regrettably it is the low- and middle-income families that suffer the most, that regardless of income those parents have the ability, the opportunity, and the freedom to choose the best school possible for their child. I do not think there is a more important decision that a parent can make, yet in making that decision too many are deprived. Along those lines we can also take steps to get to that point. Recently, the Republican Party has introduced legislation that will take us down the path to true freedom when it comes to education. The notion that we can take billions of dollars out of Washington and send it back home, whether Staten Island or Brooklyn, where I am from, or anywhere else across America, I think is common sense to the ordinary American. Because the average, ordinary American says, I think that my community, with the teachers and the principals and the administrators and the local PTAs, if given that money, would be in a better position to determine what is best for their children. Perhaps it would be smaller classrooms, perhaps more money dedicated to math and science. It could be a range of issues. It could be more money dedicated to arts. But, sadly, the model that has been created over the last number of years is let us send billions to Washington with strings attached, with endless reams of red tape and bureaucracies that make it almost unreasonable to deliver quality education to the folks back home. So that is why I think when we provide flexibility and reduce the amount of red tape and send that money back home to the communities that need the money and to the classrooms where that money belongs we are doing the right thing for America and for the families and the children across America. And at the same time we should demand appropriate accountability from school districts that too often are unaccountable to anybody. So I think we have to move down this path of getting funds away from Washington. Because this money does not just fall out of the trees. The reality is that people get up every morning and go to work and at the end of the week, or every 2 weeks, out of that paycheck goes money to Washington. And that money stays here. But we want to send that money back home to where Americans really are. I hope everyone will listen to the debate in the next few months. It could even go on for a year, because there are a lot of defenders of the status quo here. There are a lot of defenders of the status quo who believe in their heart that taxpayer money is better spent here in Washington by people who will never set foot in the communities of those taxpayers. They believe they know what is best for all America's children and all America's families. And I just throw that out there; that if we believe that wherever we are in America, that our local school districts and our local communities and schools are in the best position and the best able to determine what is best for their children, then we should support common sense legislation like Straight A's: demands accountability and sends the money back home. However, if we do not believe the status quo is serving our children correctly, if we believe that there should be as many strings attached to the decision-making at the local level, if we believe that folks in Washington know best what is going on in Staten Island or Kansas or Texas or Alaska, if we believe that, then we probably do not support this legislation and we do not support initiatives to move to the path of freedom when it comes to education. Madam Speaker, the next several months will underscore, I believe, this Congress' desire to improve education and raise academic standards. I would only hope all Members would support this legislation.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I missed the vote due to weather-related problems. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, in Washington there are a lot of well- intentioned policies that are often misguided and often result in unintended consequences. There are those who claim they want to unite the country and bring people together, but in reality, the policies in and of themselves divide people. I will give my colleagues a perfect illustration of what I am talking about. There is a doctrine that has recently been the goo-goo of so many folks here in Washington across the country called environmental justice. Now, according to the proponents of this doctrine, there are actions that have been taken by governments, local, State or otherwise, that disproportionately affect minority communities. The problem here is happening and occurring right in my community in Staten Island. I will give an example. We have the country's largest landfill. All of the garbage generated in New York City right now, about 9,000 tons per day, ends up in Staten Island. Staten Island happens to be a community that is 80 percent white. So what happened several months ago as we stepped up our efforts to close the landfill on Staten Island? The EPA and the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality and about 60 other officials marched in New York City, not to look at the landfill, but to look at transfer stations in the south Bronx. Their reasoning is that the south Bronx has a problem, but where the disconnect is and what these proponents of things like environmental justice seem to forget is that if there is a health problem or if there is a problem that adversely affects one person, it does not matter if the person is white, African-American, Latino, Chinese-American; if it is bad for one, it is bad for everybody. So as they parade these 60 officials through New York, they do not even come across the bridge to Staten Island. So how is it logical that we can have a transfer station problem in the south Bronx where the garbage is transient, and we do not have a problem with an open, unpermitted garbage dump that is about 160 feet high right now of rotting garbage? And what is the response? Well, you do not have a remedy under environmental justice because you are not in a minority community. That, folks, is not American. This Nation is about equal opportunity, and, by God, if there is a problem in the south Bronx with the transfer stations, if there are young children or there are families that are adversely affected by what is occurring there, then somebody needs to fix it. I am not saying that because whether it is black or white or Latino, but you cannot look me in the eye and tell me that the same should not apply to a community that happens to be 80 percent white. Because I say to my colleagues, and the folks who may be listening and the folks at the White House and the folks at EPA, the folks who are espousing this doctrine across the country, we have a lot of African-Americans who live around the landfill, we have a lot of Latino-Americans, a lot of Chinese-Americans, and they are just as adversely affected by the odor and stench of the landfill. I would hope they would open their eyes to what this country is all about. They talk about environmental justice. This country is about justice for all. I hope they wake up and see the light. The people of Staten Island have been adversely affected by this; they have been adversely affected by the decisions that they are making on a daily basis, and as we asked today, the reason why I am standing here today is when we asked for parity, when we asked for quality, when we asked for the same level, if not less, than what they did for the south Bronx, we were told ``no.'' That is not justice, environmental or otherwise.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, Congress has just returned from the Memorial Day recess, and it allowed, I think, every Member and all Americans to reflect upon what Memorial Day really was all about. In Staten Island and Brooklyn, which I represent, we had the great fortune of honoring our veterans, many of whom died to save us and save the world for freedom, and many of the things that came up in conversations, aside from, clearly, our support and commitment to those troops in harm's way right now, whether it be in Kosovo or Iraq, was to remind us all what it was all about. For example, those World War II veterans or veterans from Korea, Vietnam, essentially what they were fighting for was freedom, whether to bring freedom to others or to protect our own. I think what too often we forget here in Washington is that ultimately the strengthening of personal freedom and individual liberty is really what we should be all about. Right now, there are people back home that are paying the highest tax rates since World War II. That is just not right. There are people working two and three jobs just to put food on their table or pay for their child's education. That is not right. What is right is that we reduce the tax burden on hard-working American people to promote economic growth and essentially allow them the freedom to spend, to save and to invest their hard-earned money as they see fit. Because there is an American spirit out there, whether it is in Staten Island or Brooklyn or anywhere across this country, that when given the right incentives, when given the right advice and guidance from the Federal Government, people will go out there and work hard, and they will produce wonders for the American economy, and they will produce wonders for businesses, both small and large. And you know what? Congress does not have to intervene in every little decision-making. They do not need to look to raise taxes every chance they get. We should be pursuing a course of lowering the burden, really emphasizing limited government, truly articulating the need to remember what we all really should be supporting, and that is more freedom. Frankly, the more we tax, whether it be at the Federal level, the State level or the local level, the more freedom we take away; and if we are committed to sending the right signal, not just to the people today but to future generations, that what the American spirit is all about, the notion of personal responsibility, of coming to our shores with hope and opportunity and hard work, when you do those things, the Federal Government will not penalize you or take away the fruits of your labor, that is when we will be sending a signal that America will remain strong and free forever; and the sacrifices of those veterans, too many of whom died to preserve freedom, too many of whom died to bring freedom to others, we will remind them that they did not die in vain.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr.Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague and friend from New York (Mr. Crowley) and congratulate Mr. Hart as well. Memorial Day is I think too often taken for granted in this country, and it is an opportunity, however, for most of us to appreciate and demonstrate our support for our veterans who were willing to give their lives for our country, too many of whom made the supreme sacrifice, physically, mentally scared for life. So I compliment those in Woodside, Queens and of course in Staten Island where I live. I think it is an appropriate opening to what I wanted to talk about tonight. I will read my colleagues a little clause here. ``The People's Republic of China has stolen classified design information on the United States's most advanced thermonuclear weapons. The stolen United States' nuclear secrets give the People's Republic of China design information on thermonuclear weapons on par with our own.'' So begins the United States national security and military commercial concerns of the People's Republic of China from the Select Committee, commonly known now as the Cox Report that was declassified in the last couple of days. Madam Speaker, we talk about a lot of things here in Washington, and clearly, many of them are important and affect everybody across this country. But I think to me and so many others here, there is nothing more vital than protecting our national security. Frankly, I think if any American can, they should read the Cox report. What I am going to do is just read some outtakes from this. ``The stolen information includes classified information on seven U.S. thermonuclear warheads, including every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the United States ballistic missile arsenal. The stolen information also includes classified design information for enhanced radiation weapons, commonly known as the neutron bomb, which neither the United States nor any other Nation has yet deployed. The People's Republic of China has obtained classified information on the following United States thermonuclear warheads, as well as a number of associated reentry vehicles, the hardened shell that protects the thermonuclear warhead during reentry.'' Might I add, this Cox Committee was a bipartisan committee, Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives, and clearly demonstrates, for example: ``The People's Republic of China has stolen United States design information and other classified information for neutron bomb warheads. China has stolen classified U.S. information about the neutron bomb from a U.S. national weapons laboratory. The United States learned of the theft of this classified information on the neutron bomb in 1996,'' and practically nothing was done. ``The Select Committee judges that if the People's Republic of China were successful in stealing nuclear test codes, computer models and data from the United States, it could further accelerate its nuclear development. By using such stolen codes and data in conjunction with the high performance computers already acquired by the People's Republic of China, the PRC could diminish its needs for further nuclear testing to evaluate weapons and proposed design changes.'' The small warheads that we talk about, multiple warheads, will make it possible for the People's Republic of China to develop and deploy missiles with multiple reentry vehicles. Multiple reentry vehicles increase the effectiveness of a ballistic missile force by multiplying the number of warheads, and a single missile can carry as many as tenfold. Multiple reentry vehicles also can help to counter missile defenses. For example, multiple reentry vehicles make it easier for the People's Republic of China to deploy penetration aids with its ICBM warheads in order to defeat antimissile defenses. At the beginning of the 1990s, the People's Republic of China had only one or two silo-based ICBMs capable of attacking, attacking the United States. Since then, the People's Republic of China has deployed up to two dozen additional silo-based ICBMs capable of attacking the United States. That is 24 additional silo-based ICBMs; has upgraded its silo-based missiles and has continued development of three mobile ICBM systems and associated modern thermonuclear warheads, something they never had. Even though the United States discovered in 1995, in 1995, that is almost four years ago, that the People's Republic of China had stolen design information on the W-88 Trident D-5 warhead and technical information on a number of U.S. thermonuclear warheads, the White House has informed in response to specific interrogatories propounded by the committee that the President was not briefed about the counterintelligence failures until 1998. Madam Speaker, this is just a disgrace, and unless something happens, we should not be here today discussing anything else until our national security is protected.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, this is National Police Officers Week. I rise today to pay tribute and offer my thanks to the law enforcement officers throughout our Nation who stand at the front line protecting the American people. These brave men and women risk their lives every day so that our community may be safe, that our children, parents, and grandparents need not live in fear of criminals. All too often, we see the tragic consequences that come with such awesome responsibility. Hundreds of times each year, America is forced to confront the horror that one of our finest has lost his or her life. We mourned as a Nation last year when two officers who worked right here, Officers Gibson and Chestnut, were killed trying to protect innocent tourists when a madman entered the United States Capitol with his guns blazing. Where I live, on Staten Island, we experienced loss twice last year, and our community still grieves for Police Officer Sal Mosomillio and Officer Gerald Carter, both of whom made the ultimate sacrifice. I can use words like hero, courage and bravery to describe these two men, but the truth is that no words can truly do them justice. In fact, I think both officers would be embarrassed by such descriptions because, in their minds, they were only doing their job. The same could be said of Police Officer Matthew Dziergowski, a dedicated official who was killed earlier this year and has left one son and his wife who was pregnant at the time he lost his life. Mr. Speaker, the New York City Police Department right now and the men and women who serve our city every day are under constant attack. The morale is at an all-time low. But let them know and let them stand assured that there are a lot of people out there who appreciate the job they do, the fact that they are willing to risk their life every day to protect us.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, there is a guy who has been living in my house from January 1 until yesterday. He has not paid any rent, has not paid for food, has not paid for boarding, has not paid for gas. Heck, he does not even take us out to dinner. That guy was the tax man. And he finally moved out. Each year it gets worse. He overstays his welcome. Now, I do not mind him stopping by from time to time, but the time has come to get him out of my house. And it is not just my house, it is every American who pays taxes across this country. Every American who works hard every single day and sees less and less of their paycheck because of this guy who stays in their house. It is unbelievable that we have to work from January 1 to May 11 just to pay the tax man. The time has come for broad-based tax cuts for the American people so they can have the opportunity and the freedom to spend the money as they see fit and to get that unwanted guest out of their house.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no greater responsibility that we have as public officials than to protect the innocent. And there is no greater group of innocent people than young children. Sadly, there are those in this country who are compelled, for whatever reason, unbeknownst to any human being with common sense and decency, to abuse a child, physically and/or mentally scarring the child for life. We see it manifested in many different ways; yet for some reason, whether we are a Democrat or a Republican, when we see a young baby, it always brings a smile to our face. But to know that there are people who would willingly abuse a young innocent child walking the streets of our country is just beyond the bounds of human reasoning. So I am happy and I compliment the sponsor of this legislation which will at least raise the level of consciousness one more notch. Because we need to stand united and to demonstrate that this great country, with its moral underpinnings, is concerned about every child that walks the face of the Earth, and that we, most importantly, can make a difference. It is beyond just the abuse itself. We have been successful on Staten Island in developing a child advocacy center. In short, what that means is that the poor child who is abused, sexually, physically, sometimes as young as 6 months old, these poor children who would then have the trauma of repeating this story 8, 10, 15 different times to assistant district attorneys, to police officers, to child welfare workers, will no longer have to do so because what we did is consolidated our operations. I compliment my predecessor, Susan Molinari, for spearheading this before she left Congress. It is a way of bringing a little reason and comfort to these poor children. I would encourage other communities across this country, if indeed they do not already have them, to explore this option. It minimizes an already tragic situation for a young child and, at the same time, sends a signal to child abusers that this is a zero tolerance policy. Mr. Speaker, I want to once again compliment the sponsors of this legislation.