Vito Fossella

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that together with the Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Menendez of New Jersey, I have introduced H.R. 1256, the Savings and Investment Relief Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to address the growing problem of excess Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) transaction fee collections. H.R. 1256 would cap SEC fees which are imposed on stock transactions at more reasonable levels than are currently being collected, thereby saving investors approximately $2 billion over the next seven years. At the same time, the legislation would provide a flexible funding mechanism that would ensure the SEC's budget needs are always met. The SEC collects various ``user fees'' imposed by the securities laws in order to recover the government's costs of running the SEC, including registration fees on stock offerings and transaction fees on stock trades. Over time, these fees had grown to significantly exceed the SEC's budget. In fiscal year 1996, for example, total SEC fee collections were more than two and one-half times the SEC's budget. Under the leadership of the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, Mr. Oxley, Congress significantly restructured the SEC fee structure in 1996, as part of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (NSMIA). NSMIA's fee provisions were intended to reduce total SEC fee collections over time. Transaction fees were explicitly designed to recoup the costs of the SEC's able supervision and regulation of the securities markets and securities professionals-- indeed, they were intended to be user fees, not general taxes. Unfortunately, actual SEC collections grew to over $990 million in FY97--over three times the SEC's budget of $305 million. This situation prompted one of our most respected former colleagues, then-House Rules Committee Chairman Jerry Solomon, to introduce a bill last year with Mr. Menendez, H.R. 4213, which sought to place an annual cap on transaction fees. H.R. 4213 gained 62 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and was endorsed by the Security Traders Association, the Chicago Stock Exchange, the Pacific Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange Specialists Association, the NASD, the Electronic Traders Association, and the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America. It was also endorsed by Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and numerous state-level pro-taxpayer groups, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. The Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, Bill Archer, was also a strong supporter of the bill, and expressed the Committee's view that transaction ``fees'' were really taxes because they greatly exceeded the SEC's regulatory costs. A revised version of H.R. 4213 was drafted to avoid the PAYGO scoring problems which would have otherwise arisen from a reduction in transaction fees deposited as general revenues. By letter dated September 24, 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored the revised legislation as revenue neutral. Since last year, the situation has only worsened. In FY98, SEC fee collections ballooned to a staggering $1.78 billion--five and one-half times the SEC's $322 million budget. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this situation is absurd and unfair. These ``fees'' have undeniably become a backdoor tax of over $1 billion on all American investors and businesses raising capital. Transaction fees are paid by all hardworking investors in my home district and across America. This tax directly affects individual investors, and impacts those large number of Americans who own stock indirectly, such as mutual fund investors and pension plan beneficiaries. It also has a particularly severe impact on the many NASDAQ market makers and exchange specialists who live in my district. These market professionals must frequently put their own capital at risk to buy and sell as principals in order to fulfill their legal obligation to maintain orderly markets. Excess transaction fees drain capital and liquidity from the markets--which disparately impacts the smaller, start-up companies that are creating new jobs and fueling economic growth. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways to achieve the desired result of reducing transaction fees, including a cap and reducing the rate at which fees are levied. While H.R. 1256 embodies the cap approach, I want to stress that I would also endorse a rate cut as well. My intent in introducing this legislation is to continue to advance the debate on this issue, and to provide much-needed (and long overdue) relief to American investors. I am gratified that Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Levitt has gone on record in support of fee relief. In a recent hearing in the Senate Banking Securities Subcommittee, he testified that ``[t]he SEC shares the Subcommittee's concern that fee collections are currently well in excess of initial projections.'' Chairman Levitt stated that he is willing to work with Congress to address this issue, and indicated that a flexible cap on fees is the most workable solution. I commend Chairman Levitt for these comments and for his continued leadership on issues of great importance to American investors. Mr. Speaker, I pledge to work hard to ensure that the goal of providing investors with relief from these excessive fees is accomplished in the 106th Congress. I look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to achieve this result, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1256.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the resolution. I think the underlying issue right now is worthy of a debate, and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) have indicated, is there not a better day than tax day? I know right now there are people across this country, including my hometown of Brooklyn and Staten Island, who are writing a check to the Federal Government. They are working hard all year for the painful experience of writing a check. While there are those of us who are advocating tax relief for the American people, this does not even talk about that. We are talking about when a bill comes before the House of Representatives that would raise taxes, that we need more than a simple majority to do so. If a bill comes before the House now, we need about 218 Members to pass the legislation. This would raise that amount to 290. Therefore, if we still have 150 Members of Congress who believe that a tax increase is necessary, the legislation will pass. It is very simple. It is not complicated. And it allows those who believe that the American people are not overtaxed or believe that they deserve a tax increase or they believe that economic growth is best left here in Washington and not back home across America, with the freedom and the liberty and the opportunity for Americans to spend their hard-earned money as they see fit, if there are still 150 Members who believe that a tax increase is necessary, they can do so under this legislation. I know there are those who want to make it very, very complicated and talk about esoteric things, but to me, I enjoy going back home and asking the average family who are working so hard, some 6 or 7 days a week, both husband and wife working, sometimes one spouse working just to pay the taxes, and asking them if they want $1,000 back or $1,500 back of their hard-earned money so they can invest in education or buy a new car, put it in the house, and see what their response is. The response I get when I ask that question is an overwhelming ``yes''. But that is tax relief. This legislation deals with tax increases. If there are those who are committed to raising taxes on the American people, they have the opportunity with this legislation to vote ``yes''. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution and a strong ``yes'' for the American people, the hard-working taxpayers of this country who have been the engine of economic growth for years. This will put a limitation on the way Congress spends their hard-earned money.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I also like to compliment and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for yielding me this time and also on his hard and, I think, great efforts to get this tax limitation amendment passed. I just want to say a couple of things. One is on substance, and one is on process. On the substance of the matter, I think this is a great debate. For those who believe that the American people are overtaxed, they have an opportunity to stand up for the American people, the American taxpayer, and they can vote ``yes'' on this tax limitation amendment which would simply make it more difficult for the Congress to raise taxes like so many States across this country. With respect to process, colleagues can be consistent to vote for the tax limitation amendment, and, if they so desire, when the vote comes to raise taxes, they can vote for the tax increase as well. So colleagues can have it both ways. They can say, ``You know what? We ought to make it more difficult for the Members of Congress to raise taxes on the American people, but I also want to have the flexibility that when a tax increase bill comes to the floor, I can vote for it.'' And if they get 150, those who want to see and do not believe the American people overtaxed, if they get about 150 Members under this legislation who believe the American people deserve higher taxes, then do my colleagues know what? They can rally, and they can get 150 Members, or 160, 170, whatever that is, and they can raise taxes. So my colleagues can have it both ways if they are on the fence, and if 40 Members of this body who did not vote for this last year vote today, guess what? We will make it more difficult, something the American people expect and deserve, the Congress to raise taxes. If my colleagues do not believe that the American people are overtaxed, if they do not want to make it more difficult for the Congress to raise taxes, then they should oppose this legislation, and they should go back home and explain to the people they represent: ``You know what? We want to have as much flexibility as possible to raise money.'' On Tax Day, when so many people that I represent in Brooklyn and Staten Island are writing checks to the Federal Government after working hard all year? I do not think so. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Resolution is an opportunity for our nation to finally put the Social Security surplus in a lock box solely for seniors on Social Security and Medicare. The budget resolution also reflects our commitment to education, a strong national defense and much-needed tax relief. Congress promised to balance the budget, reduce the size of government, and reduce the federal debt. This budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 68, sticks to that promise by restraining government spending and paying down the debt. Every penny in the Social Security trust fund, 100% of it, is being set aside for retiring Americans. The President's budget, on the other hand only sets aside 62% of the surplus for seniors. Only by committing 100% of the surplus can we truly strengthen Social Security for future generations. The budget will also give our children's schools the resources to ensure them a better education and bright future. We increase spending to improve public schools. It will also provide billions to strengthen our national defense, equipping and training our troops for combat while honoring our veterans' sacrifices with a boost in health care funding. Finally, this budget gives the record-setting money coming into Washington back to those who earned it--the taxpayers. For the first time in decades, we have surpluses as far as the eye can see. Every hard-working American created the current surplus and the budget gives it back to them over the next ten years.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I think what this day really reflects is what the American people expect and deserve, and that is straight talk from the folks here in Washington. I think what the people back home in Staten Island and Brooklyn appreciate is when we are honest with them. For too many years, the people in Washington have not been honest with the people I represent, and that is true across the country. Now, to me, the most important things in their minds these days are the state of Social Security and Medicare, among others, education, tax cuts. When we talk about Social Security and Medicare, look what the Republican Congress has delivered: Straight talk and fiscal responsibility, locking away the entire Social Security surplus for the Nation's elderly, almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years to save, to strengthen, and to preserve Social Security and Medicare, money that should go for these essential programs and not on what others around here would like to do, spend on their favorite wasteful Government programs or, in other words, a little slush fund. The other thing we talk about and I think is right for the country, right for economic growth, is needed tax relief. Go back home wherever we are across this country and talk straight with the people we represent. Ask them if they do not think they are paying enough in taxes. Ask them if they think they are paying too much in taxes. Tomorrow is tax day. There are a lot of people right now scrambling to fill out their tax forms. A lot of them have to write a check and pay Uncle Sam. They are working hard every single day, and at the end of the year they are writing a check to Uncle Sam. If we believe fundamentally in the notions of freedom and liberty and creating opportunity for the American people to spend and to save and to produce and to create and to innovate, then we should give more of their money back. And that is what this budget resolution seeks to do. Aside from that, we are maintaining the fiscal caps as this Congress voted just a couple of years ago to do; and that is to maintain fiscal responsibility, discipline. Every responsible family in this country has to do this every week, put aside some money for the education, put aside money for the car, pay the mortgage, and establishing priorities. That is what this resolution does as well, establishes priorities, Social Security, Medicare, education, veterans' benefits, tax cuts, and so many others, but at the same time saying, in Congress we are not going to have a party at the taxpayers' expense. Send the money back home where it belongs. Protect our Nation's elderly. Invest in our children. Invest in our future and do the right thing. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time to me. I also want to compliment the Committee on the Budget, and notably the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). The way I look at it, it is very simple. The Republican budget resolution has set forth a very simple and straightforward concept. I think what the American people really want from Washington is straight talk. For the first time ever, we have 100 percent of social security going for social security. I know over the years it has been seen as a slush fund, but once and for all the American people are getting straight talk and honesty. With respect to the budget caps, a couple of years ago everybody sat around here in Washington, and the President, and they smoked their peace pipe and they agreed to the budget caps. Some people think that was a game. The Republicans say it is for real. That is what the American people expect and deserve. What are the principles we set forth? A strong defense. Taking care of Medicare. We saw what the President's budget did to Medicare. Taking care of our veterans. Needed tax relief. That is the critical distinction here between the amendment before us and what the Republican budget resolution calls for, because every year since 1995 the President submitted his budget and the Republicans have done the responsible and appropriate thing and said, let us put the brakes on. Let us spend money appropriately and be responsible, but not have a party at taxpayers' expense. Once and for all, we are going to get that. The American people deserve that. I urge the rejection of this amendment and support for the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the American people what I think is a great injustice that is occurring in our country. It is injustice that seeks to pit community against community, color against color and the American people against one another. It is an injustice that we are witnessing in my district in Staten Island, but it is injustice that I have little doubt we will be battling throughout the Nation before long. The controversy centers around the seemingly innocuous-sounding policy advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency known as ``environmental justice''. In theory, this legal doctrine is supposed to reflect the notion that all communities, regardless of race or ethnicity, should share equally in the burdens and risks of environmental protection policies. It sounds reasonable, except, of course, until the theory is applied. Over the years, the policy has been twisted like a pretzel, so that today, lawyers and activists now believe that different people deserve different treatment or, more precisely, that some people are more equal than others. Earlier this month, for example, top Federal officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and even the White House Council on Environmental Quality came to New York for a day-long tour of waste transfer stations in the South Bronx. They came to see for themselves and to hear the residents who claim that these facilities pose an environmental injustice on their community. Let me add that I have no problem with them going to the South Bronx. The morning after the tour, the EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality organized an unprecedented 8-hour public hearing in which residents had the opportunity to voice their outrage over the existence of the transfer stations. At the conclusion of the event, and at a speed in which I have never seen the Federal Government act, the White House Council on Environmental Quality announced that it would undertake an environmental justice investigation in the South Bronx. This is, quite possibly, the most clear-cut hypocrisy on the part of the EPA that I have ever witnessed. At its core, the doctrine of environmental justice defies the most fundamental American principles of equality and justice. Why? Because while the White House Council on Environmental Quality mobilized its top officials for a tour of the South Bronx, granted a predominantly minority community, it never considered traveling just a few miles to Staten Island, which just happens to be a predominantly white community, to see one of the most horrific examples and nightmares of the 20th century known as the Fresh Kills Landfill. To me, Mr. Speaker, it was an insult to every resident of Staten Island and a slap in the face to the hard working people of my district, who have been burdened for 50 years by this 3,000 acre, 150- foot-high illegal garbage dump, the largest in the country. This facility is not only the largest in our country, but one of, so legend has, one of only two man-made structures visible from outer space. Recognizing the absurdity of any investigation on waste disposal in New York without a full and comprehensive discussion of Fresh Kills, I filed my own complaint with the EPA for an environmental justice review on Staten Island. In the days since, the silence from the EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality has been deafening. It should also not be forgotten that for the South Bronx and every other borough in New York City, waste would be continually moving through transfer stations en route to a destination out of state, whereas at the Fresh Kills Landfill the trash literally sits and rots in our community forever. The EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality failed to see the hypocrisy of fighting tooth and nail against a waste transfer station or transfer stations in the South Bronx because it would be located in a minority community but, at the same time, requiring a community like Staten Island to accept nearly 10 billion pounds of garbage every year. Let there be no mistake. If the EPA or a State or local agency finds a particular facility poses a health risk to a community, the agency should mitigate or eliminate that risk, regardless, regardless, of the race or ethnicity of the residents of the neighborhood. But a governmental policy that takes skin color into account does not do justice, environmental or otherwise, to Americans, nor should it be funded with our tax dollars. The fact is that 234 billion, I say billion, pounds of raw garbage is no less offensive because it sits rotting in a community that is predominantly white. I believe this country stands for equality for all. If something adversely affects someone, it does not matter if they are black, Hispanic or white. If it is bad for one, it is bad for all. It may come as a surprise to advocates of environmental justice, but thousands of Staten Islanders of all races and ethnicities live within one mile of the Fresh Kills Landfill. Much like me, they do not see color when looking at garbage, they just see trash, and they know hypocrisy when they smell it.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I also commend the chairman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and others who have worked so hard to bring this to the floor. During these and other debates in Congress, essentially what we are doing is establishing priorities. Make no mistake, the number-one priority of this Congress should be to maintain our national security and a strong defense. Today there is an emerging ballistic missile threat to our Nation, and, in plain English, too many nations will soon have the ability to reach our shores with weapons of mass destruction. We must stand firm and we must stand united to defend ourselves in face of this real threat. To do otherwise simply will be to ignore history, to misunderstand the nature of tyrants, to play a game and a major role I believe in weakening our national security. Right now, America cannot defend itself against a ballistic missile attack. This resolution, while long overdue, is right for a safe and secure America. I urge its strong support.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day and celebrate the great accomplishments made by Irish Americans to our republic. Across America, whether we are Irish American or not, we honor the sacrifices made by so many Irish Americans and really celebrate their accomplishments. It was not always easy, though, for the Irish who came to our shores. It was not long ago the Irish seeking employment were met with the infamous warnings, ``Irish need not apply.'' But the goodness that is America prevailed, and generations of Irish Americans have made this country the greatest in the history of the world. With their solid work ethic and belief in personal responsibility, love of our Nation, respect for honor, and a gentleness towards the weak and infirm, I, like millions of Americans, proud of my Irish heritage, understand how lucky we all are to be Americans. I wish everybody a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think one of the benefits of tonight's discussion, and I really appreciate my colleagues bringing out all they are, because I think the American people deserve the truth, and what my colleagues are doing tonight is presenting them with the truth, is we are having a healthy conversation about tax cuts as well. Now there may be differences of opinion, for example, within the Republican Party as to what tax cuts should be. I support Mr. Weller's efforts to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Mr. Thune's constituents in South Dakota as well as mine would benefit from a reduction in the death tax. The constituents of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) will benefit from a reduction in the capital gains tax. I happen to believe that we need a reduction in marginal rates across the board. The important thing to note is it is not just a simple choice between what we are discussing in terms of tax cuts for the American people, and none at all on the other side and what the White House is saying, we are talking about saving Social Security, strengthening Social Security, and tax cuts as opposed to more spending and higher taxes. That is what we are hearing from the other side. I think the more the American people look at the details of what the Republican Congress is doing, what it has done up until now when given the ability to do so, despite the rhetoric, despite the fear, despite the sky is going to fall from the other side, ultimately, at the end of the day, the American people are going to place their trust in the people who are true to them. I want to congratulate all my colleagues again.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, she should go see her Congressman from Colorado. He is going to give them all the money back. Let me just commend the gentleman from Colorado as well for putting this together, and also the majority leader, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh); we are joined also here by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) of Wisconsin and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), all of whom are speaking for the American people who feel that they are overtaxed. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) posed the question about how can we be doing this? How can the White House be making these statements about a so-called surplus and yet spending more money. I would like to refer folks back to the movie the Wizard of Oz. Remember Oz, the wizard who would say, do not look behind the curtain. Well, in a way, that is what happens here in Washington. Just do not ask those questions. Trust us. Trust the White House spending your hard-earned money. And if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) goes back home and sees that gentleman again and he asks him the question, does he trust people in Washington or the President to spend the money he earns every single day of the year, or would he prefer the freedom and the opportunity and the liberty to spend that?

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the interesting point here is we are from all parts of this country: New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas. I think we represent really what the heart and soul of what the American people want from us. That is, those are the folks who work hard every single day to send that money back home, because ultimately in life we have a choice. We have a choice here in Washington, by sending people who want to spend that money, much of it unnecessarily, or send it back home where it belongs, and at the same time set aside money where it belongs in the social security trust fund so it is not treated as a slush fund instead of a trust fund. That is the decision that is going to be made every single day of this Congress and the next. I believe strongly, despite what the polls say, despite what the pundits say, that the people at home in my district on Staten Island and Brooklyn, and in that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), feel they pay too much in taxes. I say we give them that $1,400. Would they prefer to spend it back in Illinois? People I represent would rather have that $1,400 in Staten Island to spend how they see fit, whether it is education, a vacation, a new car, whatever it is, because we believe in what this country is all about: the fundamentals of freedom and liberty, and the notion that if you provide the incentives to go out there and work hard we will see economic growth, we will see new jobs created, we will see new innovation, we will see the creativity, we believe in the American spirit. I want to thank all my colleagues for taking time out to really be the voice of the American people here in Congress, and I thank again the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for putting this together.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation lost a bit of its soul when the Yankee Clipper, Joe DiMaggio, waved good-bye for the last time. Unlike many, Joe DiMaggio deserved the accolades he received. Joe DiMaggio was more than just a great baseball player, I think we would all admit. Some argue he was simply the best. Clearly he was one of the best. For me and I believe many, it was not the hitting streak, the way he glided around the bases, the outfield he roamed effortlessly, or the many world championships he helped to secure. Heck, I never even saw Joe DiMaggio play. He retired 14 years before I was born. Certainly it was on the field where Joe DiMaggio earned his glory but it was off the field where he earned his respect and the everlasting admiration of millions. Joe DiMaggio lived a life with grace, dignity, integrity and humility. This is what I believe made Joe DiMaggio so very, very special. Over time, celebrities puncture our culture or splash onto the scene only to disappear after what seems like a moment. These fleeting ``stars'' that society grabs and lets go so quickly grab the big headlines, go to the best parties, or are seen with the ``right people.'' Joe DiMaggio, on the other hand, was timeless. He grabbed a part of an era, the World War II generation, that some think is the best, and carried it with class until the day he died. Unlike many of those celebrities, Joe DiMaggio enjoyed universal love. Why the spontaneous standing ovations when he walked into a restaurant 47 years after he left the game of baseball? Because the people of this country still acknowledge greatness in their own special way. To many, Joe DiMaggio represented the wonders and goodness of man and this great country, America. You see, to many in this country, our country, character still matters. Let me also take a moment to pay tribute to that city that Joe DiMaggio called home, and the city where Joe DiMaggio was one of its favorite sons, New York. In some parts, New York City gets a bad rap. That is a shame. New York City is unlike any other city in the world. Its pace may be too fast, crowds too large, streets too congested, but with all of this comes millions of people who love life, the United States of America, baseball and yes, the Yankees. And not necessarily in that order. And these folks loved Joe DiMaggio. Mr. DiMaggio embraced New York City and made it special and New York City embraced Joe DiMaggio and will never let him go. And also what Joe DiMaggio represented, son of an immigrant from Italy who personified all the goodness of the great contributions Italians have made to build this great country. He was proud of his Italian heritage but he loved this country. When Joe DiMaggio retired from baseball, he still had what others would argue is a few good years left. But not for Mr. DiMaggio. He walked away because he had standards. History will record those standards along with the hitting streak, the grace, the quiet dignity and integrity which will forever be the hallmark of one of the greatest baseball players of all time. So no more opening days, just memories and a celebration of a wonderful life. I wish I could say it ain't so, but the Yankee Clipper has set sail. Mr. Speaker, in closing I guess he will forever be immortalized in a song written by the songwriter Paul Simon. In today's New York Times, Mr. Simon, in an op-ed piece, talks about those words, ``Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? A Nation turns its lonely eyes to you.'' Mr. Simon says, In the 50's and the 60's, it was fashionable to refer to baseball as a metaphor for America, and DiMaggio represented the values of that America, excellence and fulfillment of duty, he often played in pain, combined with a grace that implied a purity of spirit, an off-the-field dignity and a jealously guarded private life. Mr. DiMaggio was truly a great American and will forever be missed.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as an American of Irish descent and as a Representative from Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York which is the home of many Irish Americans. I am very happy to see that the peace process in Ireland has progressed to the point we are at now--nearing the one year anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. It is a significant accomplishment that the violence has ended, that those who wish to further violence are not in power and are no longer winning their battle. Last fall, I had the opportunity to travel to Ireland and to see the wonderful country from which my descendants came. I was able to meet with leaders from both sides and to witness for myself what the toll that violence has taken on this beautiful country. Now is a time to work together, to rebuild, to look towards a future with a peaceful Ireland. We must ensure that peace in Northern Ireland becomes a long- term, irreversible reality and the almost year old Good Friday agreement remains enforced. In closing, I would like to commend Congressman Walsh from New York on his leadership on this issue and to thank him for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 18, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would've voted ``aye'' on S. Con. Res. 7.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is faith. Do we place our total faith in the Federal Government or do we place our faith in the American people? Not too long ago here in Washington we were faced with huge budget deficits. And because of a responsible Republican Congress, we now are on the path to prosperity because of the hard work of the American people. We were told then we could not cut taxes, and we did. And today we are facing a huge budget surplus here in Washington, and if left alone it will be spent here in Washington. Now we are told again today from those same people, we cannot cut taxes. Well, let us lay down the line right now. If we believe in the American people, if we believe that this is still the country of hope and opportunity and that anybody, given the right set of incentives and hard work and notions of personal responsibility, can go out there and succeed, let us reduce the taxes on the hard-working American people, let them keep more of their hard-earned money, and let us send the promise back to them. Let us promise them that if we give them the tools to succeed, we believe in them, not the people here in Washington, who all they will do is spend that money and too often unwisely.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months I have reviewed, in some instances more than once, the evidence in this case in an objective and dispassionate manner. Perjury, or lying under oath, is a felony. As evidence, there are American citizens in jail today because they did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law. The foundation of our legal system is premised upon the rule that when any citizen raises his or her hand and swears to tell the truth, he or she will tell the truth. In my community, as in every community throughout our nation, juries have reaffirmed that fundamental principle. Today in New York due to a felony conviction: A Police Officer would lose his job, lose his pension and go to jail; an attorney would face automatic disbarment and go to jail; and a captain in the United States Army could be subject to court martial and go to jail. In reviewing the evidence, it became clear and convincing to me that the President lied under oath in a civil proceeding and in testifying before a Federal Grand Jury. In this case I believe there is sufficient evidence that William Jefferson Clinton committed perjury and abused the office of the Presidency. Accordingly, I will take the only course of action that the United States Constitution has mandated me to do--I will vote for impeachment and let the United State Senate conduct a trial to determine the ultimate outcome. I understand that this decision may not sit well with some people. And I appreciate that many Americans have take the time to voice their opinions. But, it is my firm belief that I must do what I believe is right. Indeed, there are those who acknowledged that the President has committed a felony, yet will not summon the courage to vote to move this matter to the Senate for trial. I cannot defend the indefensible and maintain a clear conscience. I cannot in good conscience justify a vote against impeachment. The integrity of the judicial system and the rule of law must be maintained regardless of who comes before it. We cannot ignore the rule of law for the President, but apply it to the ordinary citizen. Our founding fathers and many of our ancestors escaped the tyranny where the King was law. Millions have fought, hundreds of thousands have died and many are fighting today, far from our shores, to preserve the freedom and rule of law that we enjoy. This vote is cast to preserve the notion for our children and future generations of Americans yet unborn that in the United States of America the law is King.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate at this point to rewind the tape a little bit to earlier this year in this very chamber where the President came before the Congress and the American people and requested billions of dollars in additional spending and billions of dollars in additional taxes. Now, I believe fundamentally that trust and credibility are something that we try to contract with the people who send us here, the ability for us to go back home and tell the people back at Staten Island or Brooklyn that we are fighting to do the right thing here in this country and this Congress. And I believe, and I think a lot of the colleagues on this side of the aisle believe, that the American people are taxed too much; that too many people go to work each and every day and do not see enough come back in the form of their paycheck. Now, indeed too much money goes to the Federal Government and not enough comes back to the people in Staten Island, the ones that I represent. Obviously what has happened is the Republican majority in the last several months has fought for much needed tax relief and fought for the elimination of the ridiculous marriage penalty tax, whereby millions of American couples are penalized through the Tax Code for being married. That means they pay an additional fee over and above what they should pay just because they are married. In addition, there are a lot of small business owners around this country who want good health insurance, but they can only deduct approximately 45 percent of that health insurance. What that means essentially is the Federal Government takes that money in place of good health insurance, affecting many of the small business owners' decisions when it comes to the uninsured and providing health insurance for their families. This Congress offered 100 percent deductible to be imposed next year. Not to mention the fact we are trying to stimulate our economy by allowing our economy to grow, and that means getting the money out of Washington and allow people, whether it is in Staten Island, San Francisco, anywhere across the country, to reinvest the money, to save money. Basically, folks, it is the freedom to spend your money as you see fit and not here in Washington. And we fought month after month, and what happened? The President threatened to veto it and killed the tax relief that was so desperately needed from so many people across this country. Now we see an attempt to divert attention away from the issue at hand, and, yes, it becomes under the guise of education. Who could not stand in this well and say we do not want to improve education? We have been fighting for years to try to improve education, at least I know back on Staten Island. But there is a philosophical and fundamental difference as to who is best able to make those decisions. Now, I stand firm and I stand strong to say the people on Staten Island, the parents and the teachers and the principals and the administrators back home are in a better position to make those decisions than bureaucrats here in Washington. All they want to do is send billions more to fund those bureaucrats, to fund the big government, instead of sending the money back home. We have tried to make progress over the years, but the defenders of the status quo who love more government and bigger government and more bureaucrats at the expense of the children and the families, all they can do is say ``no'' and divert attention. Education savings accounts, empowering parents with the flexibility to make the decisions best for their children passed this House. Vetoed by the President. Opportunity scholarships for the students of the Washington, DC school system. To the chagrin of the people on the other side who say it is taking money away, no, in fact, it was not. That is not true. It was money over and above what we were sending to the Washington, DC school system to go to the poorest students who were trapped in the horror of the Washington, DC school system. An opportunity for 2,000 students. The President vetoed it. More money to the classroom. Ninety-five percent of the Federal money that now finds its way too often in Washington, we were sending it back home to Staten Island and Brooklyn, to the classroom where it is needed most. What happened? A threatened veto. Killed by the President in the White House. Who can argue with empowering parents, sending more money to the classroom, providing flexibility for local teachers and administrators and local school districts? I will tell you who can argue with that; the people who wanted to divert attention away from doing the people's business, divert attention away from the fact that all they want to do is make the government in Washington bigger and bigger, and take the freedom and liberty away from the people back home in Staten Island and across this country. I believe strongly that the American people are tired of that record and want to see tax relief and better education options.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to support this resolution. I say this not as a Republican, not as a New Yorker, but as a person who loves this great country and all it represents. Earlier today, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, stated in essence: ``This matter will be the most divisive issue this nation has faced since Vietnam.'' While I do not question the gentleman from New York's belief that he believes this to be true, I do take exception to the comparison and respectfully disagree. Here is why during the Vietnam war, as has been the case with every war or military conflict since our nation's birth, men and women were sent overseas with a willingness to die for freedom, liberty and to defend the rule of law. In the case before us, the President of the United States has been charged with violating the rule of law that so many Americans have died for and are still willing to die for at a moments notice all over the globe. The same rule of law that we must ensure applies equally to every single American, including the President of the United States. This matter goes to the very heart and soul of what America is all about. This matter will determine whether we defend the Constitution, or destroy it. I hope and pray that each distinguished Member of this body places America first and that each Member sees through the clouds of rhetoric to uphold the rule of law. It is the rule of law that unifies this country. It is the rule of law that allows each American the opportunity to enjoy and to pursue what our founding fathers and every generation of Americans since have always hoped for--that each American be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we, indeed, cherish the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty granted to every single American, then we will seek to vindicate the rule of law and proceed with this matter with all deliberate speed and an unbreakable bond with each other towards fairness, equity and justice for each party involved, including the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans have died to defend these principles we hold so sacred. Too many generations of Americans have given so much to wish reluctantly that this matter just disappear. Just as important, Mr. Speaker, with the Almighty blessing, generations of Americans yet unborn will look back to this day and claim this to be one of America's finest hours, not as a sideshow that some are trying to depict this as. Each Member of this body still must maintain an obligation and responsibility to be bound to our oath of office, the same oath of office voluntarily taken by the President of the United States. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, like all things in public life, in the covenant that exists between the people and their elected officials, the overriding issue is trust and credibility. Now, we have heard for the last few days an attempt by the other side to divert attention away from the fact that we were going to deliver much-needed tax relief for the American people, phasing out the marriage penalty tax, helping small business owners with health insurance deductibility, raising it to 100 percent, and, above all, helping farmers across our country. Now we hear that education is the issue. Of course it is the issue. We all want to see education improve. But every attempt we have to take the bureaucracy out of Washington and bring it back home to Staten Island, Brooklyn, across the country, we are opposed. We passed education savings accounts to give parents more flexibility to do what is right for their children, not the Washington bureaucrats. Threatened by the President, vetoed by the President. Opportunity scholarships for the poorest students in the Washington, D.C. school system passed this House and Senate, again giving power back to parents locally. Vetoed by the President. Let us end the rhetoric. We all want to improve education. The question is how do we do it. We say give it back to the people, back to the parents, back to the teachers.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding to me. I am proud to join my colleagues, Mr. Cox and Mr. DeLay and Mr. Gilman, in saying a fond farewell to Bill Paxon, although as Chris Cox just stated, I do not think Bill is going far. Those of us who know Bill, both on a professional level, can appreciate his energy, his optimism, his ability to always get things done, but more important to get them done right. But there are those of us who are fortunate enough to know him on a personal level. And in business, like any other business across the country, if you can somehow appreciate someone as a professional and appreciate someone as an individual on a personal level, you have gotten to know the best of that person. And I do not think there is a Member in this House that cannot look to Bill Paxon and see a man of honor, a man of integrity and a man of character. In a business, particularly politics here, where a handshake does not often mean a lot, but I think in the rest of America a handshake still means a lot, it is nice to know that we have a guy in Bill Paxon where the handshake still means something. That goes to the root I think of what Bill is all about. You look at Bill, you see a sense of someone who is principled and someone who really loves life. But more importantly, I think it has been said already, and it will be said many times tonight, that he loves his wife, Susan Molinari. Susan and I are friends, and I could not think of a better person that she can share her life with than Bill Paxon. And each of them together truly adore and love their daughter Susan Ruby, who is so affectionately called ``Suby.''. Susan Ruby will have another daughter, another sister to play along with, and I can understand, as someone who is a father of two boys, how much Bill desires to spend more time with his wife and his daughter, and soon to be two. We have a mutual friend in his father-in-law, Guy Molinari, his mother-in-law, Marguerite, who are back on Staten Island right now. Guy served in the House before Susan. And in a way, if it was not for Guy leaving this House to run for local office, the chances are that you would never have met Susan. So in a way Guy running for borough president allowed you to marry the love of your life. I am sure they are all going to see this or hear of this one day and really come to learn and come to know how much Bill Paxon has made a difference in this country. Not too long ago, I have only been in this House a year as you know, Bill. I probably would not be here if it was not for you. You helped a great deal in my campaign for Congress to replace Susan here. And indeed the people of Brooklyn and Staten Island have given me a great honor and privilege to serve them. But I would not be here if it was not for you. I think there are a lot of Members of this body who would not be here given the chance to serve this great country. A few years ago there were people who were giving up hope in this country. The ship of government was clearly heading in the wrong direction. The notion that government had all the solutions, that taxes were too low and government needed to impose more taxes and the welfare state, well, let us make it bigger and our military, well, that can wait, we have other priorities. It is easy to sit back and do nothing. But what separates the truly successful, the people who really love this country and want to improve this country and speak to the next generation, we hear a lot of rhetoric about those who really care about the next generation, but it was Bill Paxon, along with the Speaker, not the Speaker at all, but Newt Gingrich and all the members of the Republican Party who said, ideas matter, ideas matter. This country should not be lost. The American people have given too much to give this country down to that notion that government has all the problems. But he went out and he recruited candidates, and he worked his tail off day in and day out, year after year to bring a Republican majority to this House. People thought it was impossible, probably a few weeks before the election people thought it was impossible. But he proved them wrong. And he went out there with his idea that this country is the greatest in the history of the world. And frankly, as far as I am concerned, there is nobody like Bill Paxon. Most of all, I am proud that he is my friend. And I can only wish him the very, very best. I know we are all lucky in our own little way to have known him for this brief period of time, but we are also lucky to know that we will continue to endure a friendship that will last hopefully forever.

Mr. FOSSELLA

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

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to support this resolution. I say this not as a Republican, not as a New Yorker, but as a person who loves this great country and all it represents. Earlier today, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, stated in essence: ``This matter will be the most divisive issue this nation has faced since Vietnam. While I do not question the gentleman from New York's belief that he believes this to be true, I do take exception to the comparison and respectfully disagree. Here is why--during the Vietnam War, as has been the case with every war or military conflict since our Nation's birth, men and women were sent overseas with a willingness to die for freedom, liberty and to defend the rule of law. In the case before us, the President of the United States has been charged with violating the rule of law that so many Americans have died for and are still willing to die for at a moment's notice all over the globe. The same rule of law that we must ensure applies equally to every single American, including the President of the United States. This matter goes to the very heart and soul of what America is all about. This matter will determine whether we defend the Constitution, or destroy it. I hope and pray that each distinguished Member of this body places America first and that each Member sees through the clouds of rhetoric to uphold the rule of law. It is the rule of law that unifies this country. It is the rule of law that allows each American the opportunity to enjoy and to pursue what our Founding Fathers and every generation of Americans since have always hoped for--that each American be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we, indeed, cherish the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty granted to every single American, then we will seek to vindicate the rule of law and proceed with this matter with all deliberate speed and an unbreakable bond with each other toward fairness, equity and justice for each party involved, including the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, too many Americans have died to defend these principles we hold so sacred. Too many generations of Americans have given so much to wish reluctantly that this matter just disappear. Just as important, Mr. Speaker, with the Almighty blessing, generations of Americans yet unborn will look back to this day and claim this to be one of America's finest hours, not as a sideshow that some are trying to depict this as. Each Member of this body still must maintain an obligation and responsibility to be bound to our oath of office. The same oath of office voluntarily taken by the President of the United States. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come before you today to support this resolution. I come not as a Republican, not as a New Yorker, but as a person who loves this great country and all its ideals and principles it represents. Earlier today one of my colleagues said that this would be the most divisive issue since the Vietnam War. While he may believe that to be true, I take strong exception with that, and I will tell my colleagues why. Men and women were sent overseas like every other war and military conflict since our Nation's birth to defend the rule of law, the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty. And in the case before us today, we are asking a simple question: Did the President of the United States violate any of those rules of law that we cherish and that so many men and women have died for and are willing to die for at every point around the globe? I do not want to be here today, like so many of my colleagues, but the generations of Americans yet unborn must look back on this day and this matter and this situation and see this as our finest hour, upholding what our Founding Fathers and every generation since has looked for and yearned for, the notion of freedom, the notion of liberty, the notion of the rule of law, and that each American cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Reluctantly, I am here; I proudly, though, support this resolution.