Vito Fossella

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding this time to me, and I have been listening to this tribute to an American original. The gentleman from upstate New York is the essence of what this country really is all about, the notions of liberty and freedom. But more important, the willingness to die for those things. I have only been here about a year, and I have not had the privilege of serving for the 20 years that so many other Members of this body have had to serve with Jerry Solomon. But in less than a year I have come to respect the man who is the benchmark for integrity, and in days when there are so many relatives around in terms of, well, it is relatively okay or it is okay for now, Jerry Solomon represents the notions that there are absolutes: truth and integrity. The people of upstate New York are some wonderful, wonderful people, and they represent the best of this great country, and they have exercised their great judgment for the last 20 years in sending us an American original. Mr. Solomon, as the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) said, you are a mentor to many of us. I salute you.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for the millions of American taxpayers, the millions of American taxpayers who believe that they are overtaxed, millions of American taxpayers who go to work every single day, like so many that I represent on Staten Island and in Brooklyn who feel that they send too much of their hard-earned money to Washington and do not see enough of it back home where it belongs. A couple of weeks ago, this House narrowly passed a tax relief bill to the tune of $80 billion for the American people, specifically targeted to help senior citizens, married couples, and small business owners and farmers. The reality is, as we stand here today, it stands under the threat of a White House veto. In other words, what we have been fighting for for the last year to bring much needed tax relief to the American people, with the stroke of a pen, will be rejected by the White House. I think I speak for most of the American people who believe that they pay too much in taxes. When we talk about pittance and sending some of that money back home to Staten Island or Brooklyn or anywhere else across this country, I do not think these folks are asking too much. We are talking about taking money out of a surplus. Well, let us be real. Where does this surplus come from? It does not fall out of the trees here in Washington. It is generated from the hard-working Americans who go to work every single day, some of whom work 6 and 7 days a week, some of whom are struggling to pay their mortgage or make their car payments or pay a college tuition. I think the notion comes down to a very fundamental difference between those who want to stand in the way of growth and stand in the way of opportunity and stand in the way of allowing the Americans the freedom to spend their money as they see fit and compare and contrast that to those who just want to keep that tax burden as high as possible to keep the Federal Government growing larger and larger and to allow the bureaucrats and the politicians in Washington to make the choices for the American people that the American people should be making for themselves and their family. The battle is very clear. The battle is over the size of government. Advocates of the bigger government here want the tax burden to remain high so they can use these excess revenues to create new programs and expand existing ones. That is the facts. It is the conventional common sense of the ordinary American that seems to get lost in the cloud of rhetoric here in Washington. I look forward every time I can split this town and go back home to Staten Island where I live and where my family is, where the real people are, those people who get up at sunup and work till sometimes 8 or 9 o'clock at night, some of whom work Monday and Tuesday of a 5-day week just to send their money here to Washington. I ask them, do they think they get the money that they deserve that they pay in taxes? All we are asking for is an $80 billion tax cut, something that they earned for themselves. We believe, at least I believe, that we need a pro growth tax policy, one that will cut marginal income rates to provide incentives to the American people to go out and work and to get to keep more of their hard-earned money, not this typical defending big government, defending big bureaucracy, defending everything that Washington stands for that is bad, as far as I am concerned, and instead sending the money back to create opportunities back in Staten Island and Brooklyn. If the American people back home want that money to save, if they want it to invest, if they want it to build their local churches or civic organizations and keep that money close to home, then I say let us draw the line in the sand. Let us send that money back home, stand with the Republican majority here that really had to fight tooth and nail when we listen to that debate to pass that tax bill, and send the message to the White House once and for all that the American people deserve to keep their hard- earned money. Let us look forward next year, this is a small step, next year come back here and try to reduce the tax burden even more, create a policy where we can reduce those marginal rates again to provide incentives to people to work and to keep more of that money. That is a very simple message, a very simple message that somehow gets lost every time we come around here in the Beltway. But I think that when I go back home and I talk to the small business owner who is looking for 100 percent deductibility for his health insurance where now it is 40 percent, if I talk to that married couple who is paying a penalty, a penalty for being married, it is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, let us bring much needed tax relief to the American people.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, since taking office last November, I have spoken before this House many times on the critical issues and decisions that face our nation. I would like to depart from my usual practice and speak before you this evening on an all-together different matter. It is without question that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the World. In the span of a little more than 200 years, we have gone from a fledgling nation surrounded by the wilderness of nature and coldness of international isolation, to the World's only military and economic superpower. In that role the United States has been the sole protector of liberty and freedom during the World's darkest hours of this century and acted as a benevolent force to defeat and turn back the tide of fascism and communism. The greatness of America does not come from military strength or economic wealth. Rather, the greatness of America flows from the spirit of freedom and accomplishment brought about by the individuals who live in our land. I would like to take this opportunity to talk to you about one of those individuals--Judge Charles D'Arrigo. In many ways Judge D'Arrigo exemplifies the typical American success story. The son of an immigrant father, Judge D'Arrigo attended Wagner College and Brooklyn Law School and served in the United States Army during the Second World War in the European Theater of Operations. From 1954 through 1973 he was engaged in the private practice of law, and in 1973 was elected a Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York. In 1981, he became the Judge of the Surrogate's Court of Richard County, a position that he continues to hold and will until his retirement at the end of this year. Being a Judge of the Surrogate Court is not an easy task. The duties of a Surrogate very often have to deal with the intimate personal and financial situation of a grieving family after the loss of a loved one. Many times those cases are compounded by acrimonious disputes. True to his nature, of always seeing the bright side of life, Judge D'Arrigo transformed his position to help young, loving couples become parents by performing hundreds of adoptions. Adoption Day in the Surrogate's Court has been turned into a Staten Island holiday season tradition. Although soft spoken, Judge D'Arrigo has stood as a champion of justice and acted as a fair and compassionate arbiter of the law. Universally respected, Judge D'Arrigo exudes the honor and integrity that highlight the importance of our justice system and the rule of law that protects individual liberty. Judge D'Arrigo's civic pursuits extend far outside of the court room as well. With Norma, his lovely wife and partner of 49 years, the D'Arrigo's have participated in so many philanthropic endeavors, that their good works, most often without credit or accolades, are inseparably woven throughout the social fabric of our great Borough. On the occasion of his retirement from the bench, I wish to congratulate Charles. To Norma I say, thank you for allowing us to have your husband for so long and I hope that you both enjoy this special time for many years to come. It is my sincere hope that you both remain active participants in the community. Collectively, as a community, we would be at a loss without the gentle words, kind smiles and steely determination to perform good works that you both bring into any project. My best wishes to Charles and Norma D'Arrigo, their three children, Shelton, Janice and Charles. And of course, their lovely granddaughter, Christin, and I thank the Speaker for indulging me in this personal commemoration.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think at this point just let me note that the power under this legislation is granted to not an individual, but the office of a presidency. And the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my good friend, acknowledges Congress still maintains its right as vested in the United States Constitution, because at the end of the day we have the right to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the underlying legislation. The reality is that throughout our Nation's history there are people who look inward constantly to create jobs and those who look outward to determine that there are no limits to America's horizons. And we demonstrate time and time again, the hard-working people that I represent, that we can trade freely and fairly throughout this world and create wealth, not just for the people of this country but throughout this great world of ours. The reality is that we are talking about free and fair trade. Not looking inward, but looking outward. The people on Staten Island that I represent go to work every single day with no limits to their horizons. I say let us continue that growth.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from upstate New York, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we are having this discussion, this debate, and indeed the opportunity to vote on this rule, because really, what we have is providing the American people, people on Staten Island and Brooklyn, the opportunity to determine what side here is for providing more tax relief for the American people, more tax relief for married couples, better opportunities for small business owners, and what side just wants to keep all our hard-earned money here in Washington for more big government, more spending, more bureaucracy. I think the issue is clear. Frankly, I believe the American people are taxed too much. I think they work hard every single day. When their paycheck comes every couple of weeks or every month, or when they are filing their taxes, they recognize that they pay too much in taxes. The reality is, we want to send that money back to the people, whether it is in Staten Island or Brooklyn or San Diego or anywhere across this country. Last year, there was a debate about cutting taxes on hard-working Americans to stimulate our economy and allowing people to keep more of what they earned. We were told that there was a budget deficit and that we could not afford to cut taxes. Now we are told that there is a budget surplus and we cannot afford to cut taxes. This is the logic that defies ordinary Americans. If we have a deficit and a surplus and we cannot afford to cut taxes in either case, then when can we? The reality is that we have a great opportunity today to support a rule and underlying legislation that brings tax relief to hard-working married couples, to small business owners across America. Let us get the money out of Washington back to Staten Island and Brooklyn and across this great country where it belongs. Where people who work hard every single day who created the surplus, not the people here in Washington, the Americans, let us give them the tax relief they need.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the sponsor of this amendment to improve education for all children across this country. However, I believe that the Dollars to the Classroom legislation is quite simply better. In short, we believe that the State of New York and specifically the people of Staten Island and Brooklyn deserve the flexibility and the autonomy to spend their tax dollars as they see fit. The reality as we heard is that with the Dollars to the Classroom legislation, the State of New York or the State of Hawaii or the State of Indiana can spend the money as they see fit. If they want to go out and hire more teachers, they can do so. If P.S. 4 in Staten Island decides they want to start a softball team they can do so. If P.S. 36 wants to expand the size of the classrooms or limit the size of the classrooms; that is, the number of students in that classroom, they can do so under this legislation. As my colleagues know, it is important to look at those who defend the status quo as opposed to those who really and truly want to seek ways to improve quality of education in this country. Yes, education is a national issue, but we believe it is a local responsibility, and getting the money from Washington, from Albany, down to Staten Island and Brooklyn is the right approach. Just look at the last couple of months. Education savings accounts where we wanted to provide parents the opportunity to set money aside tax free to spend on their child's education, passed this House narrowly, passed the Senate, vetoed by the President. Opportunity Scholarships, 2,000 to the poorest children in the Washington, D.C. school system to allow them to escape the horror of the public school system in Washington, D.C., passed this House narrowly in the Senate, threatened veto by the President and all the defenders of the status quo. Once again we see it here, people who are truly concerned about giving parents and teachers and local school boards the responsibility, the flexibility, the autonomy to make the decisions best for their children, we see the defenders of the status quo. Once again, I urge the adoption of Dollars to the Classroom.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the majority leader, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I think everyone in this Chamber would agree, we all support the notion of improving education, but I think where we draw the line is when we have those who defend the status quo, a status quo that has failed generations of children, and then there are those who want to provide opportunities for young people, for families who do not have a choice, 2,000 of more than 7,500 children. Common sense would dictate that anyone with a good conscience would provide an opportunity to such a youngster, to such a family who is yearning for a choice and a quality education. Yet, there are those who would stand in the way of such a choice and such an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, very rarely do we get an opportunity to touch a child's life and to provide a sense of hope and a sense of commitment from the United States Congress, such that they can go on and live a productive life. This amendment would go a long way to assure such a thing.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, today we laid to rest one of the Capitol Hill Police officers who died tragically in last week's shooting. And a few days ago, I spoke on the floor because a police officer in my hometown, in Staten Island, was shot in the head by a 17-year-old assailant who just a couple of years ago killed a man when he was 15, and served a total of 18 months in jail and was let go and is alleged to have killed another man before he shot the police officer. We got the news last night that that police officer is now dead. What that means is that a 6-year-old boy is without a father, a community has been destroyed, and yet we still question what we are going to do with this 15-year-old murderer. Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of the folks who today engage in campaign finance reform, but let us remember what the priorities are. A police officer is dead, a family is destroyed, and let us pray for them to find the strength to survive.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come here today to offer my condolences and prayers to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. As I was walking here just a few moments ago, I stopped to speak to a retired Capitol Hill Police Officer. As we were discussing last week's tragic shooting, he said to me, ``It could have been one of us.'' In many ways, I think that characterizes the mood on Capitol Hill right now. Many of us feel vulnerable today because, indeed, it could have been one of us. The greatest gift one human being can give another is his life. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice not because they sought to be heroes, but because that was the type of men they were. In a moment of intense fear, of extreme panic that I pray most Americans will never know, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson stood tall. They laid their lives down so that others would not have to. Sadly, in my community on Staten Island, there is another hero in need of our prayers. Police Officer Gerard Carter is lying in a hospital bed right now with a bullet lodged in his brain. He is holding onto life with the faintest of grips, struggling to survive after being shot in the right temple two nights ago by a 17-year old, two-time murderer. Police Officer Carter was truly one of New York's Finest, a brave young man who stared danger in the face and sought to make a difference. Sometimes we may forget the danger that our law enforcement officers face when they put on their uniforms, clip on their badges and take to the streets. They put themselves in harm's way so that we may be safe. I offer them our thanks, and to the families of Officer Chestnut, Detective Gibson and Police Officer Carter, I offer you our prayers.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come here today with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to offer my condolences and prayers to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. Just on the way over here I was talking to some retired Capitol Hill Police, one of whom trained Detective Gibson. And I guess, in a nutshell, he said, ``It could have been one of us,'' and I guess that really characterizes the mood around here these days: It could have been anybody. But it was two heroes who fell for their country, who fell protecting others without hesitation, without question. And, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not only offer my prayers from my family and the people of Brooklyn and Staten Island to those of the families of Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Gibson, if I did not mention that, right now, there is a young police officer back home in Staten Island who was shot in the head 2 days ago by a 17-year-old boy, this boy who had killed somebody at the age of 15. So I say that as an example in reflection of that dedication of the Capitol Hill Police and police officers around this country who stand in defense of freedom every single day to protect the innocent, to protect us. And while we pray for the families of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Chestnut, may we also pray for Mr. Carter and hope that he recovers and that in Staten Island we have him back protecting us as well.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the President's veto of partial birth abortion. We could talk about the abstract issue but we have a very narrow piece of legislation here that prevents the art and the notion of partial birth abortion, which is, for the sake of argument, almost delivering a child to birth and killing it. We are not talking about a piece of chalk or a chair or a clock. We are talking about an innocent young child, a child that will never experience the joy of life, the power of laughter, all great accomplishments that any parent would want in a child. Is it not amazing that in this country, where double parking your car or jaywalking is against the law that we can allow unfettered a partial delivery of a baby and killing it? Madam Speaker, I urge every Member of Congress and every American to explore their conscience and override the President's veto.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we got a perfect example and a distinction between right and wrong. In days when so many things become gray, we saw the President with much fanfare sign the IRS reform bill into law; and quietly, in the still of night, he vetoed I think a wonderful piece of legislation that would have empowered parents when it comes to education. The education bill that passed both the House and Senate would have allowed parents to save as much as $2,000 a year per child in accounts that would earn tax-free interest, to be used for educational expenses from kindergarten through college. Mr. Speaker, what we have here are two very diametrically opposed philosophies, one that believes that parents and local communities are the ones to determine what is best for their children when it comes to education, and the big bureaucrats, big government, monolithic approach that we know what is best here in Washington. Sadly, the President vetoed a great opportunity for American parents to save more for their children, to improve their education, and instead, what we have is a defense of the status quo and more of the same.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer a very simple, straightforward, and I think a common sense amendment. Under current law, one does not have to be a United States citizen to make a campaign contribution to a candidate for Federal office. My amendment would establish that only United States citizens or United States nationals would be permitted to make an individual contribution to any candidate running for Federal office. Indeed, earlier this year following up on introductions by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) this House, by an overwhelming margin, sought to ban contributions to Federal elections by noncitizens. My amendment would also allow the request of the gentleman from the territory of American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), that would allow noncitizens and U.S. nationals, many of whom reside in the territory of American Samoa, to contribute to Federal campaigns. I believe fundamentally that American citizens should determine the outcome of American Federal elections. Mr. Chairman, again, let me just reiterate what this amendment does. Essentially it allows United States citizens, including United States nationals, to determine the outcome of Federal elections. Currently, noncitizens can contribute to Federal elections. I think that is bad policy; I think that we have seen in the last couple of years how noncitizens have played a major role in funneling illegal money to Federal elections. Indeed, just in today's paper we see how a Thailand firm lobbyist was indicted as a conduit of campaign cash. The indictment brings to total the number 11 of persons charged so far in the Justice Department's campaign finance investigation which began in November of 1996, and all of them have a very similar trait in that they funnel money through people who are residents of the United States, but are noncitizens. Mr. Chairman, I think that is why we have before us an amendment that just a couple of months ago by a vote of 369-to-43, this House overwhelmingly banned the contributions to Federal elections for noncitizens. As I stated earlier, I think this would go a long way to bring integrity back into the system we have before us, and essentially and in effect, allow foreign influence of the United States political process to be kept to a minimum. Mr. Chairman, 369 votes to me is a strong indication of the bipartisan support that this legislation shares in this House, and I would think that every American who is watching this or every American who believes there should be integrity in the system, that American citizens should control the electoral process, particularly those at the Federal level, and would support such an amendment, and I think this would go a long way to clarify the underlying legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me remind my colleagues again that 369 of them voted just a few months ago to support the almost identical legislation. The reality is that you can think what you want about what the Americans think about the campaign finance system and how important it is to their lives relative to education or taxes. The reality is that if you vote against this amendment you are going to continue to allow noncitizens to influence the electoral process in this country. I submit, Mr. Chairman, and every colleague of mine in this House that what the American people want is for United States citizens and United States nationals to control the process, to vote and to contribute. If we vote no on this amendment what we are saying is that noncitizens can continue to influence the American election. If we vote yes on this amendment what we are saying is United States citizens, United States nationals, have the right to contribute, have the right to vote, have the right to influence our process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to urge all Members just to reflect upon the highest oracle of wisdom, and that is the experience of voting for this same, almost identical piece of legislation, but broader, just a few months ago. The reality is that if Shays-Meehan were to pass, I think we would like as perfect a bill as possible and, in effect, what my amendment would do would only allow United States' citizens and United States' nationals to contribute to Federal campaigns. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FOSSELLA. That is correct.

Mr. FOSSELLA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, this amendment simply allows for United States' citizens and United States' nationals to contribute to Federal elections.

Mr. FOSSELLA. To my colleague from American Samoa, Mr. Chairman, it was in a conversation that my office had with his office, in an effort to address this issue and his concern, and particularly with the letter dated May 12 of 1998, that we sought to allow U.S. nationals to contribute to Federal elections.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon). (Mr. PAXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note for the Record, Mr. Chairman, I noticed, respectfully, of course, that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), objects to this amendment, but earlier this year he, along with 369 of our colleagues, voted to support almost identical legislation. Indeed, this is broader than the piece of legislation we voted on earlier. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)