Vito Fossella

Mr. FOSSELLA

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

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for yielding me this time. I want to thank him again for his leadership and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and especially Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Armey, and all of my colleagues, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, for their support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it all. Cardinal O'Connor is a tremendous man, and if we could all be like him, what a wonderful world this could be. In just a few weeks, Mr. Speaker, there is a spectacle that takes place in New York City called the Saint Patrick's Day Parade, which people come from all over the world to witness. One of the highlights of that parade is just passing by Saint Patrick's Cathedral and the Cardinal will be there with his smile and greeting the parade goers and wishing us all well. I look forward to that day. I look forward to the House passing this, as well as the other body, in honoring a true great American.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the House who have understood the importance of this matter and who have helped me move this legislation forward so quickly. For that they should be commended. I would also like to thank a fellow New Yorker and former member of this chamber, Charles Schumer, who has introduced identical legislation in the other body. As we have briefly heard, Cardinal O'Connor has spent a lifetime using one simple tool: love. Love for his country, his church, and his fellow human beings. Therefore, I consider it a great privilege to be able to introduce this legislation, an honor to associate with a man who has done so much for our Nation and for New York City. Many people know that Cardinal O'Connor is the leader of New York's Catholic archdiocese. What many people do not know is that before his tenure in New York, the Cardinal spent 27 years in the Navy, ministering on behalf of our soldiers at home and abroad. Cardinal O'Connor joined the Navy during the war in Korea and saw combat action with the Navy and the Marines during the Vietnam War. He went on to serve as chaplain at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, instilling our future admirals with a sense of justice. Eventually, Cardinal O'Connor would rise to the rank of Rear Admiral. Upon leaving the military, he was ordained the bishop of the Armed Forces of the United States, but I believe in his heart, he always remained the chaplain. Cardinal O'Connor is the spiritual leader of 2.3 million Catholics. Despite this challenge he has not limited his advocacy to strictly Catholic matters. Rather, he speaks out on a variety of issues. For example, Cardinal O'Connor has condemned racism in any and all forms. Cardinal O'Connor has also reached out to New York's Jewish community. He has issued unequivocal condemnations of anti-semitism and spearheaded the effort to establish diplomatic ties between the Vatican and Israel. An endowed chair of Jewish Studies is named in his honor at a Catholic Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York. But more importantly, the Cardinal is not only a man of words, but of action. During the early and most frightening stages of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, he opened New York State's first AIDS-only unit at St. Clare's Hospital. He remained a frequent visitor and volunteer at this unit, spending untold hours with those in pain and suffering, and counseling those in their last moments on this earth. He has also fiercely defended inner-city Catholic schools from the budget axe, keeping schools open in the face of severe fiscal restraints, giving an opportunity to so many children who would have no alternative. Today, not only are those schools open, they are thriving. The Archdiocese's Catholic high school's graduation rate is 99 percent. Students from racial and ethnic minority groups make up 52 percent of the enrollment, and 21 percent of those students are non-Catholic. There is so much good and noteworthy about this man that it is difficult to encapsulate it all in one thought or one speech, but I know that in a body that sometimes thrives on disagreement, there is one thing we can all agree upon: Cardinal John O'Connor is a great man. Yet, despite his high-ranking office, soldiers, priests, and parishioners know in their hearts that the Cardinal has always been a man of the people. As such, Cardinal O'Connor, through his beliefs, words, and actions, epitomized the true meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that is why he deserves the Congressional Gold Medal, and that is why I am honored to have introduced this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, like the speakers before, let me indicate that there are 49,174 married couples in Staten Island, Brooklyn, who will benefit from this marriage penalty relief bill. That is 49,174 families who are going to have more money to spend on their education, on their home, on their cars. Essentially, they will have the freedom to spend that money as they see fit, and not the folks here in Washington. I heard a lot of rhetoric today about the wealthy, the rich. The facts are, under this bill a New York City fire fighter, who is married to a New York City teacher, I do not think they can be characterized as wealthy, they would benefit to the tune of over $1,500 under this bill. Again, that is a fire fighter married to a school teacher. That is the so-called wealthy and the rich who will benefit under this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially about righting a wrong and providing freedom to the American people to spend their tax money as they see fit, and for those who want to engage in class warfare I suggest they go back home to Staten Island and all across the country and tell those teachers and fire fighters that they are too wealthy to receive their money back.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall numbers 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, and 595. I was unavoidably detained and therefore could not vote for this legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall numbers 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593 and 594. I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall number 595.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I want to allude back to a comment that was made earlier; and that is, when the Republican House passed a tax cut for the American people, one that the American people deserve in times of surplus, in times of plenty, money that they rightfully earn, and when the Republican Senate passed the tax cut for the same reasons, it was not the American people that rejected the tax cut, it was the White House that rejected the tax cut. We will continue between now and next year or as long as it takes to fight for tax relief for the American people, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) pointed to, because it means more jobs, because it means economic growth, because it means getting money out of Washington, because when money is left on the table here, it is spent and it is wasted unnecessarily. So, yes, it is a healthy debate, and the American people deserve the healthy debate to see the differences between those who do not believe in tax relief, between those who believe that taking hard-earned money and keeping it and spending it as they see fit is the right way as opposed to a clear and, I think, strong distinction on the other side, and that is this Republican Congress who believe that the American people work too hard to send too much money to Washington and not sending enough back this return. So I commend the gentleman for continuing to fight for the American people and engaging in this debate. Perhaps what we need is a change of personnel in the White House so that when a Republican House passes a tax cut, and a Republican Senate passes a tax cut, it will be signed into law, and then, and only then, will the American people get the tax cut that they truly deserve.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) talked about the Department of Education. I guess the issue there again is what might have been. See, when it comes to education, I do not think there is a Member of this body who truly does not believe that we need to invest in education. But there are clear, again, distinct differences between how the different sides approach the issue. See, it is a national issue. Education is clearly a national issue. As someone who wants to see the young people succeed and to grow and to prosper, as the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Colorado I am sure agree, the same time one also agrees that what works in Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York, is different than what works in Arizona. It is different from what works in Colorado. So I think what we have been trying to get across to those who defend the status quo, and those individuals are folks here in Washington who just want all the money and who would place a lot of strings and mandates on the States and localities, what we have been trying to say is let us commit ourselves to adequate funding for education but allow the local school boards, the parents, the teachers at PS4 in Staten Island, the teachers at PS16 on Staten Island, let them, together with the principals, with the teachers, with the parents who know those kids and who know their needs, let them make those decisions, not someone here in Washington who does not know anybody in those classrooms. So, again, we must continue to force the issue and to say that we are committed to education, but allow those local parents, the local teachers and principals the flexibility. Because what may work on Staten Island, what the needs are on Staten Island, are clearly, I believe, different from Arizona, Colorado, and the other States.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this interesting dialogue. And let me just add, not to get off the path, but clearly I think Americans recognize inherent waste in government. We should challenge the bureaucracies, we should continually challenge the Federal agencies to reduce and eliminate waste, just as any private business does, just as any family does. But we are getting off the page to the degree that the clear philosophical difference between the groups here in Washington, between the parties, between this Republican Congress and the White House, comes down to faith and power and freedom. And by that I mean we believe and have faith in the American people who work hard every day, sometimes two and three jobs, to keep more of their hard-earned money to invest back in themselves, in their families, in their small businesses, in the economy so that we can have a growing and prosperous economy. Something that was laid back in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan promised a tax cut. Practically every person who believed in big government said no. Guess what? Tax cuts worked. Secondly, control. Here there are a number of individuals who believe that control by Washington is better than family control or business control. By that I mean freedom. If we truly believe in the notions of what this country is built on, freedom, individual freedoms, political and economic freedoms, then we shall continue to fight for those Americans who believe in that principle, when the alternative is that the White House wants more taxes or more spending. Before that, well, the problem really has been, the reason why these appropriations bills have been vetoed is because they wanted more money. Well, where is that money going to come from? That is going to come from hard-working Americans. I encourage the gentlemen to continue in this dialogue and continue to work for the hard-working taxpayers of America.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Inasmuch as this debate is coming to a close, Mr. Speaker, allow me just to think, observe what has happened in the last year, and that is that in the beginning of the year we had proposals from the White House for more taxes, more spending, and setting aside only a portion of the Social Security surplus to be walled off. The Republican Congress, fortunately, and rightfully, stepped in and stopped increasing taxes, controlled spending as much as it could, and set aside 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to protect it from unnecessary wasteful government programs. So as we set our sights on the future, I hope that the American people understand that this Congress is committed to growth, to creating more jobs, to providing more freedom for individuals and small business owners so that they can grow and so that they can prosper, so that we can be better off tomorrow than we are today. Along the way, we know there are going to be people who do not want change, who do not believe in things like free trade, who do not believe in things like lower taxes, who do not believe in things like limited government, but who do believe in the alternative; that decisions are better made here in Washington, and they just want to keep that money coming here so that they can control the taxpaying public's lives a little more. So as we engage in the debate, and as we go home for the holidays, I hope the American people reflect, as I will do as I head back home to Staten Island, and I hope they understand that there is a party here that sees a brighter and more prosperous future when we place our faith in the American people.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, Mr. Speaker, as the expression goes, an apple a day keeps the bureaucrat away. But the gentleman is right. When I go back to Staten Island or Brooklyn, and I was there a couple of days ago in some schools, we hear from these parents and these teachers, who are in a better position to make these decisions for the children, whether the class size is 20 or 30 kids. Wherever they come from, they are there for one reason, to learn and to succeed. We just happen to believe that that money is better spent back in Staten Island and Brooklyn and those decisions are better made in Arizona or in Colorado or in Georgia. Mr. Speaker, generations of children will go through schools and not know the people in Washington who are determining how their education money is spent, with those mandates and with the strings attached. We are trying to create flexibility. There is nobody in this House, and I would be amazed if somebody were to come to this floor and in good faith argue that there is somebody in this House who is not for education and not for the children of America, for them to prevail and succeed, but there is a definite distinction between those who want control, those who believe that the money is better spent in Washington, those who believe that decisions are better made in Washington as opposed to the folks back home to Staten Island who say give us the tools, give us the resources, give us the money, give us the flexibility to determine what is going to be best for the kids in our classroom. And that is the same in PS18 or PS104 or PS36 back in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and I am sure that is the same in Arizona where the gentleman is from.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. I would also like to compliment the sponsors, the lead sponsor in particular the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) on this bill, because I think it is going to shed some light on a silent chapter in American history. First, let me say, I think we live in a wonderful country. We are so blessed to live in a land of freedom and opportunity and indeed that is why so many of our ancestors came to these shores. As my grandparents came from Italy, they came for nothing but to seek a better way of life. Some of their children served this country in World War II. This resolution does not ask for any memorials or any payments. I think what it seeks to do is just to shed a little light on what was an injustice during a time when so many Italian Americans were serving this great country. If we can just allow those generations yet to come to appreciate the contributions made by millions of Italian Americans like so many other Americans who gave their life for this country so that we could be free, I think we would be making a wonderful statement, that when this country perhaps engages in an injustice, it is willing to right it. We are not coming down here screaming that this has got to be erased from the history books. No, indeed what we are doing is, as I said, letting the generations yet to come know what this is all about. The Italian Americans who served this country in war and otherwise in business in our local communities really love and appreciate this country. What this will do, Mr. Speaker, is to allow those families that were dishonored by some of these actions by the United States Government to erase that dishonor from their family books, because if there is anything Italian Americans appreciate and love, it is their pride and honor. They love this country. They love what it represents. If we can do that and call into question some of the activities that occurred about 50 years ago by this government, I think it would be a good thing.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 350, a much-needed resolution which would bring greater attention to a sordid trade in the bodies of aborted babies. I salute the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for working so diligently to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I have a copy of a brochure from a company called Opening Lines recently of West Frankfurt, Illinois, which has now moved its base of operations to an undisclosed location. This brochure boasts, ``Our goal is to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most affordable, and freshest tissue, prepared to your specifications, and deliver it in the quantities you need when you need it.'' This company was founded, according to its brochure, ``in order to provide a convenient and efficient way for researchers to receive fetal tissue without a lot of bureaucracy.'' The brochure explains that, ``We have simplified the process for procuring fetal tissue. We do not require a copy of your IRB approval or summary of your research, and you are not required to cite Opening Lines of the source of tissue when you publish your work. We believe in word-of-mouth advertising. If you like our service, you will tell your colleagues.'' Mr. Speaker, Congress has spoken forcefully on the matter of selling aborted baby parts before. There is no question that it is illegal in the United States for any person to buy or sell fetal tissue effecting interstate commerce. Yet, the documents we have here show very clearly that, if this is true, that anyone can buy whatever part of a dead baby may be decided. According to this brochure, it is $50 for ears, $150 for lungs and hearts, $325 for a spinal column, and a pair of eyes cost $50. But the buyer is offered a 40 percent discount for a single eye. Prices are in effect through December 31, 1999. Mr. Speaker, companies like Opening Lines and their main competitor, the so-called Anatomic Gift Foundation, play a significant role in destroying the sanctity of innocent human life and apparently profit from this illicit activity even though it is illegal to buy and sell fetal tissue. According to Opening Lines, ``Our daily average case volumes exceeds 1,500, and we serve clinics across the United States.'' How are they getting around the law? I think Congress and the American people deserve to know. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of folks in this body, a lot of Members come down and speak so eloquently and passionately when it comes to such things as cruelty to animals, and in many ways they are justified in their eloquence and their beliefs. I would just hope that those same Members come down to this floor and speak as eloquently and passionately when it comes to the destruction and cruelty to innocent human beings. I ask my colleagues to cast their votes in support of H. Res. 350 and ask that we work together to shed more light on this industry that has been operating in the shadows of darkness. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 350) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to private companies involved in the trafficking of baby body parts for profit.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 350 and to insert extraneous material on the resolution.

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Again, as I stated at the outset, there are so many Members who rightfully and legitimately in their mind come to the floor to speak so passionately about saving the dolphins and saving the tigers and saving the whales. That may all be legitimate. I would just hope that they would feel the same way when it comes to the saving and sanctity of innocent human beings. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond that if anybody wants to use inflammatory language, that is not our intent, but this, again, is the price list from Opening Lines: A brain is $999, a kidney is $125, eyes at 8 weeks are $50, 40 percent discount for a single eye. That is the issue before us, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for yielding me this time, and I compliment him for his efforts and his leadership. The American people want action, they just do not want words. And when we add this to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and as was mentioned earlier the Financial Modernization Act that was passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate last week, I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) deserves a lot of credit from this Congress because, ultimately, it means good things for the American consumers, more jobs, and coming out on the side of growth, such as the case with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. I rise today in support of H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. As of today, the success of electronic commerce has led 44 States to enact laws to provide recognition for electronic signatures and records. However, all 44 statutes are different and many only recognize the use of electronic signatures and records in governmental transactions. In today's global economy, a certain level of uniformity is necessary in order to conduct the business over State and international borders. That is common sense. While electronic commerce, in theory, represents the perfect model of interstate commerce, these many conflicting standards lead to legal uncertainty, to the point where it becomes impossible to effectively use electronic signatures in the digital arena. H.R. 1714 creates a uniform nationwide legal standard for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and electronic records in interstate commerce. It allows parties the freedom to set their own rules for using electronic signatures and electronic records in interstate commerce. Any contracts or agreements developed electronically by the agreeing parties have full legal effect. H.R. 1714 furthermore recognizes the progress that States have already made in the area of electronic signatures and allows them to pass any statute that complies with the basic principles of this Federal bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill. It is common sense and it puts Congress on the side of facilitating and encouraging economic growth instead of standing in its way.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, there is a constant debate around here in Washington as to what to do with the people's money, and it seems that very often, too often as a matter of fact, there is a dismissal of the notion that the American people deserve tax relief. Right now Congress and the White House are negotiating the appropriations bills that essentially are supposed to prioritize how the American Government spends its money. Now, Congress has done a great job, I believe, in bringing forward and passing out bills that establish priorities, like strengthening national defense, and trying to stop the raid on Social Security for the first time in years; strengthening education and trying to empower parents, as opposed to just enhancing the bureaucracies and defending the status quo and, in essence, failing our kids. And some important programs, like protecting our environment and giving our military the money and the sources they need to defend our country. But somehow, when it comes to tax relief, it becomes a taboo subject. We constantly hear, well, the American people do not want tax cuts, so some claim; or we are giving a tax cut to people who do not deserve it. Well, I would just urge Members here to understand that there are millions of hard-working Americans, and I know this because where I come from, in Staten Island and Brooklyn, I know that there are people working every single day, 6, 7 days a week, sometimes the parents are working two or three jobs, the father is a fireman who works at night, the mother is a teacher who works during the day, and they are juggling responsibilities, who is going to watch the kids, and they just want to put a little money aside to buy a washing machine or to buy the kids' clothes for school, or to save a little money for their education or perhaps a great treat like going away on vacation. But somehow, when we have the opportunity to send some of the money back to them, there are those here who say, oh no, they do not deserve it. Well, I suggest strongly that we stand for tax relief for the American people. Yes, we should fund the priorities for the American Government and the American people; we should fund things like our defense and education and protecting our environment, and keeping our hands off Social Security and protecting and strengthening Medicare. But why can we not cut taxes? For years I heard when I was not in Congress that, well, we are facing a deficit and we cannot afford to cut taxes. Now we hear, well, we are going to face a surplus and we cannot afford to cut taxes. Well, if we cannot do it when we have a deficit and we cannot do it when we have a surplus, when can we? I suggest that we put our faith in the American people, put our faith in their spirit and their ingenuity and their creativity to go out there and provide incentives to work hard, put a little more money in savings, put a little more money back in investment not only in themselves and their family but in their neighborhoods in this country. Just look at Erie County in upstate New York. A 12-year incumbent who ran on a platform of he was going to spend more and more of the people's money, as opposed to the Republican candidate who said, you know what, you work too hard. I am going to run primarily on one issue. I am going to run on a 30 percent tax cut. Well, no surprise. He won handily. I again submit to the Members of this body, and I believe I speak for the vast majority of Americans, is the American people deserve tax relief. If we truly believe in the notions of personal freedom and individual liberty and if we want to instill in our children a sense that if they work hard in this country and they go to school and do the right thing and work and do the right thing in their community and they are able to give back and invest not only in themselves but again in their community and their family, that they will benefit and our country will be richer and better for it. But, instead, we are constantly barraged by those who say, huh-uh, you do not know how to spend your money wisely, the American people. In fact, we hear about these bills that come through and they are vetoed, as another one was vetoed today by the White House, and we heard recently the litany of reasons why. Why? Because it does not spend enough money. Well, where is that money coming from? The cherry trees here in Washington only bloom once a year. They do not bloom every day with money. I would just hope that the people of reason and common sense would understand that the American people work too hard for their money. They deserve more of it back.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me commend my friend from New York (Mr. McNulty) and his dad for 50 years of wonderful service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I think this is healthy, and for those who feel clouded by the debate here, I would just like to put it in very simple terms: The core difference between the parties here, as I see it, is the notion of who wants to strengthen personal freedom; who wants to give back to the hard-working Americans who go work at sometimes two and three jobs to support their families, to put food on the table, to buy clothes for their kids for school, to buy that new microwave oven; who wants to be on their side and give them more of their hard-earned money back, and who feels it is appropriate for Washington to keep as much money as possible? We had the debate about the appropriations bills. Well, the ordinary American is telling us to do our business and come back home. But what we have heard is that Congress passes the bills within certain caps, the White House vetoes it, yet never says where they want to get the additional money from to spend on their additional programs. I think it is legitimate for the American people to ask where is that money coming from.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let us bring it back into focus again. There are only three things you can really do with taxes. You can cut them and bring relief to hardworking taxpayers. That is what this Congress did, and the White House vetoed, so we deprived the opportunity of American hardworking taxpayers to keep a little more money in their paychecks or at the end of the year so they can put more food on the table or they can buy some clothes for the kids when they go to school or they could put a little money away for their child's college fund. That was deprived because of a veto from the White House and for those who chose to vote against that bill. We can keep taxes exactly where they are, which hopefully is the worst we can do this year. Or we can do what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) says, is not increase taxes, that is all, to pay for additional spending. What is so wrong about that? If you feel committed, if you do, fine. But if you feel committed that we need to raise taxes to pay for additional spending, then you should not have the problem, Mr. Speaker, of coming down here and voting for it. I happen to believe that the people that I represent in Staten Island and Brooklyn are working too hard right now, sometimes two and three jobs, trying to put their kids through college, trying to just get enough money the buy that second car. They are working too hard for us to come down here and say, ``You know what, we don't think you're being taxed enough. We think we should be taking a little more out of your pocket.'' No, I would rather go home, Mr. Speaker, and look those folks in the eyes and tell them, you know what, we are doing all we can to provide more freedom and opportunity to you and your families and we are doing all we can in Washington to ensure that we are not going to take more money out of your pocket, we are not going to take more money out of your home because that is where we believe that money belongs. If you feel so strongly that this government should be getting bigger and larger because the Federal Government should be taking more of the taxes, then come right down here and say it. But in the meantime, people like the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I believe he speaks for the vast majority of Americans, are saying, you know what, we are taxed too much, do not do it. Spend the money appropriately and responsibly.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time, and I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his steadfast efforts to keep everybody's paws off economic commerce, or e-commerce. I think this is an essential resolution, and it is a signal to other folks around the world just to say no to imposing taxes on Internet sales. We have seen the development and unprecedented growth of the Internet and e-commerce and what it means to the American taxpayer, what it means to the person sitting at home who now has the luxury that several years ago was only a dream. And what we are saying is we want to continue that growth; we want to continue the opportunities that occur daily. People sitting across this country and, indeed, across the world recognize the endless possibilities of what the Internet means to e-commerce. So many governors across this country, so many people recognize when we tax something unnecessarily, we are hurting commerce, we hurt growth, and we destroy opportunity. What we want the WTO to do, and what we want our ambassador to do is to send a signal to everyone around the world to keep their paws off consumers' wallets. There are those who say, well, if we do not tax e-commerce then we will affect sales tax revenues and miss out on the windfall. I have got some words for those folks. We are taxed too much. I see it every day in New York. People go across the bridge to New Jersey because there is no sales tax on clothing. That is the way people think. They go to where they can find the cheapest price. That is human nature. So, if anything, we should build a wall here not to impose taxes on e-commerce and hope that other folks around this country will start lowering the tax burden on hard-working folks with families. But in spite of that, the last several years what we have seen and witnessed in this country, as e-commerce has grown, so too have sales tax revenues. So I think those concerns are misplaced. And, if anything, we should be dedicating our efforts to reducing the tax burden on hard-working Americans while at the same time prohibiting new taxes on e-commerce.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Armey amendment. I wish to compliment the majority leader for being such a vocal and forceful advocate for improving education for all children across the United States. Let me just say a couple of things that I believe are important for the record. I believe everybody in this body believes that we need to improve education. Indeed, education should be a national issue. I know we have some wonderful teachers within the private and parochial schools, and especially in the public schools. I know that because I go to the school back home in Staten Island and Brooklyn any chance I get. And they are wonderful. I also believe that every Member of this body is committed to enhancing academic achievement for our children, to ensure that our children get the best education possible. We recognize that when we invest in education what we essentially are investing in is our future and building upon what is the greatest country in the history of the world. But what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is seeking to do is to help what some in this body and some across the country believe are the helpless, the young children who are trapped, and this has been said so many times today, trapped in failing schools. And what is this all about? We want to help those who are deprived of the opportunity and who have limited freedom, those who are forced to send their children to these failing public schools. I would ask my colleagues to go home to their districts and ask the parent who does not have two nickels to rub together, ask that mother or father if, given the chance, they would want to take their child out of a failing public school and send that child to a better one. Is there not a more important decision that we make as parents than where to send our kids to school? I can tell my colleagues in New York City, and I am sure it is true across the country, that those helpless parents really have no choice. Recently, reports tell us that attacks from children and students against teachers are up dramatically. How does a child learn, how does an innocent child, whose parents want nothing but the best for him, learn in an environment where attacks against teachers are up dramatically? It is not as if that parent has a choice. They do not. Ask that parent and look at the look in their eyes when you tell them that we are going to give them the opportunity to send their child to a good school and see that their child gets a good education. I think many of my colleagues might be surprised at the response, but some of us are not. Recently, the Washington, D.C. school system offered scholarships to the poorest individuals, the poorest families. Now, we are blessed. We can send our children to any school we want. But the poorest families, when given the chance, one in six chose to take their child out of a failing public school. I say ``bravo'' to that parent, because this issue is about civil rights. This is the movement we should be embarking upon. I think we can work together to ensure that our public schools are improved and that we give the best to our teachers and reward them for their hard work, but, at the same time, understand and recognize that there are millions of parents across this country, that have no choice, that are trapped in these failing schools, that when they send their child off to school they do not know if they are going to come home with a black eye or get in a fight with some kids in schools. Nine- year-olds attacking teachers. That is the environment some of these kids are learning in. And it is in the Bronx, and it is on Staten Island, and it is in Indiana, and it is in Texas, and it is in California. If we believe that this country is truly about freedom, and we have the freedom to go to any restaurant we want, to buy any car we want, but we do not have the opportunity to have the freedom to send our child to the school of our choice, then we are depriving the most essential basic right, and we are depriving those poor and helpless parents of a legitimate civil right. I want to remind all my colleagues that this is a pilot program. If we fear this, we fear everything.

Mr. FOSSELLA

Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), because he has been right by my side in fighting for what I believe is justice here, especially for the victims. The important point, Mr. Speaker, is that these people who still to this day offer no remorse, no apologies to the victims, not even a call; I doubt very much if the White House or the Attorney General's Office has even called Diana Berger who lost her husband, or Joseph and Thomas Connor who lost their father or the Richard Pastorell who lost his sight or Anthony Semft who lost his vision or Rocko Pasceralla, a police officer who lost his leg. I doubt very much if they have even gotten a phone call and, meanwhile, we have terrorists out on the street who feel committed to engage in a reign of terror against this Nation. It is ridiculous, and I think the American people deserve to know some answers.