Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5782. I must say that Mr. Young and Mr. Oberstar deserve a lot of credit, because in the Transportation Department there was more coming together than I have seen in any place in this Congress. This was not an easy piece of legislation. You go back to 2002, we had some really good debates. We had some good arguments. We had real dissent. I want to thank Mr. Petri and Mr. DeFazio for getting over that hurdle. We got 2.3 million miles of natural gas in hazardous liquid pipelines. If that sets in, you know how critical these issues are. We could be stuck in the mud debating each other or we could get over the hump and try to get resolve. You did that, and I want to commend you, Mr. Young. I am not patronizing. I am not a patronizing person when I say that to you. For years many in Congress attempted to pass the legislation to give the Office of Pipeline Safety some real teeth and enforcement to adopt better and tighter safety regulations. In 2002, as was mentioned, we passed a very strong pipeline safety law. By all accounts OPS and the industry have made significant progress since then. The national mapping system has now been completed. When we looked at that mapping system at the turn of the century, it was a disaster. We didn't know where these pipelines were in the first place. How are you going to fix them if you don't know where they are? One-Call centers are prevalent throughout the Nation and their ``dig safely'' campaigns are well publicized. Number three, I would also like to commend the OPS for actually meeting the deadlines. Man, that is something new and refreshing, placed in the 2002 act, and for promptly following up to complete all the regulation recommendations that were suggested. The Inspector General found evidence that the OPS enforcement program is actually helping to improve pipeline safety. I am pleased to know that the integrity management program is working as well. Thousands of threats have already been found and corrected, but there are still hundreds of thousands of miles to go. The bill before us today builds upon past successes, while looking forward toward our future needs. I am extremely pleased that a long overdue memorandum of understanding on pipeline security between the DLT and the Department of Homeland Security was signed this fall. This has everything to do with the protection of the national security. This legislation requires the Transportation Department's Inspector General to conduct an assessment of the actions taken by the Department to implement the agreement. H.R. 5782 will ensure that the number of pipeline inspection enforcement personnel will increase by 50 percent within 4 years. Pipes also caused the Department of Transportation to issue regulations for low-stress pipelines, making a more comprehensive and cohesive pipeline safety standard. Finally, under this bill, Mr. Speaker, the DLT will publish regulations developed in partnership with the industry stakeholders, strengthening the safety of natural gas distribution pipeline system. I commend the leaders and the membership of the Transportation Committee for their diligent work, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5782.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the election is over. We need to come together. There needs to be a healing process for all of us in both parties; and I can think of no better subject, and there was an article in 2004, in the summer, in New York magazine. The title of that article was ``Fallout 3 years after the World Trade Center attacks. Thousands of cops, firefighters, people who work and lived near the 9/11 disaster have fallen sick and fallen ill.'' The EPA just a short time after that disaster said all was clear. The air was fit to breathe. The water was sufficient to drink. It contained, in that disaster, glass shards, pulverized concrete, many carcinogens, including hundreds of thousands of pounds of asbestos. It contained benzene. There are many people who have been hurt. If you expose a person to this amount of lead, cadmium, benzene, asbestos, they are going to get sick. We fill potholes in Baghdad. We have forgotten our own first responders.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, in March 2006 the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act passed the House of Representatives as part of the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2006. This landmark legislation called for colleges and universities across the United States to report vital fire safety information to the U.S. Department of Education so that prospective students and their parents could make informed decisions regarding a fire-safe school based on criteria such as the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems, automatic fire alarm systems, fire prevention training, and other related factors. The fact that this legislation passed the House of Representatives was due, in no small part, to the tremendous support provided by leading fire safety organizations. Each of these organizations works tirelessly every day to improve fire safety for our citizens, and their contribution to the passage of this bill was instrumental. These organizations include: The Center for Campus Fire Safety, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Fire Chiefs Association, the International Code Council, the International Fire Marshals Association, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Fire Sprinkler Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and Underwriters Laboratories. I want to offer my heartfelt thanks to these associations for their hard work and dedication to the safety of the students of this Nation. They are to be commended for their commitment to the cause of fire safety and for their support in the passage of the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act. I also want to thank my friends on the Education and Workforce Committee who worked to make passage possible. My colleagues Representatives Rob Andrews, Carolyn McCarthy, Joe Wilson, Chairman Buck McKeon, and former Chairman (and current Majority Leader) John Boehner were immensely helpful in passing our amendment in Committee and I am eternally grateful for their support. Mr. Speaker, I will not stop fighting to enact legislation to ensure a safe school environment for all college and university students. This is the least we can do for the young people of this nation. When we entrust our children to any institution, we expect that they will be in a safe environment. And we have the right to expect that much.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Good luck to you, Martin, and thank you for your service and the great job you have done for America. Both sides working together on this legislation speaks for itself. The conference report I support. There is real good in this legislation. As the author of the FIRE Act, I am glad to see that the Congress has restored the President's draconian cuts to this successful program. $662 million for FIRE grants, including $115 million for the SAFER Act will allow us to continue to provide for the critical equipment and staffing needs of fire departments nationwide. I am also heartened by the fact that we kept FEMA in Homeland Security. I think that is very, very important, rather than make it a separate organization. Combining many of the Department's preparedness functions with FEMA and keeping it in DHS is wise and, I think, sound policy. But there is some missed opportunities here. I cannot let this go by without projecting this and asking everyone in this room to think about it. We have done everything to try to put before the American people and the Congress the necessity for interoperability dollars. We had it in the budget, we came to agreement on both sides, but it is not there anymore. We said that this was the most difficult task facing our police and our fire, yet we take $3.1 billion out in dedicated interoperability funding. We have had hearings on this in Washington State and hearings in New Jersey, and this is not the way to treat our law enforcement. It is not the way. Five years after 9/11, the Department still does not have a dedicated interoperability grant program; and, as a result, State and localities are still robbing Peter to pay Paul by using a huge amount of their homeland security grant funding. I am also concerned that the chemical security provisions within this bill will not facilitate adequate security to an industry that needs it. Again, I want to thank those who put this legislation, this conference report together.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. You know, Mr. Chairman, you sound like an Irish tenor this evening. This is a bill which we can support. We thank both staffs on both sides of the aisle. They worked very hard on this. Simply put, this is a good bill. Many Members on both sides of the aisle have worked tirelessly to bring the critical legislation to finality; and while I think it could have been improved if those of us on the conference committee were given a chance to offer further amendments, I wish to remind the chairman, last night, ultimately, this is still a good product. There is no doubt that authorizing $400 million in port security grants for each of the fiscal years of 2007 to 2012 is a wise undertaking, as is creating firm deadlines to require the Department of Homeland Security to issue transportation worker identification cards to workers with access to secure areas of ports. No one should be allowed into those ports that do not have a proper card and a proper identification; and we should really carry this over to those folks who work at our airports, which we have not done. I am particularly pleased that the two provisions I was able to secure when this bill originally came before the Homeland Security Committee remains within the legislation this evening: Section 114, which authorizes the Secretary of DHS to establish an exercise program to test and evaluate the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and other relevant stakeholders to coordinate appropriate response and recovery from acts of terror. Section 115, which directs the Secretary to require each high-risk facility to conduct live or full-scale exercises not less than once every 2 years in accordance with the facility security plan that this bill mandates. Both provisions will enhance the capabilities of our Nation's seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to and mitigate against acts of terror. I am grateful for this inclusion in the legislation. But, as with so many things in the realm of homeland security, we have missed some opportunities. I, like most of my Democratic colleagues, would have much preferred that this bill also included improvements to security for America's rail, subway, buses, and trucking. And in all due reverence, I know that you feel the same way, Mr. Chairman. But we've got to the best point at the best time, and we need to pass this legislation, and I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the House to take up and pass H.R. 1245, Johanna's Law: The Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act. This legislation has been cosponsored by 256 Members of the House of Representatives and 40 Senators. H.R. 1245, through an educational and awareness campaign, will help women understand the symptoms of uterine and other gynecological cancers, the importance of having an annual exam, and the need for open communication with their doctors in an attempt to save women from preventable deaths. Johanna's Law has the potential to help more than 80,000 women who will be diagnosed with some type of gynecological cancer this year. Beneficial to all women of various ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds, the legislation will inform them of preventative measures and help them understand the symptoms which can lead to early detection and subsequently, save lives. Of the women who will be diagnosed with gynecological cancer this year, 28,000 will die, primarily because they did not recognize their symptoms and the cancer detection came too late to treat the disease effectively. The 5-year survival rates for the most common gynecologic cancers are 90 percent when diagnosed early. Survival rates drop to 50 percent or less for cancers diagnosed later. Gynecologic cancers such as ovarian and endometrial cancer do not yet have a reliable screening test that can be used for the general population. The Pap smear reliably detects only cervical cancer. That's why knowing the symptoms of these cancers is key to early diagnosis. Sadly, recent surveys confirm most women are unaware of the risk factors and do not recognize the early symptoms of gynecologic cancers. This lack of information and understanding is deadly. September has been declared Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month by President Bush, and governors of all 50 States have also declared September Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month. However, over one-third of the women diagnosed this year with a gynecologic cancer will die from the gynecologic cancer primarily due to a lack of early education and prevention, as well as effective screening. Data suggests that with even a modest improvement in outreach and education, we can save lives and precious healthcare resources, and improve the health of our Nation's women. This legislation will accomplish that--through education of both women and their health care providers. Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a need for Johanna's Law and the time is now. The women of this country and their families deserve no less.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to defeat the previous question on the rule so that the House can finally consider the real issues facing American families. You know, many conservative writers have called the Congress the less-than-do-nothing-congress, particularly at a time when there is concern on all parts of the political spectrum about the growth of the power of the Executive Branch of the government. Our forefathers warned us about this. No oversight, no oversight as to what is happening. Look at what happened in the Interior Department in just the last 10 days and the HUD Department by Inspector Generals. That is a disgrace. And you can try to get us off track all you want, we are going to stay on track. This is not so much a question of less days, which we will be here, this is a question of less progress more than anything else. You tell me if it is not irresponsible 5 years after September 11, 2001, that this Republican Congress is set to adjourn without fully implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations to make our country safer. I am listening. You tell me if it is not irresponsible that this Republican Congress pays lip service to the importance of higher education, and yet they are set to adjourn after making it harder to pay for college by cutting $12 billion over the next several years to student aid. You tell me if it is not irresponsible that the Republican Congress has been a rubber stamp for the White House's Big Oil policies, and is set to adjourn without passing an energy plan that decreases dependence on foreign oil. What is our answer? We are addicted to oil, Mr. President, you said in the State of the Union, and that is why we are going to drill off five States in this union. We lost our addiction, I guess, on the way. It is irresponsible that this Congress is set to adjourn without increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 for up to 15 million hardworking Americans and their families. That is irresponsible. You attached it to another bill. You are good at it. You look back over the last several Congresses, you are good at attaching these things. It is indeed irresponsible that millions of Americans are suffering the economic injustice of working a full-time job and earning a wage that leaves them below the poverty line. You tell me if it is not irresponsible that wages are stagnant, and that we are $1,700 below the median income of 6 years ago. You tell me if that is responsible. The fact is that it takes a minimum wage earner more than 1 day of work just to earn a full tank of gasoline. The minimum wage is no longer a livable wage. Get it? As health care, grocery, energy and housing costs skyrocket for average Americans, house Republicans would rather help their CEO friends. Madam Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the legislation before us. It reduces vital funding for States that are most heavily impacted. I absolutely disagree with the Chair. He is wrong when he says that this problem has shifted. The epidemic has expanded. It has not shifted. There are more areas that are involved, and we should be fair to all areas besides New York, California, Florida, Texas and New Jersey. I can't support that idea. If Ryan White resources are to follow the epidemic, they must continue to flow to all jurisdictions, and be increased. It is irresponsible to take an already inadequate pot of money and cover new areas with it, taking it away from the areas of need. If you don't understand what the need is in those five States that I recognize, I will give you the flat statistics: They are not diminishing in any sense of the imagination whatsoever. I don't know what facts you are looking at. Under the proposed bill in the House, Mr. Speaker, funding for New Jersey will be cut by $13 million. I looked at the numbers in New Jersey. I have worked on this problem for 15 years. I don't know where this gentleman is coming from when he says that the problem is less in those five States that I mentioned and increased in other areas. It just is not so. It is not true. Sixty thousand of these dollars will go directly to the two counties that I am involved in, a cut of 40 percent in the funding. I urge you to vote against this proposed legislation. It will hurt all EMA and the States most affected by the devastating effects of HIV.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 295, which establishes September as Campus Fire Safety Month. I applaud the efforts of my distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, in bringing this matter to the floor today. The statistics relating to fire safety on college campuses are startling. Since January 2000, 89 campus-related fire fatalities have been reported in the United States. Three of these were in my home state of New Jersey alone. So far in 2006, we have already lost 11 students to fires on college campuses. What these tragedies mean is that too many families have had to suffer the unbearable horror of losing a loved one right at the beginning of a promising life. Despite these fires, many campus communities have taken far too long to act. Indeed, only 35 percent of dormitories and fraternity/sorority houses that suffer fires are equipped with life-saving sprinkler systems. It is clear that the campus community is falling far behind in fire safety standards and we must do more to urge them to take the steps needed to curb this disturbing trend. seton hall I became deeply involved in the issue of campus fire safety after experiencing the terrible aftermath of a catastrophic fire at Seton Hall University in New Jersey in 2000. That fire killed three young freshmen and wounded 58 other students in a dorm on campus. campus fire safety right to know act In response to the devastating fire, I introduced the ``Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act,'' which passed the House as part of the ``College Access and Opportunity Act'' in March 2006. This bipartisan legislation required colleges and universities to provide prospective and current students and parents with a report of the school's campus fire safety policies and records. campus fire safety month legislation Now, we're talking about designating September as National Campus Fire Safety Month. Currently, 27 states have issued proclamations declaring September as Campus Fire Safety Month. Historically, September is one of the most fatal months for campus fires. In recognizing this tragic trend on America's campuses, H. Res. 295 will provide a platform to alert students, their parents, and school administrators to the dangers of campus fires. H. Res. 295 encourages colleges and universities across the country to provide educational programs to all students in September and throughout the school year. It urges administrators and municipalities to evaluate the level of fire safety being provided in both on and off campus housing. They can then take the necessary steps to ensure fire-safe living conditions through fire safety education; the installation of fire suppression and detection systems; and the development and enforcement of applicable codes relating to fire safety. Mrs. Tubbs Jones' legislation will help to publicize common sense measures that can be taken to prevent the senseless death, injury, and loss of property that result from these tragedies. H. Res. 295 is supported by the Center for Campus Fire Safety, the National Fire Protection Association, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, and many others. conclusion Educating students about fire safety during their time in school will have a strong impact on the choices they make in the future. If we can influence what they learn, we can create a more fire-safe generation for tomorrow and potentially save thousands, of lives. This is the least we can do for our students. When we entrust our young people to any institution, we expect that they will be in a safe environment. And we have the right to expect that much.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, when is House Republican leadership going to allow a vote on the minimum wage bill to come to this floor? A clean minimum wage bill? As health care, grocery, and energy costs skyrocket for average consumers, House Republican leadership would rather help their CEO friends than average Americans who are just trying to make ends meet. The fact is that the median annual household income has actually increased by $1,700 after inflation during the course of the Bush administration. The fact is that today, full-time workers who earn the minimum wage are bringing home a paltry $10,700. This is simply not fair. House Republican leadership have refused to allow a clean minimum wage vote. Close to 15 million Americans will be affected if we did this. Do Republicans really expect a family to live on less than $11,000 a year? Contrary to what the President and Republican leadership would have you believe, everything is not coming up roses when it comes it our national economy. There are more poor, more uninsured than ever before. Mr. Speaker, no congressional pay raise until minimum wage is increased, period. It is time we pass a minimum wage bill so that 6 million Americans get a much-deserved pay raise. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 2429, and I know what you are going to say, but I ask it anyway.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4942, the Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act. This is a true product of bipartisan effort and collegial dedication. I am heartened at the process by which this bill has moved forward. In particular, I want to commend the hard work of both the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. King, Mr. Thompson, and my counterpart, Chairman David Reichert, chairman of the Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology Subcommittee. Their commitment to this vitally important legislation has been unwavering, and the collaboration offered epitomizes the very best of what the Homeland Security Committee can, should, and must be. Indeed, it is a tremendous achievement to see this proposal move forward. This legislation will help to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security works with our allies in the war on terror to develop and share the best homeland security technologies possible, and we will all be the better off because of it. This must be part of a global strategy in order to finish off terror. H.R. 4942 will establish what we call the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office. Its objective will be to facilitate international cooperative activities throughout the Directorate of Science and Technology within the Department of Homeland Security. The Director of the Office, who shall report directly to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, will be responsible for developing mechanisms and legal frameworks to allow and support international cooperative activity in support of homeland security research; To identify and match domestic entities engaged in homeland security research with foreign entities so that they may partner in homeland security research activities; To ensure coordination of international cooperative activities carried out by the Office with the activities of other components of the Department and other relative research agencies; and Holding international homeland security technology workshops and conferences. We saw in a recent trip of the Homeland Security Committee to Europe the significance of working closely with our allies. These international cooperative activities will be supported through grants, cooperative agreements, contracts with U.S. governmental organizations and businesses, federally funded research and development centers, institutions of higher education, and foreign public and private entities. The bill seeks to strengthen ongoing partnerships as well as encourage new ones. And the bill specifically says that we should seek to partner with our allies in this global war, as the chairman has pointed out. This global war or terrorism includes our closest allies, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Israel, and Singapore. To be sure, the United States would greatly benefit from joint international homeland security development programs between the United States and our allies in the war on terror. The fact is this: Many of our allies have substantial experience dealing with terrorism. By necessity, they have become hotbeds for counterterrorism research. The bill authorizes $25 million for international cooperation and cooperative activities for each of the fiscal years 2007 to 2010. It requires that the funds come out of the existing budget of the directorate of Science and Technology. $25 million is not a lot of money when we consider the vast array of benefits that such cooperation can produce. Forming partnerships and working together in a way that will ultimately help secure America is the main objective of the bill, again, of global strategy, and it should always be the main objective of this body. Passage of the legislation today shows that the House takes this austere responsibility seriously.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the ranking member of Homeland Security, my friend, and a gentleman in all sense of the word, from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 4942 and thank the cosponsors and sponsors of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce the Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation is cosponsored by every Member of the New Jersey congressional delegation, and would designate a national park at the majestic Great Falls in Paterson, NJ. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible. Fifteen miles west of New York City, the Great Falls was the second largest waterfall in colonial America. No other natural wonder in America has played such an important role in our Nation's historic quest for freedom and prosperity. At the Great Falls, Alexander Hamilton conceived and implemented a plan to harness the force of water to power the new industries that would secure our economic independence. Hamilton told Congress and the American people that at the Great Falls he would begin implementation of his ambitious strategy to transform a rural agrarian society dependent upon slavery into a modern economy based on freedom. True to Hamilton's vision, Paterson became a great manufacturing city, producing the Colt revolver, the first submarine, the aircraft engine for the first trans-Atlantic flight, more locomotives than any city in the Nation, and more silk than any city in the world. New Jersey's Great Falls is the only National Historic District that includes both a National Natural Resource and a National Historic Landmark. In a special Bicentennial speech in Paterson with the spectacular natural beauty of the Great Falls in the background, President Gerald R. Ford said, ``We can see the Great Falls as a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make America the most powerful nation in the world.'' The preeminent Hamilton biographers, an esteemed former Smithsonian Institution curator, the former chief of the National Park Service Historic American Engineering Record, and distinguished professors at Yale, Princeton, Harvard, NYU, Brown and other universities have filed letters with the National Park Service strongly recommending a National Historical Park for the Great Falls Historic District. Scholars have concluded that Pierre L'Enfant's innovative water power system in Paterson, and many factories built later, constitute the finest remaining collection of engineering and architectural structures representing each stage of America's progress from a weak agrarian society to a leader in the global economy. Editorial boards, Federal, State, and local officials and community groups have also strongly endorsed the campaign to award a National Park Service designation to the falls. This proposed national park would also encompass historic Hinchliffe Stadium, which was added to the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service in 2004. This stadium, built in 1932, is adjacent to the Great Falls and was home to the New York Black Yankees. Baseball legend Larry Doby played in Hinchliffe Stadium both as a star high school athlete and again as a Negro League player, shortly before becoming the first African-American to play in the American League. I am grateful to the National Park Service for its diligent work on the Great Falls National Park feasibility study, which was authorized by an act of Congress in 2001. Officials at the National Park Service have done meticulous, thorough work and acted with the utmost professionalism as they compiled this study, which is scheduled to be released for public comment in early October 2006. While I am confident that, given the criteria, the National Park Service study will recommend choosing the Great Falls as a national park, in the end it will only present recommendations. National Park Service units are designated by Congress, and it is imperative that we begin the process of selecting the Great Falls as a national park site as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, Congress must act now to pass this vital piece of legislation, so that we may fully recognize these cultural and historic landmarks that have played such a seminal role in America's history.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between what the Senate passed unanimously and what we are discussing today. You will admit that. And you did not mention the specific item that I mentioned and my problem with the legislation ``whereases'' is on the immigration legislation, which was passed last year. You know quite well it is a contentious subject on your side as well as in the entire Congress. I have mentioned nothing about the other things and have no problems with the other things that you mentioned, but I think that is enough for me to express myself, and I want to just correct the gentleman.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, there is no Democratic or Republican way to honor America. Let's get that straight. This legislation minimizes the hurt of the families of 9/11. I make that contention. This is not acceptable. I don't say this as a Democrat. I am proud of that fact. I say this as an American who believes in God. My friend, the gentleman from New York, is absolutely wrong when he says this is the same legislation as 2 years ago. I can agree with all of the ``resolves'' in this legislation, but when you look back into the ``whereases,'' to be very specific, the legislation 2 years ago had nothing in there about immigration when your party does not even agree on a position nor does ours. Why do we put in such a politically contentious issue when basically what we are saying here is we feel your hurt, families, and we want you to know we honor this? Today I harbor great disappointment. I really do. The possibility for reaching true bipartisanship, which was done in the Senate, has been thwarted. A long list of shameful acts on this floor continues. We could have honored the lives lost during the terrorist attacks 5 years ago by voting on a truly bipartisan bill. When there is an opportunity for crass, in many ways cynical, politics in regard to security, these gentlemen and ladies have taken it. For shame. Placing a commendation for this immigration security bill that barely passed the House last year within this resolution is from left field. We all know that the bill we are lauding here is one of the most divisive, mean-spirited pieces of legislation we have seen in recent years. So it is the ``resolved'' in this resolution that we agree with, but the ``whereases'' leave much to be desired. Inserting this in this 9/11 anniversary resolution is simply wrong. It is so typical of what we have come to expect. We should be concerned about what the 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project has given Congress for its efforts on homeland security. We should try in a bipartisan fashion to correct the D's and the F's, and many of us on both sides of the aisle have attempted to do that. Maybe we could actually improve how we screen baggage and cargo. Maybe we could address the vulnerabilities presented to our rail and our mass transit problems. Maybe, just maybe, we should finally give out grants to States and locals based on risk. So I say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I think we could have done better, particularly on this hurtful incident in our country's history. And that is my point today.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight appalled by the way Republican leadership has decided to turn against American workers by playing politics, instead of passing a clean minimum wage increase. It is shameful that millions of Americans are suffering the economic injustice of working a full-time job and earning a wage that leaves them below the poverty line. It is unconscionable that we stand here tonight debating provisions on the estate tax and the extension of expiring tax provisions. These provisions only serve as a political ploy to kill any increase to the minimum wage. Working-class Americans have waited too long, close to a decade in fact, for an increase in the minimum wage. This has been the second longest period without a pay raise since the Federal minimum wage law was first enacted in 1938. Over this last decade while the minimum wage has remained stagnant, the cost of basic necessities such as energy and healthcare have skyrocketed--meaning that the minimum wage is no longer a livable wage. Today a minimum wage earner has to work a day and a half just to pay for a full tank of gas. That is simply shameful. As Americans we have always been told that if you have a job, and you work hard, you will have a secure future in our Nation. Yet, millions of Americans who do have jobs and who do work hard everyday have joined the ranks of the ``working poor.'' In fact, the number of full-time year-round workers who are poor has more than doubled since the late 1970s. Let there be no doubt, a vote to increase the minimum wage to $7.25/ hour is a vote to alleviate poverty in America, and it is a vote to help eliminate the term ``working poor'' from our reality. Members of this body should be allowed a straight up-or-down vote on legislation to raise the minimum wage to a true livable wage of $7.25/ hour over the next 2 years. But instead the Republican leadership here in the House of Representatives has chosen to play dirty politics and attach poison pill provisions to this legislation with the implicit expectation of killing a real minimum wage increase. It is quite simply a slap in the face for working-class Americans.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, do not think there was an epiphany this morning when the leader of Iraq, duly elected, met at the White House to say that he would join, his country would join with other Arab states condemning terror. You would have thought the word ``terror'' was invented this morning. The audacity for him to look at us and say, for those who are skeptical about the war on terror, there is nobody skeptical in this House, either side, about the war on terror. But when his legislature condemns Israel, ``we need to stop the Israeli criminal aggression,'' and they voted on that unanimously, you come into our house, as we would say in the Bronx, even though I am from New Jersey, and think that we are supposed to forget everything. There is terror in Iraq, and there is terror in Israel. And if you think Hezbollah is the Guardian Angels, you are quite mistaken. And we need to understand what is going on in this House. Turn the country back around again. Sixty-five percent of the American people say we are going in the wrong direction, and we continued this morning.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act. As an original sponsor with my good friend Congressman Reichert, this is long-overdue legislation. It is bipartisan legislation and really sends a message throughout the entire Congress of the United States that we can work together if we place the needs of our families and neighborhoods ahead of partisan politics. When the 9/11 Commission released its final report, it found that the inability of our first responders to talk with each other and their commanders resulted in a loss of life. This is very, very important to America. The 9/11 Commission identified a problem that has been in existence, Mr. Speaker, for decades. It identified a problem that many policymakers have known for some time. In fact, in 1996, 10 years ago, Congress asked a blue ribbon committee, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, to examine the issue of interoperable communications. It concluded 10 years ago that public safety agencies did not have the sufficient interoperable communications ability to do their jobs. Five years later, on September 11, 2001, public safety officers were still ill-equipped in this regard. Now, this is unconscionable. Five years after the 9/11 catastrophe, the 30 major cities in the United States of America still cannot communicate. In 2002, the National Task Force on Interoperability convened several meetings with various national associations representing public safety officials to discuss the challenges of interoperable communications. They explicitly identified the key challenges that must be addressed if we are to move forward on the issue: incompatible aging equipment, fragmented planning in general, and a lack of coordination and cooperation from all the different stakeholders. So we have known about the problems that exist, Mr. Speaker. Many have explored the possible remedies. Yet many in Congress sit, after 9/ 11, after Katrina, wondering why no real progress has been made. And although I may take difference with my good friend and brother from Michigan, his point must be well taken, that these cannot be empty commitments. We must fund the very process that we have identified and voted on today. The bottom line is that H.R. 5852 will improve the capability of first responders to communicate during times of emergencies. I am proud to work with a bipartisan allotment of Members. We have had hearings, and I am sorry that one of the major problems in this Congress is jurisdiction and we have not addressed that, and I hope that we can do this and not air our linen. I hope that we can come to agreement, but the fact is that homeland security is at the center of the stage in trying to make a terrible situation much better. In an era when information can be sent instantaneously anywhere, it is utterly nonsensical that our Nation's police, the fire, and EMS personnel cannot consistently communicate with each other. First, this bill elevates the importance of improved emergency communication. For the first time, we are going to finally have a central office within the Department of Homeland Security that does just that. We will create an Office of Emergency Communications within the Department where the Assistant Secretary for Emergency Communications is directed to force the development of interoperable emergency communications capabilities by States and territorial, local and tribal and public safety agencies. This is absolutely critical. Elevating the status and standing, that standing of interoperability, within the Department is a key first step to ensuring the Department focuses at the proper time, has the staff, has the resources. This office will be charged with a variety of long-overdue critical endeavors, including preparing a baseline report. H.R. 5852 ensures that the appropriate staffing and resources are available to carry out the obligations charged. Mr. Speaker, our legislation compels the Department of Homeland Security to create a national emergency communications plan. Common sense must prevail here. This bill, I know, does not address the grant funding; but it is interesting to note, and I would ask my brothers and sisters on both sides of the aisle just to listen to this one statement that I have if you listen to nothing else: a one-time expenditure, equivalent to 3 days of what we spend in the Iraq war, will do one thing. It will pay for making emergency radio systems interoperable 5 years after 9/11. This bill is important, Mr. Speaker. This bill affects every American.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think that those who have come before us today have highlighted how critical this legislation is to the American people. In the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Emergency Preparedness for our police, our fire and EMS, we believe that unless the Homeland Security Department puts more emphasis and boots on the ground than those people who are there every day and every night, that we are never going to get this right in protecting America. This bill seeks to do that, and, hopefully, within a very short period of time, we will look and find the funding, and I have suggested one place today, so that we will take care of those needs of homeland security and protecting our families.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the life and work of an outstanding individual whom I feel fortunate to have known for the last 9 years, Mr. Tim Friedman. He is being recognized on Tuesday, July 25, 2006, on the occasion of his retirement after 30 years of service to the U.S. House of Representatives. Tim is originally from Lackawanna, NY, and began his career in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976. He started as a Doorkeeper and in 1985 he was appointed Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom by then Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill. My fellow Democratic colleagues and I agree that he has served us extraordinarily well for the past 21 years in the Democratic Cloakroom. Tim always made sure that I knew what legislative business was on the schedule for the day, and was a great person to converse with in between votes. But more importantly, Tim and I share a special bond as fans of the greatest baseball team in history, the New York Yankees. I will truly miss our bantering back and forth with Red Sox fans Mr. Capuano and Tim's co-worker Barry Fisher. I know Tim will be missed by all of my Democratic colleagues, even Mr. Capuano, whom he regularly bested in important baseball debates. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and privilege to extend my best wishes to a dedicated public servant. May he enjoy a very well-deserved retirement. Tim, you will be missed.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. Do you deny that the State Department has put us on alert as to how workers are treated, foreign workers particularly, in Oman, that they are forced to work? Are you denying that State Department report?

Mr. PASCRELL. It is used.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we need to get one thing straight here before I start, and that is that those of us who oppose this trade agreement are not against trade, are not against exchange. How dare anybody stand on this floor and refer to the 9/11 Commission's report. Chapter 12. I have read the 9/11 Commission's report, by the way. I think that is a good start. The 9/11 Commission report, chapter 12, talks about global strategy. If you read the entire chapter and you want to talk about strategy, trade must be part of when we are communicating with other countries. There is no question about it. For those of us who believe that we need to support this trade deal, this unfair trade deal, and it is going to help workers in Oman, as well as the workers in the United States of America, I don't know what you need to refer to. Because the State Department, our own State Department, says that foreign workers at times were placed in a situation amounting to forced labor in Oman. This deal isn't for workers. This deal is for the few, like most of the trade agreements that we have given into. We have surrendered our ability, as a branch of the government of this country, under Article I, section 8, that the Congress be in charge of commerce. We have surrendered our ability to be trade negotiators to the executive branch of government. I have high hopes for Oman and its people. We need more moderate and forward-thinking nations like Oman in the Middle East. We need to look at how much foreign aid we provide to Oman, and even Lebanon, we, who want to help the Lebanese stop Hezbollah, and then we give them $43 million. I am not against free trade. I am against these free trade agreements which do not benefit the American worker. I am not a protectionist, but I think we should protect the American worker. This agreement may be to the liking of a few wealthy CEOs here in America, it may be to the liking of the Sultan of Oman, but it does not represent the interests of workers in this country. It is time for a new direction in free trades. We need free trade which is modeled around human beings and not around big business interests, because human beings are the ones who drive our economy. They are the ones who will build our partnership with other nations. We need free trade agreements that enforce the principle of workers' rights. That is right. That is what this debate is all about: will we defend the rights of workers of Oman, or will we take a step back in the right of all workers to organize freely. This country doesn't recognize the right of workers to organize. We need to defeat this trade agreement. The proponents of the Oman Free Trade Agreement would have you believe that my colleagues and I who oppose this agreement do so because we are against free trade or maybe because we are against the nation of Oman. Both claims could not be further from the truth. The fact is that I have high hopes for Oman and its people. We need more moderate and forward-thinking nations like Oman in the Middle East. In fact we gave Oman only $16.5 million in foreign appropriations, which I think would be a more effective vehicle to build a strong partnership rather than through this flawed free trade agreement. An example of this is the sad fact that we gave Lebanon only $43.2 million in foreign appropriations, of which only a scant $7.7 million went to military and counterterrorism efforts. Perhaps if we had invested more into Lebanon we could have avoided the deadly situation we are currently witnessing. Similarly, I am not against free trade, what I am against are these free trade agreements which benefit a few to the detriment of workers. This agreement may be to the liking of a few wealthy CEO's here in America and it may be to the liking of the Sultan of Oman, but it does not represent the interests of the workers here in the United States or in Oman. My colleagues and I are tired of seeing the same flawed free trade model, time and time again. It is time for a new direction in free trade agreements. We need free trade agreements that are modeled around human beings and not around big business interests. Because human beings are the ones who drive our economy, they are the ones who will build our partnership with other nations. We need free trade agreements that enforce the principle of workers rights and the right of all workers to organize freely. Instead of just paying lip service to the problem as this agreement does. We need free trade agreements that respect our sovereignty and our right to have full control over our critical security infrastructure. Instead this agreement takes us back to the problem we had with the Dubai Ports deal and that is simply unacceptable. We need free trade agreements that respect environmental concerns, the rights of women and the rights of minorities. . . . I could go on longer, but I think you get my point. My colleagues and I would be standing here championing this agreement if it met the standards it should, but sadly it does not. It is time that we have real free trade agreements; it is time that we stand up for the workers here in America and workers throughout the world. I implore you to stand up for them today!

Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?