Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, to the gentlewoman from Michigan, I need to respond because no one is suggesting in this body today that we change the right to bear arms, and to suggest that those who oppose this legislation are aiding criminals and terrorists and hurting our Armed Forces and uniformed law enforcement is incredible pap. That is what it is; and as a vet, I resent it. Those who profit from the sale of guns have the ultimate responsibility to safeguard the American public by ensuring that their weapons do not get into the wrong hands, but we all know that this is often not the case. We have all heard on far too many occasions stories of dealer negligence that results in tragic consequences. Take the case of David Lemongello. David is a graduate of Bloomfield High School in my district, had his career as a police detective, his lifelong dream, cut short from the injuries he sustained at the hands of a career criminal with a gun. And where did the gun that shot David three times come from? How did a criminal get his hands on the gun that ended David's career? It was thanks in large part to an irresponsible gun dealer. The criminal got it from a gun trafficker who bought it along with 11 other handguns from a West Virginia gun dealer. Do my colleagues not think that if someone comes into a gun shop with thousands of dollars and purchases a dozen handguns that an automatic red flag should go up? Do my colleagues not think that there should be some accountability when gun dealers do not take even the minimum amount of oversight? Is there anyone here willing to tell David Lemongello to his face that he does not have the right to hold this irresponsible gun dealer accountable for the pain and the anguish he has suffered? Who here will tell David Lemongello that he does not deserve his day in court?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for floor votes on Monday, March 31th due to a long-standing prior commitments. If I had been present, I would have voted in the negative for final passage of H.R. 1463 the ``Small Pox Vaccination Compensation Fund Act.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), for his exemplary leadership as ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security. He has a weighty and difficult course to chart in helping Congress stay focused on the most important issues of our day; but I cannot, if I can just move to an addendum, a footnote, I must respond to what I heard early this evening. I voted on October 10 to support the President. That does not make me any better of an American than those who voted not to support the resolution; and until we understand that, we do not really understand the impact of the Constitution. I carry this document with me at all times, and I would suggest that to come to this floor and to challenge those people who may disagree, who may protest, this is what changes us from the other guys, the bad guys. I had to put that in there. I hope my colleague does not mind. Sometimes I fear that we do lose focus, Madam Speaker. Even as our national alert system is ablaze in Code Orange, our Armed Forces are fighting thousands of miles away. I just returned this last month. I was there in central Asia and in Kuwait. Far too much of our time has been spent on the rigid, uncompromising domestic proposals that have been sent to us time and time again. At least it is somewhat heartening to see that tomorrow on the third day of the fourth month of 2003, we will begin debate on needed funding for the war and needed funding for homeland security. It is a little bit too late to be sure, but I also fear that it is too little. I would like to read my colleagues a brief passage from a December 2002 report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, not a partisan group by any stretch. They wrote, ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.'' Just a few months ago they said that. Let that statement frame our conversation here tonight, and let those words linger in all of our thoughts as we decide on what the priorities of this Congress should be from here on out. We must take every possible measure, bear any needed costs to safeguard our country and our people, and that is exactly what we are doing for our sons and daughters on the battlefield in Iraq and in Afghanistan. A one-track-minded commitment to massive new tax breaks does not help us in this regard. As has been reported everywhere, local communities are now charged with an enormous responsibility. When Washington calls Code Orange alert, the States and local communities absorb the costs of heightened security measures. In New Jersey, it has spent close to $66 million, Madam Speaker, on homeland security needs this fiscal year alone. Shockingly, these increased security measures statewide cost about $125,000 a day. Nationwide, a new survey released last week, by the United States Conference of Mayors, as a former mayor, I can particularly appreciate, they estimate that cities are spending $70 million a week as a result of the war and the increased threat alert. At a time when our economy is barely moving, when States throughout our country are suffering from debilitating budget deficits, this is money they can ill afford. We appreciate that tomorrow's supplemental spending measure includes almost $4.2 billion to homeland security; specifically, I am glad to see $2 billion allotted to our first responders in terms of State grants. However, let us be real. The $2 billion included for first responders, combined with the $3.5 billion set-aside in fiscal 2003, the omnibus bill, is just about a third of what local governments really need. If we really care about our firefighters and police officers and other emergency workers, and I think both sides of the aisle are committed to this, Madam Speaker, but we have got to put our money where our mouth is. If everything's a priority, nothing's a priority; and we need to prioritize this to those first responders where they are day in and day out. Three weeks ago, I had another meeting with first responders in my district. They reiterated what everyone who studies homeland security agrees upon: firefighters and police officers need better training. They need protective gear. They need interoperable communications equipment, when they rush to the scene of a terrorist attack. These people on the front lines know what they need. We do not need any consultants. We do not have to hire consultants to find this out. Ask them; they will tell us. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) introduced that amendment yesterday. When it went down the tubes, I could not believe this. Our priority must be to improve local emergency preparedness, to provide for a strong homeland defense. If we agree that this is our priority, then we must do more. I am disheartened, I will conclude, Madam Speaker, by the 2004 budget, which is not what we will be voting on tomorrow. That budget cuts $4.1 billion from the Justice Department programs. Think about this. Here we are dealing with a supplemental tomorrow to help our first responders, and yet we are cutting money for the cops. We are cutting money for the Edward Burn grants. We are cutting money for fire assistance. So we are giving on one hand; and we are saying to the FBI, the INS, the DEA and Customs, wait, hold on. I assure my colleagues, I realize that every person sitting at home, anything over $1 million sounds like a tremendous amount of money and it is. So the fact that I am here arguing in a realm of billions of dollars may seem excessive, but we cannot do this on the cheap. If we think we can, we are wrong. Ask those people, ask those mayors, ask those councilmen, ask those Governors. They need help. They have been footing the bill since 9-11. Do we not get it? If we get it, we need to respond; and I thank the gentleman from Texas for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the tax cut in the Republican proposal for 2004 is a tax cut of $1.4 trillion, which is very close to the cost of the war effort. I find that not only to be interesting, but something that we need to take a look at very, very closely. I think, when all is said and done on all of these different budget proposals, the one thing I think is absolutely sure is we have reverse socialism. What we are doing here is redistributing the wealth of this country to the top. John McCain was right-on when he said that 3\1/2\ weeks ago. We have been accused on this side of the aisle year after year of trying to manipulate the budget, to manufacture the budget, so the money is going to be shifted down to those people who are making less than $50,000 a year. This is not the case over the next 10 years. We have a redistributing of the dollar upward. That is a fact of life. Yet what we have done at the same time, not because one side of the aisle thinks more of the veterans of this country than the other, but in order to fit it into their budget, what they had to do is nickel and dime the veterans, who have already put their lives on the line. Yet we send young men and women to war. What guarantee are we going to give them when they come back that their benefits are going to be intact?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, is this gentleman letting us know today that he is guaranteeing a reduction in the premiums if this bill is passed? Is that what the gentleman is saying? I would like him to say for the record.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I read section 12 of this legislation and it says that this is going to go into effect on the enactment of this bill, it becomes law. There is no grant program to help health care professionals. There is no end of frivolous lawsuits that has been discussed anywhere in this legislation. There is no attempt to pass on the savings to the very doctors who you have conned into believing that their rates are going to go down. The insurance industry has said time and time again, not to the doctors, that there is no guarantee that the premiums will go down if this is enacted. And what you are going to do to us in New Jersey and 10 other States where we have strong legislation dealing with HMOs that rule the roost, you are going to let them all off the hook and you are going to protect bad doctors, bad hospitals and you are certainly going to protect bad insurance companies. And I say to you, you have created a great injustice here by putting forth this legislation without even allowing us to consider trying to solve the problem. Our bill does that.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are very proud of the service of the chairman and ranking member. As I was coming over here, ironically, and I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is here, I got a call from a constituent who thanked me. I did not get a chance to talk with her. I have to call her back. Thanking the five of us who went to central Asia and to the Middle East and the flags we brought to our troops and the greetings from our President and the entire Congress, thanking us for providing a flag to her husband. I am anxious to call her back. Congresswoman, we are proud of you as well. This was a sobering experience. It was elevating by every stretch of the imagination to be with the troops in the field. Some may disagree with policy on this floor, but this is America, and we are allowed to do that. The troops understand that there is a difference in debating policy and supporting their efforts. We are 100 percent behind our troops and they know that and we know that as proud Americans. So God bless this country, regardless if you are in Camp Doha, if you are in Coyote, or if you are in New York or New Jersey, if you are in Camp Ganci, named after that great fire chief from New York City, we are here 100 percent in support of you. God bless this great country.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), and working in concert with the ranking member is proof positive that we can address the problems facing the Congress in a bipartisan way. The gentleman has not just talked about it, he has done it. It is nice to talk about these things, but we do not see it too much around here. I would also like to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman and the ranking member, but this goes beyond subsidy rates as I perceive it. It is heartening to know that on this particular day we can pause from debating which deficit-exploding tax cut for the wealthy should be enacted and instead actually do something for the small businessman instead of just talking about it. After 2 years of economic malaise, we are now in the weakest level of economic growth in 50 years. I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) has pointed out, if we are ever going to make this change and address it, now is the time to do it when there is an economic downturn. People are working harder for less. Household income for the bottom 95 percent of wage earners has fallen. Too many Americans are searching long and hard for work, work they cannot find; and consumer confidence is at its lowest point in a decade. Businesses throughout my district, the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey, are hurting. If we truly want to propel ourselves from this downturn, we must realize that small businesses are fundamental components to our economic infrastructure. Entrepreneurs have been and will continue to be the backbone of our great economy. It is absolutely critical that we provide those entrepreneurs with some relief, not just pay them lip service. So passage of S. 141 will be the first in what I hope will be many steps in a bipartisan way to address the problems of small businesses. This bill expands the size of the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program as I see it. This program is the largest effort within SBA to help smaller companies obtain loans from bank and other conventional sources. Lending programs such as this are critical for small business start-up. Access to capital is access to opportunity. Unfortunately, according to a variety of sources, not least of which is the GAO, current policies have resulted in overcharging the 7(a) loan program's lenders and borrowers by $1.5 billion over the last 10 years. Who paid that? This legislation is aimed at forcing the administration to use a subsidy rate model that accurately reflects the cost of small business and small business loan programs to the taxpayer. It aims to improve the calculation of the Federal subsidy rate for small business lending. It will provide a new cost calculation, as has been pointed out graphically here, which is expected to reduce the subsidy rate from 1.76 percent to 1.04 percent, thereby expanding the program itself by $4.9 billion to $8.2 billion, which will be available which is not available now. That will happen just by changing that rate. But there are other things that need to be done. As the ranking member has pointed out, in the 504 lending program, this is critical. This is small business taxation which is unnecessary. The failures of this administration to adjust problems with the 504 program have left small businesses paying $15,000 for each loan, and I think the average loan is about $200,000. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), have spoken about this time and time again. We cannot accept that. It is unacceptable. That money could be used to expand the very program that we are here trying to address today. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with this. This will go into effect October 1, 2002, so it will be retroactive to the very beginning of this fiscal year. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the ranking member for doing this very well.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 483, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, many years from now, when those so inclined decide to examine the Congress of this era, I am confident that they will find ours to be a thoughtful, involved House, one that judiciously examined every issue essential to the defense and freedom of our Nation and her allies. For 3 days, members marched to the floor to offer their support for, or opposition to, this bipartisan resolution. Indeed, the true essence of democracy has been displayed on the floor of the House of Representatives. I am proud to have been a part of the dialogue concerning this important issue of our time. And it was with much deliberation, consultation, and discussion that I came to support the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq if that force becomes necessary and if all other means of eliminating this threat fail. Let me be clear. This is not a declaration of war from the Congress. This was Congress ensuring that the President has the authority he needs to deal with the very real threat of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat. He is the epitome of malevolence. Indeed, the record of this murderous regime has been outlined forcefully in this body, and by our Commander in Chief. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He waged war with Iran; he invaded Kuwait. For the last 11 years he has defied the will of the entire planet as expressed in resolutions by the United Nations Security Council. I know of no thinking person who argues against the profound necessity of eliminating Saddam's weapons technology. We all agree on the menace he poses and desire a world where he is not a factor. Saddam Hussein's repeated defiance when it comes to permitting weapons inspections is a strong indication that his regime poses a very real threat to the civilized world right now. Ultimately, I believe that Saddam Hussein is dangerous. Dangerous in his country, dangerous to his region, and dangerous to the United States. Therefore I feel that giving the President the authority to use force against Iraq is an important matter of international-national security. Iraq poses an immediate biological and chemical threat to 50,000 American troops in the Middle East. This exacerbates the already enormous instability in the region. However, I do not give the President this authority without reservation. To be sure, in my view, there are still important lingering questions that demand further discussion from the President and this Administration. For example, should military force be required, when what? After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve? Why have more nations thus far chosen not to join us in this coalition against the threat of Saddam? How will we share the costs of war with those allies who have joined with us? If Iraq is truly part of our war on terror, what about those other nations that seem to fit this criteria of harboring terrorists and possessing weapons of mass destruction? Will we address those threats next, and if so, how? The President must be prepared to answer this question of why Iraq and not others. Further, we must make absolutely certain that whatever is done in Iraq does not negatively impact the broader war that we authorized 12 months ago--the war on terrorism. Al Queada has already taken thousands of our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers. We cannot waver one bit in our pursuit of those who attacked this nation on September 11, 2001. An we must continually emphasize that our nation must work with its allies. It is critical that we try to attain as much international support as possible. Working together with other nations on this front will expedite the intervention process and enhance the chances for post-war success. It is this last point that I find absolutely critical. That is why I was a cosponsor of the Spratt substitute resolution. It mandated the administration to fully work through the possibility of securing a new resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before any pursuit of unilateral action. Although I am disappointed that the mandate of the Spratt substitute did not pass, I am confident that as long as Congress exercises thorough oversight, then the president will proceed judiciously. The resolution that passed the House today was negotiated with the Democratic leadership. This was a bipartisan compromise, incorporating may provisions that were left out of the President's initial draft proposal. President Bush has shown good faith thus far in his dealings with our party. It is time to unite behind our commander-in-chief. Nobody wants this conflict to end up in war. Nobody fails to comprehend the gravity of this decision. Nobody wants one American soldier to be in harm's way. In fact, we all hope that through the use of other means, including exhausting our diplomatic options, Iraq can be disarmed such that the world community determines that force is not necessary. But shall that avenue fail, our nation must be prepared to protect its citizens fully and completely from those who wish us harm. Indeed, it is imperative that the United States speaks with one voice to Saddam Hussein. There can be no ambiguity in our resolve to protect and defend this nation, and the House accomplished this today.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, for 2 days Members have marched to the floor to offer their support for or opposition to this resolution, good Americans every one. Soon the hours of debate will come to an end. The House Chamber has echoed with the sentiments of almost every Member. Yet, many questions remain unanswered. To be sure, there is one thing we all agree upon: Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, is a threat. He is the epitome of malevolence. Plato must have had visions of Hussein, a Hussein character, when he described evil in The Allegory of the Cave. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record The Allegory of the Cave from Plato's Republic.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for his exemplary leadership. As the ranking member of the House Committee on the Budget, he has the almost unbearable task of trying to correct the hazardous economic course the current administration is charting. The gentleman has been trying since early last year to correct that course on this economic ship, and I salute the gentleman sincerely. I have never seen such fiscal mismanagement in my life. None of us can quite explain it, but we do try with some consistency. We are at a point in time when critical decisions must be made. The reverberations of these decisions will be felt for generations to come. Iraq is on the forefront of everyone's mind, and rightfully so. But as Members of Congress, we cannot focus solely on any one issue at any one time. It is our absolute duty to address every major issue that is before us, and we shall. Our budget, our economy are major, major issues. That is why we are here tonight. We are not going to politicize this issue. I will not adhere to blind idealogy. There is no need to do that. But as Sergeant Joe Friday would say, It is just the facts, Ma'am; and that is what we are about to talk about and have been talking about. Mr. Speaker, chart 3, right here, the surplus declines. When the administration took office, it received a benefaction unparalleled in our history. The largest budget surplus ever projected to a total of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Fact: the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now reports that the surplus is at $336 billion over 10 years. That is a swing of $5.3 trillion in the wrong direction in 18 months. The numbers roll off our lips: trillions. The budget is now in substantial deficit. Mr. Speaker, $157 billion is projected for this year alone at this moment. Private sector forecasters believe that the budget will suffer $200 billion annual deficits as far as the eye can see. What does this mean for you at home? Running deficits are going to drive up interest rates on car payments, mortgages, and student loans. How many of us are covered by those three issues alone? We are back to piling up massive debt for our children and our grandchildren, and weakening Social Security and Medicare for beneficiaries today and tomorrow. Budgetary choices impact people's lives daily, not unlike elections. We should remember that the next time we hear the House leadership tout the virtues of permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, which we cannot afford. My Republican friends have tried to shift the responsibility for the dissipation of the surplus just about anywhere. They blame the terrorist attacks, they blame the recession, they blame Bill Clinton, they blame the plague; but tonight we are dealing with just the facts. Fact: the mid-season review by the Office of Management and Budget reports that 40 percent of this dissipation of the surplus, the largest single share rests with the administration's tax cuts. I did not make it that way; I did not vote for it. All other legislation is responsible for only 17 percent, and more than half of that is normal national security spending. The economy is responsible for only 10 percent of the dissipation of the surplus. About one-third of the worsening of the budget was caused by technical errors, largely overestimates of revenues. We know about that in New Jersey, where the outgoing Governor cooked the books. It looked like we had a $1 billion surplus, and we wound up having a $6 billion deficit. That is called cooking the books. I think we invented it in New Jersey. Large overestimates of revenues, does that sound familiar of what we have been hearing on the corporate level? That is why the Republican cries for even more tax cuts are nonsensical. Indeed, their claims ring hollow. Maybe that is why the administration has backed off its next batch of tax cuts. Remember, when the economy was prosperous, they told us that the tax cuts were about returning the people's money. Then, when the economy took a downturn, we were told that tax cuts were about stimulating the economy. They want it both ways. Apparently, that is the Republican philosophy in any economic time, regardless of the situation, regardless of the circumstance. But even blind allegiance to the ideology cannot prevent the Republicans from realizing that the 10-year $1.35 trillion tax cut was deeply involved in the greatest plunge in tax receipts since the repeal of World War II surtaxes 56 years ago. This is a disgrace. Remember, just the facts. The budget deficit ties the hands of Congress in our efforts to alleviate the pain of all those who have become unemployed. What are we going to do for the 2 million people who have lost their jobs under this administration? The silence is deafening. Tell me, what are we going to do? Are we going to pass further tax cuts? New claims for unemployment insurance have risen 400,000 per week in the last 5 weeks. This means that private sector job gains will remain weak at best in the immediate future. But what are we going to do? The administration is proposing many cuts in order to try to make a catch- up. We have nickeled and dimed our veterans, we have nickeled and dimed our first responders, and we talk out of both sides of our mouths. The $270 million for our veterans, $150 million for our first responders is not a lot of money with regard to the totality of things, but we nickeled and dimed the very people who put their lives on the lines, and put them on the lines today as we speak and sit comfortably here in the House of Representatives. Our budget in this economic situation is in disarray, I say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Is there any Republican willing to stand up to the administration's disjointed agenda and say, Enough. I want the facts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against this unfair rule and against this flawed legislation. It is really unfortunate that the rule will not allow any amendments to improve the bill. My primary concern is that nowhere in H.R. 4600 does it limit health care lawsuits to just medical malpractice. In fact, health care lawsuits applies to any health care liability claim, quote unquote. H.R. 4600 would undermine the 11 States of the Union, including my State of New Jersey, that hold HMOs accountable. We arrived at that in a very bipartisan way. It would decimate what we have done in New Jersey, what we have worked so hard to do. In my memory, if my memory serves me correctly, last summer, a majority in this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, voted to hold HMOs accountable when they make medical decisions that kill or permanently maim patients. So we are on the floor today doing the exact opposite of what most of us supported just last summer. In looking at what happened in California, I have heard that mentioned a few times this afternoon, H.R. 4600 probably would not accomplish its goal of reducing premium costs or increasing the availability of medical malpractice insurance, either. Premiums in California rose 190 percent in the 12 years following the enactment of their claim limitation bill. In its present form, H.R. 4600 is not good for patients, and it does not work. So I ask that we vote against H.R. 4600. Let us focus on real solutions, such as making the Patients' Bill of Rights law. It is good to be back on domestic issues.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that our Congress on both sides of the aisle read the front page of the New York Times Business Section today. The horror that has been let loose on the American people has to be accounted for. This is no left conspiracy. What has been done is unconscionable. What has happened, they want to exacerbate this situation and make it worse. In 2001, only 1 million people were eligible for the alternative minimum tax. When these tax cuts go into effect and the full effect is there, 37 million people will have been impacted by the alternative minimum tax. The other side better prepare those taxpayers, or we better figure out in the 10-year budget how we are going to effect what has been brought upon this country. The Republicans have forced us into deeper debt. And those people making between $75,000 and $500,000 will be impacted even 4 to 5 years from now. The other side of the aisle better tell them now, tell them what is at stake for them; otherwise they are doing a disservice to the American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, the friends of the American taxpayer, have they told the American middle class? Have they read the report from the Brookings Institute which was made public? I ask the other side of the aisle to read it.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today, all across this great land, we honor the memory of those who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. We honor those who were taken from us by cowardly murderers, the very worst of human kind, simply because we are a free people. This 1-year anniversary is indeed a day of deep reflection and remembrance. I am not sure if the American family will ever come to terms with the visions of our brothers and sisters, our sons, and daughters, our mothers and fathers, being victimized by the despicable acts perpetrated by the evil and the cowardly. But I am sure that our love of country, our love of each other, will help us continue to recover and respond. We remember and we mourn today. Those we lost will forever be in our hearts and minds. Our lives now are about making sure theirs were not lost in vain, about ensuring their values, their ideals, and their spirit always endure. We will also never forget what we saw in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. We saw--amid the carnage, amongst the destruction--the amazing heights of benevolence and decency and courage that mankind can offer. What we saw was America. Within moments of the first attacks, our first responders entered buildings without reservation in an attempt to save others--and they did so knowing full well that they themselves may never exit. Everyday Americans became extraordinary heroes to people they had never met before. Our eternal gratitude will also be extended to the passengers of United Flight #93 who prevented it from being used as a weapon against America. As we mourn the victims and honor the heroes of September 11th, we must be resolute in our efforts to ensure that we protect and defended this nation against all those who would do us harm. And we must never forget what it means to be an American--to cherish the principles of freedom, democracy, and human rights for all. It is what separates us from them. Across our nation, in synagogues, Roman Catholilc Churches, Presbyterian chapels, Baptist meeting houses and mosques, words of comfort, hope and grief will echo from pulpits. At dinner tables across this nation, families will grieve, and they will love each other. It is what we should do on this day. America is vast and diverse, but today we are united as never before in our history. The victims of September 11 came from 735 towns and cities in 40 different states, all members of one American family. My district lost wonderful people, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, dear friends. As our nation pays tribute today, I think it is appropriate to enter the names of the 54 individuals from my district who died a year ago today. You will never be forgotten. Daniel Affilito, John Candella, Lt. Robert Cirri, Caleb Dack, Antoinette Duger, Edgar Emery, Barry Glick, Emeric Harvey, Howard Kestenbaum, David Lee, Ming Hao Liu, Robert Murach, Eshtesham Raja, Linda Rosenbaum, John Skala, Jorge Velazquez, Leah Oliver, Paul Lasczynski. Cesar Alviar, Kyung Cho, Robert Coll, Robert Deraney, Luke Dudek, William Erwin, Tim Graziozo, Zhutu Ibis, Lauren Kestenbaum, Craig Lilore, Joseph McDonald, Ed Murphy, Steven Roach, Daniel Rosetti, Michael Stewart, Douglas MacMillan, Dorota Kopiczko, Catherine Nardella. Paul Aquaviva, Kirsten Christophe, Michael Collins, Georgette Deraney, John Eichler, Christopher Faughnan, John Graziozo, Donald Jones, II, Franco Lalama, Ken Lira, Craig Montano, David Pruim, Leo Roberts, Norman Roosinow, Francis Trombino, Marsha Rodriguez, Robert Cordice, Linda Walker.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the Members on this floor and beyond, because I looked through these 304 pages, thank you for giving me that courtesy, and looked very, very carefully for the sections on child labor. And I want you all to know that it has been taken out at the conference level. We know what goes on in other countries. So do not talk about the free market. This is child slavery. Everybody in this room knows about it. Everybody reads about it, day in and day out. Why was that taken out of this bill? That is only one section of the 304 pages. Why was it taken out? It was taken out because what we are going to do this evening, this morning, or tomorrow afternoon, whenever we end this debate, what we are going to be doing is allowing the same corporate cowboys that we have been talking about for the last 3 weeks on this floor and out there to make the decisions on trade. This is not free trade. This is at the expense of little children, and you know it and everybody else knows it. Whether you are talking about farm, whether you are talking about textile, whether you are talking about steel, everyone knows it. This was the battle, this was the major battle between Jefferson and Hamilton, when they decided to extract from the Federalist Papers, 50 of which were written by Alexander Hamilton, to discern that we need a diverse economy, not one based on one single item. And what have we reaped? We have lost 1,300,000 manufacturing jobs, and this is where we are headed. I was not sent here to surrender my rights and responsibilities under the Constitution. I did not come here to surrender Article I, Section 8. Maybe that is why some of us were sent here, but I was not. I hold that Constitution, I carry it with me everywhere I go. I know what my responsibilities are as a Congressman, and I intend to follow through. I want to be more than a rubber stamp for the President of the United States, be he or she Democrat or Republican, on trade agreements. That is not why we were sent here. They defied every agreement since 1994, and you know it and everybody knows it. I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oberstar- Menendez amendment to strike the extension for airline baggage screening. It is no secret that there have been serious problems at the Transportation Security Administration with fund shortfalls and organizational issues causing troubles. However, extending the deadlines in this manner is not the way to go about securing our homeland. No Federal agency has asked for delay. The administration has not asked for delay. Do not allow the hope of newer yet nonexistent technologies into the work of the TSA. We cannot and we should not allow the TSA to slow their efforts toward implementing a program of 100 percent explosive screening at all commercial airports by year's end. The DOT Inspector General, who is always brutally honest when reporting to Congress, told the Subcommittee on Aviation just this past Tuesday that ``we will be in a much better position in a month to judge what is or is not feasible to accomplish by the deadlines.'' One month to 45 days to be exact, according to the IG. Now is not the appropriate time to delay. The Congress should not be undermining a law that the House passed 410 to 9. This is important for the security of everybody in this room here on the floor and up in the gallery. Tell them, tell America what is going on here. The airlines are suffering economic damage, and yet we do not want to help people get back on the airlines so that they feel more secure. It does not make sense. There is not one Federal agency that supports a delay. All we are doing is bailing out an organization and organizations that for 20 years have been told they had better secure the baggage. Until I came to the Congress, Mr. Chairman, I thought every piece of baggage was checked. Boy, was I sadly wrong. We should not go backwards. We need to go forwards so we put our actions where our mouth is.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the work of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). It is amazing what can be done when all sides resign themselves to work together. Although not a perfect bill, this is a bipartisan bill. It is an effort the American people can be proud of. Unbeknownst to millions of Americans, their homes, schools and communities are sitting on top of millions of miles of pipelines. With this bill, Congress seeks to ensure that proper regulations are backed up by strong enforcement policies to ensure their safety. Despite the Office of Pipeline Safety requests for mapping information more than 3 years ago, and the importance of a national repository of pipeline maps for national security purposes, hundreds of operators have not submitted the requested maps. Under the bill, OPS will finally have the maps of pipeline systems it needs to regulate effectively. Furthermore, the compromise legislation includes important employee training provisions and whistleblower protections. Those on the front lines must feel free to inform the proper authorities if there is a safety or security risk not being addressed. Also included is funding for grants to community groups to allow them to obtain technical expertise for participation in pipeline regulatory proceedings. The House will finally be on record endorsing real pipeline safety legislation, requiring pipeline operators to adopt integrity management programs with periodic inspections. Enron has shown us that we cannot put our faith in the industry to do the thing. We cannot afford to lose any more lives, Mr. Speaker. In the face of potentially severe consequences, symbolic legislation cannot suffice. This is our opportunity to fix a broken system. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we are doing the right thing by passing strong pipeline legislation today.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for bringing us together on this supplemental. I support it. Today's bill, Mr. Speaker, includes an additional $150 million for the assistance to the Firefighters Grant Program. This is part of homeland security, defending the homeland. This brings the amount of money we will give to fire departments around the country up to $510 million for fiscal year 2003. This is personal for me, Mr. Speaker. On May 9 of last year, Alberto Birado, a firefighter for the City of Passaic, died in the line of duty during the primary search of a building on fire. He died because his Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus ran out of air. Just last week, the Passaic Fire Department was awarded a grant to purchase more SCBAs and spare air cylinders. Features of these additional cylinders will hopefully prevent all other unnecessary deaths. This is what the Firefighters Grant Program is all about. The attacks on September 11 taught us many lessons. One of those is the importance of firefighters to the public safety equation and, indeed, to homeland security. We had to scrape and beg to get $100 million last year in the emergency spending bill. The leadership told us they did not believe us when we said the fire services needed the money desperately. In one year, we have gone from $100 million funding to half a billion dollars. We still have a long way to go. There are over 20,000 applications to FEMA in the second year of this program with requests totaling over $2.2 billion. Trust me. We will be hearing from all of these fire departments in Members' districts around this country. The odds are that all of us have a few fire departments at home that will not get a grant this year because there was not enough money to go around. I know our contribution to this worthy cause will continue to rise as each of us hears from our constituents.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to a personal matter and was unable to be present this afternoon for floor votes. If I had been present, I would have voted in the affirmative on H. Con. Res. 395, H.R. 4866, and H. Res. 483.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the other evening the President provided a policy speech on corporate accountability. In response to the President's speech, business experts such as John Bogle, founder of Vanguard Group, stated that in terms of real substance of what will solve the problems, it does not get nearly as far as I would have hoped. I agree with Mr. Bogle, Mr. Speaker. While the President discusses transparency and required disclosures by corporate executives, his own Vice President refuses to disclose which energy moguls sat in the White House and put together our energy policy. None of us on either side of the aisle should be cavalier about these problems. These are systemic, serious problems. We are not talking about a few bad apples. When regulators refuse to do their job, the result is that the American people are injured. Just look at the situation with Enron and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Members know Enron was manipulating the system. Lawmakers have been urging FERC to investigate market manipulation long before the Enron scandal broke. When FERC's chairman, Pat Wood, who was handpicked by Enron's Ken Lay, joined FERC last June, he said it was FERC's job to act like a vigilant market cop walking the beat. I would say the fox is guarding the hen house. These regulators ought to resign.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution states very clearly that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. If we vote ``yes'' on this rule today, the House will be on record abdicating yet another constitutionally granted right. This undermines the Congress; this undermines this institution as a separate and coequal branch of government. In fact, one could question whether we have the right to do it. In 1980, a President of the United States taxed oil and the courts overruled him. We do not have the power to surrender this right now. Edmund Randolph put it all very nicely. He worried about the executive power, calling it ``the fetus of monarchy.'' What you are doing is running down this institution, not only by the process but what you want the end product to be. We are a people's house and should represent the people of the United States in every one of our districts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Coordination and information sharing among federal, state and local authorities may be the single most important thing we can do to enhance our ability to respond to a terrorist threat. This point is reiterated to me in every meeting I have had with law enforcement personnel, firefighters, public health officials and state and municipal leaders in my district since September 11. We need communication. We need cooperation. We need coordination--not only among federal agencies, but also with our people in the field. In my role on the Democratic Homeland Security Task Force, I have spoken with many first responders about their concerns. They say the same thing. The Federal Government simply does not pass information down the chain to the local level to the extent that is so necessary. And this fact can continue no longer. The Federal Government relies on state and local personnel to protect our Nation against a terrorist attack. We rely on them. It would be unconscionable if we didn't help them to do their job to the best of their ability. And the ability to do their job effectively relies on the information they receive. I think H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, is an important step toward developing and ensuring an effective strategy for truly protecting the United States. We simply need to get information into the hands of those who need it, and this bill does that. We've heard from many that ``Hometown security equals homeland security.'' This legislation gets past the catchphrases and jingles, and actually does something. This will empower our states and local communities to protect themselves, and in turn protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the legislation as written, and I am in support of the Oberstar amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is an exception to the usual bipartisanship that we usually have on the Subcommittee on Aviation. I think the history proves that. But H.R. 1979 allows small airports to use their Airport Improvement Program grant funds to build contract towers. Airports have signed contracts since 1996. These are contracts. Now what those 27 airports want to do is have us change the rules so that they become eligible for construction funds. This is pretty simple. The game is over, and they want to change the rules. I am a supporter of the contract towers program, as all of us are. The program provides worthy safety benefits to small communities and airports. However, the element of this bill I must rise to oppose is the use of the AIP funds to repay airports that have already built or contracted to build air traffic control towers. When an airport goes into contract with the Federal Government and agrees to build a tower, the terms of the agreement are clearly stated. If you build a tower, we, the Federal Government, will staff and operate it. This legislation ignores the agreement and changes it retroactively. It is a mistake to use the sparse money, the sparse resources that we do have to provide reimbursement to airports that built or equipped contract towers. These airports knew full well what was at stake when they agreed to build the tower, Mr. Chairman. We had a deal, and there is no logical reason why either party should go back on that deal right now. There should be no reasonable expectation of reimbursement. AIP funds are short enough as it is without funding previously constructed towers. Safety, security, and capacity enhancement improvements at these airports would suffer by being unable to access the AIP funds for possibly several years. A further problem with the reported bill is that it does not require airports seeking reimbursement to have complied with all of the statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to an AIP project. I do not think that is acceptable. If it is good for one, it is good for all. If we are to change the rules, change all the rules. Under this flawed bill, there can be reimbursement from the AIP for construction that did not comply with six Federal statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is not chopped liver. This is important here. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not complied with. It is not fair that many properly funded towers were built in compliance with all Federal laws, but those that were not can get a windfall nonetheless. Finally, in preparation of FAA reauthorization next year, the House must not set a precedent for reimbursement of airport projects. Passing this legislation is a slippery slope to reimbursing projects in a host of categories. We must focus Federal assistance through the AIP on supporting future improvements, not on the past. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and support the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?