Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to call to your attention the story of an American hero, Officer William Jimeno of the Port Authority Police Department. Officer Jimeno of Clifton, New Jersey miraculously survived being buried for fourteen hours in the rubble of the World Trade Center after heroically responding to the scene on the morning of September 11, 2001. September 11, 2001 has emblazoned so many unforgettable images in our minds. Perhaps none is more vivid, however, then that of courageous men and women in uniform working so valiantly to save the lives of others. It is therefore only fitting that Officer Jimeno be honored, in this, the permanent record of the greatest freely elected body on earth. A member of the Port Authority Police Department for only nine-months at the time of the attack, Officer Jimeno and two fellow officers immediately rushed from the Port Authority Bus Terminal to the Twin Towers after the first plane hit. Soon joined by two additional officers, Will and his colleagues secured axes, air packs, and helmets to help evacuate the buildings. The officers were in the lobby of Tower Two on their way back to Tower One when an indescribable noise pierced through the air. Tower Two was coming down. Officer Jimeno found himself and four others from the PAPD, Sergeant John McLoughlin, Officer Dominick Pezzulo, Officer Antonio Rodriguez, and Officer Chris Amoroso, buried alive, crushed under steel and concrete and surviving inside an air pocket made by part of an elevator. After fourteen hours, and after losing three of his fellow officers who had been trapped near him, Will was pulled from the rubble. Officer Jimeno's actions that day, and everyday of his recovery since, are a testament to his character and spirit. Rather than be daunted by the tragedy that occurred, he is steadfast and resolute in his commitment to serve others. As Will himself has said, ``As soon as I'm better I'll put my uniform back on and go back to work.'' Those who attacked us on September 11 thought our commitment to freedom and to each other made us weak. They never met Will Jimeno. The bravery and love he exhibited in the face of terror make him an example for us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the City of Clifton, Will's family and friends, myself, and a truly grateful nation in honoring a great American, Port Authority Police Officer William Jimeno.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I stand on this floor as a proud graduate of St. George's Elementary School and St. John the Baptist High School and Fordham University. Some might say I am an exception to the rule, since there are so many great graduates of parochial schools, and particularly we talk today about Catholic schools. The Catholic education I received provided me with the tools to not only forge success in life, but gave me an unending desire to serve my fellow man. That is where I learned this, besides, of course, from my home. I stand before the Members as the father of three sons who also attended Catholic school. Not too long ago in our Nation's history, Roman Catholics were not welcomed in many parts of our society. That has changed. My Catholic education taught me that every American, no matter their religion, their creed, their color, had an equal right and should get an equal chance to the American dream. When we celebrate the 28th annual Catholic Schools Week, I am proud to report that Catholic schools continue to be a vibrant patch of the American quilt. The 8,146 Catholic schools in this Nation serve more than 2.6 million students. That is a lot of students that would be in the public schools. We support the public schools, but we are here talking about a major portion of our society are in Catholic schools. As a child and lifelong resident of my major city, Paterson, New Jersey, I am proud to report that 46 percent of the Catholic schools are in urban areas. Many of these schools educate our most vulnerable students. Catholic schools continue to be as diverse as America. One in every four Catholic students, or students in a Catholic school, are minority. The results continue to be outstanding. Eighty-three percent of the Catholic high school students go on to higher education and only 3 percent drop out, a figure well below the national average. For the three sons that I sent to Catholic school, I knew, along with learning the three Rs, their spirits would be nurtured. This is the same Catholic spirit I learned in school: a spirit of tolerance, of compassion, and service to our fellow man; a spirit that translates so easily to the secular world of public service this Chamber honors. I am pleased to add my voice to the chorus of those celebrating the wonderful achievements of these wonderful American institutions.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the DOD authorization bill. It includes funding for a program that helps a group of people that are near and dear to all of our hearts, our firefighters. The DOD bill authorizes $900 million per year for the next 3 years for the Firefighter Assistance Grant program, that bill which was introduced in 1999 and passed last year with a tremendous amount of support across the aisle. Today, we authorize this grant program at the level it should have been authorized in the first place. We are sending a message to the appropriators, letting them know how valuable we think this program really is. Just last month, we passed the VA-HUD appropriations bill which provides funding of $150 million for fiscal year 2002. It is far from the amount that I think the members of our fire services deserve and need. But it is a start. If September 11 taught us anything, it is the importance of the firefighters as first responders to the public safety equation. We had to scrape and beg to get $100 million last year in an emergency spending bill. The leadership told us they did not believe us when we said the fire services needed this money desperately. Boy, were they wrong. Of the 32,000 fire departments in this country, over 19,000 of them applied for these grants, totaling up to $3 billion in requests. I am a bit chagrined that we are still scraping and begging the appropriators for a measly $150 million in view of the problem. But I tell you, we will take it. Trust me, you will be hearing from all of the fire departments in your districts around the country, both career and volunteer. 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. Next year, I bet we will not be begging and scraping. Next year I bet we will be a lot closer to our newly authorized funding level of $900 million, because there are few heroes in our lives, people who put their necks on the line day in and day out to keep us safe. That is what we are doing here today. We are giving back to those heroes. I know our contribution to this worthy cause will continue to rise as each of you hears from your own constituents about the need for more fire personnel, more safety equipment and vehicles. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank folks from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me this time, and thanks to the Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for all his work. The great poet Langston Hughes asked, ``What happens to a dream deferred?'' Well, in the case of the dream of fair and equal treatment at the polls, a dream deferred is a dream denied. Let us defer these dreams no longer. Let us take this critical step to ensure that all Americans have their votes counted. Last year's presidential election was a civics lesson for all of us. Not only did we learn that every vote counts, we learned that every vote is not counted. Although we all saw what happened in Florida, we realized the problems existed in every State and in every municipality. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses punch card voting machines, one in every 16 ballots for president was invalidated. In many Chicago precincts that have high African American populations, one of every six ballots was thrown out. If we do not address this blatant irregularity and inequality, then we are letting down the thousands of Americans who take the time to vote each year. This bill is the right approach. Buying out our punch card systems, improving equipment, recruiting and training poll workers, improving access for people with disabilities, and educating voters about their rights are the things we must be doing. And we should require States to adopt minimum election standards, whether it comes to voter registration or provisional voting. When one voice is stifled because of outdated election procedures, it stifles our collective system, Mr. Speaker, as a Nation. And none of us should tolerate it any more.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, The 21st Century Montgomery G.I. Bill Enhancement Act. This important legislation increases funding for the highly successful Montgomery G.I. Bill education program. Every year thousands of veterans have the opportunity to earn a college degree because of this program. The brave men and women of our military defend our freedoms around the globe, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. While Americans sit around their Thanksgiving dinner table, light candles during Hanuka and open presents on Christmas morning, our armed forces stand fast. And when they return, we must fulfill the promises we have made to them. Mr. Speaker, we are not keeping our promise to America's veterans. As I have traveled throughout my district I have met countless veterans who do not know of the full range of VA services available to them. And every year I host a veterans registration drive in my district because there are too many veterans that simply do not get the services they need from the Veterans Administration. And when they do finally reach out to the VA they find facilities understaffed, overworked and woefully inadequate. I want to thank Chairman Smith for including language from my Veterans Right to Know Act in this legislation because it will require the VA to inform vets of the entire range of benefits they are entitled to. This is a critical first step in ensuring that every veteran has access to the services they have earned including the Montgomery G.I. Bill program. Mr. Speaker, our men and women are fighting for us in Afghanistan, we need to fight for them when they come home.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a very critical issue. We are arguing the rule. I want both sides to know these are the rules of the Constitution of the United States. Article 1 section 8 is very clear. In the last 20 years this Congress has given up its powers to the executive branch of government. We have had folks on the other side talk about it. It is very clear what article 1 section 8 says about what our responsibilities are. In the movie ``Thelma and Louise,'' Thelma turns to Louise and says, ``Don't settle.'' We are settling here. We are settling for an erosion not only of the Constitution of the United States, an erosion of labor rights, an erosion of environmental security, an erosion of our trade imbalance which has risen to $435 billion, a $62 billion erosion according to NAFTA itself. We are making a big mistake if we vote ``yes.'' This is not a question of to trade or not to trade; this is a question of having the right rules at the right time. I ask Members to read article 1 section 8. Did constituents send Members here to give up their responsibility to the President of the United States on trade issues? Then change the Constitution. Change the Constitution is my recommendation if that is what Members wish to do.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield for a comment, the gentlewoman from California has brought up a very important point. Is it not ironic that the very people we invite to our shores, ``Give us your tired, your hungry,'' come here from countries that we are now transporting jobs to? We are talking out of both sides of our mouth, and the gentlewoman from California has to deal with it, as many of us on both sides of the aisle have to deal with unemployment problems. It is growing. We are losing our manufacturing base. It just struck me when the gentlewoman was speaking, that very example, that very anecdotal story the gentlewoman is presenting to America, and her heart and sincerity are in it, that we are talking out of both sides of our mouths and inviting people here and then transporting jobs to their countries. They are needed here first. We know our international responsibilities.

Mr. PASCRELL. I might add that there is no real evidence to back up the contention that this is an economic stimulus. In fact, if all of the data are in, whether we are talking about the balance of trade, which is now $435 billion, no one wants to address that. The relationship between that balance of trade and what goes on in the economy in the United States is profound, is profound. There is no real evidence that points out what the President's press secretary said on Monday. He said, the President believes that Trade Promotion Authority is the stimulus in and of itself to keep the economy growing. Well, first of all, Fast Track is necessary for the administration on two fronts, the World Trade Organization and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, FTAA. They are both long-term goals that are not going to bring any stimulation to this economy over the next 2 or 3 years. We are only kidding ourselves. In terms of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, disappointed that this body has progressed to where it should be, within this Fast Track bill there is nothing we can do about that either, nothing. The WTO can be a body that advances the ball on such issues as labor and the environment but only if we force the issue, and I might add, over 25 years we have forced the issue on workers rights and environmental protections to no gain, to no gain. It has been talk, it has been cheap, and it has been profuse, but it has not brought a change about in our trade policies whatsoever. The high American standards that are commonplace worldwide if we push this issue, we know that other countries do not have the labor standards that we have and environmental standards. We understand that. We understand that. We are not minimizing other nations. What we are saying is we cannot be foolish in the face of what we want to negotiate. Let us have reciprocal trade agreements, and we have had reciprocal trade agreements, where we, on a piece of paper, agree that we are going to respect the rights of other nations to decide their own fate. Why should we keep our rates low while other nations will not allow our goods in? And, in many cases, the people in those countries cannot afford our goods and services, and we are sacrificing, we are sacrificing the brothers' and sisters' jobs in this country.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring up a sore subject some of us may not like, but let me bring it up anyway, because this is it. This is the vote tomorrow, and I am very concerned about members of my own party, to be very honest with you, and I respect all persuasions within my own party, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum. I have an inner laugh when I hear our party needs to be the party of inclusion. We need to reach out to business. Well, let me tell my colleagues who the people are who have been at my door in the last 2 years. They have been owners of textile mills, they have been owners of machine shops, they have been owners of cable companies. Owners, entrepreneurs who hire the folks that we are all concerned about, but we should be concerned about those who put the capital up to go into business in the first place. So I want to make sure to tell my brothers and sisters in my own party that we want to be inclusive. Both parties want to try to be inclusive in whatever way they choose. But do not come back to me and say we are never going to get the support. And I think I have a right to talk about this, talk turkey here tonight. That is how critical this vote is. We have an erosion of the Constitution of the United States. We have had an erosion of jobs. We have had an erosion of food safety. We do not need a further erosion. We do not wish to deny this. We do not want to stick our heads in the sand and say things will get better. They did not get better with NAFTA, and they are not going to get better with this vehicle if we support it tomorrow. I want to thank my colleague for getting us together, the gentleman from Ohio, because he has stayed on this case. He has not given it a one-shot deal. The gentleman has worked on it since I have been here, for 5 years, and I commend him. The American people understand this better than we do; and the American people, in every poll, have indicated they want their jobs protected. They understand we need to trade with other countries. They know that this is a world economy, that we live in a global village. But the folks in my town work in Paterson, New Jersey. They love the world. They have been fighting in wars, and they will defend us. Are we going to defend their jobs? And if it is textiles and machinery today, what will it be tomorrow? That is the question that every person who is a Member of the House of Representatives must ask themselves tomorrow before they vote. Textiles, cable wire, machinery, leather goods today. What is tomorrow? Or shall it be, whose ox is gored? That is not what America is all about. America is about our being the last hope here on this floor to protect the interests of working families. We are the last vestige of hope.

Mr. PASCRELL. And the answer to the gentlewoman's mother is, well, if your job is extinguished, you will have to go to another job, a service-related job. I ask the gentleman from Ohio, is that what has happened under NAFTA? Have we seen those service jobs? In fact, what have we seen?

Mr. PASCRELL. I am listening to my brothers and sisters here, and I have listened to folks on both sides of the aisle. I was just as opposed to this when President Clinton was there, and I am an equal opportunity opposer right now. I want to make very clear to everybody, and particularly to those who stood on this floor and talked about ``Buy America,'' well, we hope there are items that are manufactured in this country that we can buy. We are losing our wherewithal. People earned their identity when they came to this country and worked with their hands to produce products. This is a critical vote tomorrow, one that between 10 and 20 of us will decide, in the final analysis. Every poll, and the gentleman from Ohio I think will support what I am going to say, every poll indicates the American people do not want to transfer the powers in the Constitution from the House of Representatives, from the Senate, to the executive branch. I can cite four or five different ways in which the power of the Congress has been eroded over the past 20 years. This is not the way to do it. So if Members want to buy American, they have to have something to buy. There needs to be something to produce, to be produced. Then, there are those who want to try to sway, in the final hours, this vote. They say, What we are going to do is make sure that we have trade adjustment assistance; or, in other words, it may not be all that good, but what we will do is we will have some money over here; and, by the way, it is authorized, not appropriated, not appropriated; but they say, we will have some money over here to help those that are unemployed. It has not worked in the past, and we know how many jobs have been lost under NAFTA. There are two things, two things, in the final hours of this great debate, with respect to all sides here, two motivating forces of the opposition, or those supporting giving the President this sole power and leaving us out, regardless of what words they put in there: stimulus and national security, stimulus and national security. They have sent some of the first-line troops out to talk about national security, that this is important: if the President does not have Fast Track, we cannot defend America.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of another issue in the last 5 years that I have debated on this floor, and we have had some hot issues, that I feel more viscerally about, and I think the gentleman from Ohio would agree with me, he has been here longer than I have, than the subject of trade. We who oppose fast track do not oppose trade. It is a given. And simply put, what we have asked for on every issue since 1997 when there obviously were not enough votes to bring it to this floor at 3 o'clock in the morning one day in the fall, what we simply asked is that every trade agreement be a reciprocal trade agreement. What is good for one side is good for the other. But what does that mean? To my friends who want to give away the store, I recommend that they read the Constitution of the United States. Many times, people stand on the floor of this great House and talk about what the Constitution says. We talk and refer to the Constitution on guns, we talk about the Constitution in terms of who has war powers. Well, the folks back in the eighth district in New Jersey sent me to uphold this Constitution, not just some parts of it. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes and duties imposed and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare, et cetera; to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, et cetera. I did not come here, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, to surrender my responsibilities and obligations under the Constitution, because if it is trade today, what will it be tomorrow? We need to protect that responsibility as defined in article I, section 8. There is no consistent administration policy on trade besides lower tariffs and cutting quotas. There is no structure; there is no plan. It deals with Vietnam, it deals with the Andean countries, the WTO, Pakistan, our newly found friends, all of which do not take into account the wishes of the American worker. Cost- benefit analyses just are not there. Congress cannot allow this administration to craft trade laws without our input under the Constitution. The only reason for fast track is that they want to add things they know that the Congress and the American people do not want. We are patriotic Americans. We are loyal to the President. We are loyal to the commander in chief. To question the loyalty of Members of this Congress for being opposed to fast track, to me is shameless. We are the people's House. We are directly elected by the people. We hear from those out of work, and we must respond to their needs. Americans want us to keep our voice. We must keep our voice. This job belongs to us. The only way our leverage will be felt is to oppose fast track. Despite overwhelming evidence, the current trade policies have resulted in massive trade deficits. No one on any side of the argument denies that. Job losses. Just take a look at what NAFTA did to jobs in this country. In my State of New Jersey, we have lost 84,749 jobs. That is according to the Department of Labor. This is not anything that was made up. That is not an illusion. Under two free trade administrations we have lost that many jobs. Imports have risen between 1994 and 2000 by 80.5 percent, and exports went up 60 percent. We have a huge trade deficit. An example of the impact our Nation sees under these disastrous trade laws as we surrender our rights one after the other, just look at the VF Corporation, the well-known jeans producer. They are cutting 13,000 jobs worldwide. They are closing plants in the United States and, according to their own release, to cut costs, they will increase offshore manufacturing from 75 to 85 percent. They are certainly glad we do not require labor standards for our trading partners. In fact, as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, it is quite interesting to see what our trade ambassador had to say about that. Apparently the trade ambassador, who appeared in the WTO meeting at Doha, says that labor rights should not make it into the negotiations on trade. Have we lost our way? Are we not a country of free individuals? Labor and environment are not just social issues. They are issues that bind humanity. They are issues that we feel are no less important than any other. Two weeks ago, 410 House Members voted to ask the United States Trade Representative to preserve the ability of the United States to enforce rigorously its trade laws and should ensure that United States exports are not subject to the abusive use of trade laws by other countries. Not even this important antidumping mandate was needed at the Doha conference. I want to conclude at this point, Mr. Speaker. Recently Secretary Powell, who all of us in this Chamber have the greatest amount of respect for, he stated some very powerful words I am about to quote. He said, ``Fast track is going to be viewed internationally as a test of the President's leadership at a time when there is all sorts of events going on.'' A better test is his ability to do what is right for working Americans. The real test of leadership is to make bipartisan policy to help our unemployed brothers and sisters. Do not let this scare tactic fool anyone. The President can show leadership by working with the Congress, not taking them out of the equation, not usurping article I, section 8, as if we did not exist. Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing on the floor last session when Bill Clinton was the President. This is a bipartisan attack on our very rights as Members of the United States Congress. I do not accept it. I am prepared to fight day in and day out to make sure we begin the process of protecting jobs in the United States of America. This Constitution either is meaningful or we will selectively decide what we will adhere to, and then we will become less of a democracy.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the three amendments were germane to this argument. It really galls me to see some from the other side, to be perfectly frank, question the patriotism of my party which I proudly represent. We all want the same thing. We want to defend the Nation. We want to be strong abroad. We want to be strong at home. This Nation flew, was part of 38,000 air sorties against Kosovo when we helped regain the freedom of those people. We were ready. We are ready now. I do not believe it is nitpicking if the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to ensure the defense of this Nation. I do not think it is nitpicking that the firefighters, the first defenders of this Nation, need help and need resources. I do not think it is nitpicking. You go out and talk to the emergency responders throughout this Nation, Mr. Speaker, and you will have the same response. They need the resources. I believe that these amendments were germane. It is a terrible shame that they are not going to be debated on this floor.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3009, because the hemorrhaging of jobs must stop and someone has to take a stand. I am not surprised, and I do not think anybody should be surprised, by how this bill got to the floor. The same folks who engineered this bill getting to this floor support, surrendered the Congress' authority to deal with trade matters outlined in Article I, Section 8. I did not come here to surrender my responsibilities. Read Article I, Section 8. I join my colleagues in their concerns about Andean countries that the actual jobs and working conditions would be poor at best of those jobs created. We are giving our jobs to these countries even though 4,000 trade unionists have been murdered in the last 15 years, and 130 of them so far this year. My district, Mr. Speaker, is probably one of the largest Peruvian American populations of any Member in the House. Some of my Andean constituents want this legislation passed to give their unemployed relatives back home jobs. However, many Peruvian Americans are the same immigrants whose jobs will be lost in my district under the provisions of this bill. Mr. Speaker, we have set up a Catch-22 situation. We are unfairly pitting brother against brother and sister against sister, and it was tremendously outlined this morning when the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) pointed out very succinctly what this means. According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Trade Representative admitted at the WTO meeting that ``The United States said. . .it conceded everything it can without the approval of Congress.'' Our economy is in too much turmoil to send decent manufacturing jobs overseas, not to be replaced with wage and benefit equivalent jobs. Why do our policies allow this to happen? What do Americans get in return for giving up their jobs?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of the Chairs and the ranking members for doing a fantastic job in keeping us together. If they did not keep us together, we would not be here today. I congratulate them all. The American people can be assured that the status quo will not be tolerated. We are doing more today, Mr. Speaker, for the airline industry than we did several weeks ago in the stabilization package, because if people do not feel secure, they are not going to get on the planes. In many ways, to me, this is probably the most significant legislation that we have passed in a very, very long time. No longer will our aviation system have a screener turnover of 100 or 200 or 400 percent. In one year we will have a new set of dedicated people integrated into the system who want to be working at this critical job. We will provide these new employees a respectable salary with a real pension and health care. Another critical element of this compromise is that we will require that every checked bag be passed through an explosive detection unit. No one is absolved of responsibility in this conference report. It is not just passengers who will pay more. I am pleased that the conference report contains language requiring the airlines to continue paying their share for security. This is a partnership we must continue. Today, the Congress will take a vote that will impact the life of every traveler, including ourselves. This vote will be real and significant and it will have consequences in our national security. With the airline industry struggling for passengers, I know this legislation will make a difference.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding. The gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Florida are known for their fairness. I am here to appeal to both of them, through the Speaker. We need to keep our government funded and running while we finish our legislative business. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the continuing resolution. One of the Federal agencies that I am particularly focused on, and I would ask the two gentlemen to as well, is the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This agency administers the Firefighters Assistance Grant Program under the Fire Services Administration. We all worked hard, in a bipartisan way, 285 co-sponsors, and finally brought it to reality, passed in both Houses. This month we passed the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It will provide funding for $150 million for fiscal year 2002. But it is far from the amount that I think the members of our fire services deserve and need. As part of the supplemental chapter of the Department of Defense appropriations bill, we are trying to secure $150 million additional dollars for this necessary program. If September taught us anything, it is the importance of the firefighters and first responders to the public safety equation. 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 this money desperately. So what happened? Thirty thousand applications came in to FEMA, over 19,000 fire departments throughout America, volunteer and career. And when we added up all those applications, it came to $3 billion. We had $100 million. I believe we are sincere about responding to September 11, and yet we know that over 65 percent of our career departments are undermanned, that is, of the first 200 cities in America, 160 of them cannot pass muster right now, today. I am a bit chagrined that we are still scraping and begging, but this is needed. And trust me, my colleagues, you will be hearing from all of these fire departments in your districts around the country. We are asking them to do a different job than 20 years ago, to be the first responders and, many times, the last to leave all of these emergencies. 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. There are few heroes in our lives, but these people who put their necks on the line day in and day out to keep us safe certainly are, and that is what we are doing here today. I know our contribution to this worthy cause will continue to rise as each of my colleagues hears from their own constituents about the need for more fire personnel, safety equipment, and vehicles. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding. This is an important matter to Americans and our fire departments and our EMT squads throughout the United States. They have been there as first responders, and we cannot ignore them. So I appeal to both gentlemen to hear the fairness of my request from the depths of their commitment in their own hearts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a very close associate of Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, before yielding back, I just want to thank again the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his diligent work, and I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for helping us get to the floor here, and thank all the Members from the New Jersey delegation. Madam Speaker,I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2776. This bill designates buildings 315, 318, and 319 located at the Federal Aviation Administration's William J. Hughes, named after another great American from New Jersey, a great Congressman, Technical Center in Atlantic City as the Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation Security Complex. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for always reaching across the aisle sincerely and the entire New Jersey delegation support of this good legislation. In this time of uncertainty and uneasiness about aviation, I can think of no more fitting tribute to a man who changed our way of thinking about aviation. Senator Lautenberg is a great American and a son of my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey. The son of immigrants, Frank Lautenberg came from a working-class background. In fact, his father worked in the silk mills in Paterson located around the same area where I grew up. After graduating high school, he served the United States citizens by joining the Army Signal Corps in Europe. Upon his return, Senator Lautenberg began a life of public service to the citizens of the Garden State. The impact he has had on our Nation's health, safety and security is significant; and that is why we honor him today. He is the author of laws that have shaped the lives and enriched the health and safety of Americans. Throughout his 19 years of public service, Frank Lautenberg distinguished himself as a thoughtful and energetic leader. He advocated passionately for transportation issues, including aviation security. The terrorist attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, propelled the President to create the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. Frank Lautenberg served with distinction on the Pan Am 103 commission, and worked over the last several years on a number of initiatives to promote and to fund aviation security. Frank Lautenberg's leadership in the Senate laid the foundation to enhancing aviation security. The commission's 1990 report found the Nation's civilian aviation security system to be seriously flawed and made 64 recommendations to correct those flaws. The Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 incorporated those recommendations. In 1996, spurred on by the tragedy of TWA 800, that tremendous explosion, President Clinton organized another commission, the 1996 White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. The commission made 31 recommendations for enhancing aviation security that were ardently supported by Senator Lautenberg. He subsequently led efforts in the Senate to include measures in the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 to not only intensify security but also to appropriate needed funds for new explosives-detection technology. I was able to visit the Atlantic City facility earlier this year with my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the rest of our subcommittee. The work that they are doing in that facility is remarkable. It will assist us for generations to come in terms of aviation security. The research conducted at the Federal Aviation Administration's technical center is on the cutting edge. I must tell my friend from New Jersey, as many times as I passed there before I became a Congressman, never did I see what was going on in there. I was absolutely floored at the work that is being done in our behalf and the citizens of this great Nation. The programs housed in those buildings, to be renamed in honor of Senator Lautenberg, are key to successful research. At the core is building 315, the aviation security laboratory, which was dedicated to the victims of Pan Am 103. Research in the ASL focuses on bulk explosives detection and certification testing. Buildings 318 and 319 are dedicated to bulk luggage and luggage containers testing, and explosives trace detection equipment operations and testing, respectively. This is critical to the aviation industry in our Nation. If we do what we have to do in the next 2 weeks, we will begin to continue to finish the package which we started a few years ago. Madam Speaker, I thank my New Jersey colleagues for introducing this measure; and I urge my colleagues' support for H.R. 2776. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my friend and a long-time leader in this area. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2546, as reported by the committee, makes it unlawful for a State or political subdivision of a State, an interstate agency or a political agency of two or more States to impose any license or fee on account of the fact that a motor vehicle is providing prearranged ground transportation service in interstate commerce. I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). I think they have tried in the past, and here we have it on the floor today. The company providing the service must be properly registered to provide service in interstate commerce and must meet all the licensing requirements of the State in which it is domiciled or registered to do business. This legislation is extremely critical, Madam Speaker, for limousine firms in my own State of New Jersey as they attempt to keep their businesses afloat after September 11. The for-hire vehicle industry is made up of 18,600 companies nationally that provide local for-hire passenger transportation service. These services include taxicabs and black cars and airport shuttles, executive sedans and limousines. There are approximately 254,000 vehicles that transport over 2 billion passengers in 1 year. Massive layoffs in this predominantly small business industry are estimated to number 80,000 out of a total of 162,000 nationally. This is a workforce that will be cut in half, and I am hopeful that this bill can ease the burden. We are not just talking about owner-operators and drivers. We are talking about coach builders, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) spoke of, dealers, the thousands of vendors who do business with this industry. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the bill before us addresses the concerns expressed by airport, train and bus terminal operators, as well as the City of New York, regarding prior drafts of the bill. The bill does not restrict an airport, a train or a bus terminal operator from contracting to provide preferential process or access to one or more providers or prearranged ground transportation service, nor does it restrict the rights of any State or political subdivision to require that ground transportation operators submit to criminal background checks as a condition of providing the service. Finally, this bill reaffirms that taxicab services are exempt from the economic and minimum liability regulations of the Federal Government. This is an imminently sensible compromise, Madam Speaker. This is a piece of legislation we have supported for years. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for being here, because this is a proposal that is presented with heartfelt knowledge of a great American. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.