Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney). He has worked very hard on this issue for a very, very long time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3209, the Recovering Missing Children Act. I thank my friend, Representative Erik Paulsen, for introducing it. It is strong, it is reasonable, and it is the right thing to do. Representative Joe Courtney has waited and worked for this legislation for a long time. As a father and a grandfather, I can't even begin to imagine what parents go through in the event their child goes missing. I can't imagine it. I really can't. And I certainly can't imagine hearing that law enforcement is handicapped in its ability to do everything possible to help bring their child back. Mr. Speaker, there are 200,000 kids that are abducted by a family member every year. That is something for another day perhaps, but it is part of this problem here. In 2007, a study by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, TIGTA--we use that term a lot in the Ways and Means Committee--found that tax return information could be helpful in many cases involving missing children. TIGTA reviewed whether IRS data would show addresses for persons claiming tax benefits with respect to those missing children after the time of the abduction or their suspected abductors. That sounds pretty bizarre, but that is happening. TIGTA looked at 520 missing children's cases and found that the IRS data showed new addresses for 46 percent of the cases. Similarly, IRS data showed new addresses for 34 percent of suspected abductors. Federal law rightly prohibits the IRS from disclosing confidential taxpayer information except in a limited number of exceptions. For example, this information may be released to Federal Government employees if ordered by a Federal judge in preparation for a nontax- related criminal prosecution. H.R. 3209 would add criminal investigations related to missing or exploited children as one of these exceptions. We should be thankful to the author of this legislation because this is a critical exception that should have been done a long time ago. The bill would also allow this information to be released to State and local law enforcement officials who are working with the Federal agency in its missing or exploited child investigation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. When Mr. Reichert said before that we will track you down and find you, he meant it, because he was on many a chase in his 33 years in law enforcement, and he always gave special attention to those that involved children. I want to congratulate Representative Paulsen. Most of the time, almost all the time, he always provides a reasonable resolution to problems. I mean that. I know that we simply cannot have information at our fingertips that can help bring an abducted child home and not allow law enforcement to use it. Allowing law enforcement to use information that can help locate missing and abducted children is a no-brainer. We need to establish a system that protects taxpayers' privacy but also allows law enforcement to do its job. This bill does just that. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. It has been a good, bipartisan few hours. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 2137. I thank Representative Doug Collins. This is a good, gutsy bill. I thank my co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, Representative Dave Reichert, who is always there for every law enforcement person in this country, regardless of which level that law enforcement officer serves, be it Federal, state, county, or local, and Representative Tulsi Gabbard for introducing this bipartisan legislation. Federal law enforcement officers risk their own safety to make our communities safer every day. We need to make sure that they have the tools they need to do the job. Law enforcement officers were ordered--and you have heard this before--to lock up their government-issued weapons and were prohibited from carrying their government-issued credentials while carrying their personally owned weapon during the last government shutdown. This decision potentially endangered one female agent. We just heard that described. Thankfully, she was able to deescalate the situation and walk away unharmed. This incident serves as a reminder that criminals don't care if Federal officers are furloughed, and it highlights the very real need to ensure that law enforcement officers have the means to protect themselves regardless of their duty status. This bill will allow the brave members of the Federal law enforcement community to have the capability to defend themselves and respond to threatening situations even in a time when they are off or furloughed. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida, a former sheriff himself. I rise today in strong support of S. 2755, the Fallen Heroes Flag Act of 2016. I want to thank, also, Congressman Peter King, who has been a strong supporter of the first responder community and for championing this issue for many, many years. I want to thank Senator Roy Blunt and Senator Chuck Schumer for helping move this bill through the Senate. This bipartisan legislation will create a program to provide flags flown over the United States Capitol to the family members of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty at no cost to the family. Our first responders make tremendous sacrifices to keep our communities safe. Should one of those brave men or women make the ultimate sacrifice, the least we can do to recognize their contributions to society, show our gratitude for their service, and express our sympathy to their families for their loss is present them with a flag flown over the United States Capitol. This bill has the strong support of the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Sergeants Benevolent Association. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bipartisan legislation so we can send it on to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of law enforcement issues in the Congress, I cannot support this enough. This is a very important piece of legislation and will do a lot in terms of goodwill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of S. 125, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act. Our brave law enforcement officers put their lives in harm's way every day to protect our communities. The least we can do is provide them with the proper safety gear. That is why we must authorize the highly successful Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program to ensure that all of America's law enforcement officers have access to the lifesaving protection they need. My friend, Mr. Reichert, from the coast, and myself, pledged when we became cochairs of public safety in the Congress many, many years ago that not only do we need more police on the beat, but we need to protect them. There is no question in my mind we have allowed the bad guys to outarm the good guys, and we have to take a look at that. Since it was established in 1999, this program has provided grantees with approximately $247 million for more than 1 million lifesaving vests in over 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies throughout the country. I did not hear any of those communities turn back the money. You are talking about 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies. There is a place for the Federal Government. There are responsibilities we cannot circumvent. While many officers are protected by bullet-resistant armor, there are an alarming number of officers in departments across our country that cannot afford this same protection due to local budget constraints. As long as I am in Congress, I will continue to do all that I can to work closely with law enforcement officials, not just talking with them and patting them on the back, so they have adequate resources to protect themselves while patrolling our streets. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bipartisan legislation that will help improve the protection of our law enforcement officials.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't question the motivations of the gentleman who has sponsored this bill. He is a good man, a good American, and loves his country, but I believe it is misdirected. I really do. In my hand, if you remember, there is a report from 2009, the beginning of the Obama administration. All that work was done in the previous administration on this report. The report is quite revealing. Anybody who is on Homeland Security should read it because it tells us that we need not only to carry out the oath of office, half of it, but we should defend the country against foreign intruders. Also, it says in our oath ``domestic'' as well. This report lays out very clearly what is going on in the United States of America in our backyards. It was squashed. I remember the day when a Democratic Secretary of the Homeland Security heard from me about it, that she should not have bent over because those on the other side wanted this report squashed. There have been articles written since that time, 2009, of how it was squashed. They didn't want the American people to read this. That is quite, quite a report. So I rise in opposition, Mr. Speaker, to H.R. 4820. No one loves this country more than the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). I am not on that committee anymore, but no one respects it more than Bennie Thompson. Why is he opposed to this? Is he opposed to this because he doesn't love his country as much as the folks on the other side of the aisle? I don't think so. Does he oppose it because he didn't sponsor it? I don't think so. He opposes it because this excludes very specific things which we should not exclude.

Mr. PASCRELL. The House should not be picking and choosing what sources of terrorism the Department should focus on without taking into account all the facts. The House continues to ignore the threats posed by violent extremism, which are not limited to a single ideology. Eric Hoffer, in the book ``The True Believer,'' written many years ago, said that extremism is inspired by a range of reasons, including religious, political, or ideological beliefs. He says that these movements, regardless of the motive or end goal, simply need isolated individuals who are dispossessed in some way or other and need to feel part of something bigger than themselves. Why don't we really get at the sources of the people who want to kill our kids and want to damage our properties, whether they come from afar or whether they are grown right here? Homegrown. Homegrown. And we are ignoring it. The FBI reports that time and time again.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Seven former IRS Commissioners wrote, and we need to take a look at it because obviously they weren't all Democrats and they weren't all Republicans, but seven former IRS Commissioners have said: ``Over the last 50 years, none of us has ever witnessed anything like what has happened to the IRS appropriations over the last 5 years and impact these appropriations reductions are having on our tax system.'' The percentage of callers able to reach a live person at the IRS in the 2015 filing season was just 43 percent. The average wait time was 28 minutes. At one point during the filing season, the Taxpayer Protection Program line, which answers calls for victims of identity theft--a growing issue day by day--was not answering 90 percent of the calls. That is not acceptable to your side. It is certainly not acceptable to our side, but your solution is, by no means, the solution. If you were truly concerned about improving customer service at the IRS, you would fully fund the agency. And we would support that. Penalizing the IRS is misguided and, in the long run, the consequence hurts the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just in response to my friend from the Keystone State, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is not an IRS slush fund. There are mandates within the Affordable Care Act which necessitate, obviously, the involvement of the IRS agency. So any attempts to make it or create a slush fund in people's minds is totally, totally inaccurate. That is not the issue. The issue is we have cut $5 billion. This year we restored $290 million. Again, do the math. We have 13,000 less employees. So that means a lot of those 13,000 less employees came to the end, perhaps, of their career, but were never replaced. It had nothing to do with the budget. It was beyond the budget, even, or within the budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle are cutting off their nose to spite their face: more mandates on the IRS with fewer resources and somehow expecting them to improve services. As I have said, the IRS is servicing 9 million more people with $1 billion less. This amendment would only exacerbate that problem. The words of the seven former IRS Commissioners ring out here. Why don't we just cut congressional office budgets by 17 percent, as we did with the IRS, and then mandate that we improve constituent services or increase our workloads? That doesn't make any sense either. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, so let's get this amendment straight. This bill would have the IRS work with the National Taxpayer Advocate, in addition to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, as I read it correctly, in coming up with a customer service plan. Sounds good. However, you forget to mention one thing, Mr. Chairman, because the National Taxpayer Advocate and the Treasury Inspector General Tax Administrator have publicly stated, for the record, that the severe budget cuts enacted by the other side, Mr. Chairman, in Congress have forced the IRS to reduce its workforce, reduce training, reduce technology, and that these steps have weakened the ability to enforce the Nation's tax laws--is that what you are looking for?--and serve taxpayers effectively. They said it, I didn't. You can't make this stuff up. So, instead of forcing the IRS to work with the National Taxpayer Advocate, why don't we, in Congress, listen to them, and fund the IRS so it can do its job? This is the height of misdirection. I am only going by the words you have in this amendment. And I will tell you, they have made a statement very loud and clear to all of us. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have to respond to the previous speaker, whose simplistic analysis has been exposed during this Presidential election. We have selective memories. That is our problem, because how can you come before the American people, Mr. Chairman, and explain how X amount of IRS workers have not paid their taxes? We all want everybody to pay their taxes because when insufficient revenue is in the coffers, we can't pay our bills. But if the truth be known and we didn't have selective memory, when you point out how many people in the IRS of the 80,000 employees-- 1,500--haven't paid their taxes or are in default of their taxes, the gentleman fails to mention that one of the biggest culprits in not paying their taxes is the very House of Representatives. My Lord. Five percent of the Members default on their taxes. Now, what about us and our responsibilities? We are the guardians. We are the guardians. We are the protectors of the taxpayers. Beware, taxpayers. Beware. I have a great deal of respect--and I hope I have proven it in the past--for the gentleman who has introduced this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan). I just think we are off on the wrong foot on this one. In your support for the bill, H.R. 4890, you claim to be concerned about IRS customer service. This bill would prohibit any bonuses being paid to IRS employees until the agency comes up with a customer service strategy approved by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Customer service is critical. But how can you come here and complain about customer service when you have cut the IRS budget $1 billion in the last 5 years? That is 13,000 fewer full-time employees. At the same time--listen to this, Mr. Chairman--there have been 9 million more tax returns being filed. Think about that just for a second: 9 million more tax returns, 13,000 fewer employees, $1 billion less in appropriations. I mean, that is not rocket science. It is simply arithmetic. Your budgets have consistently starved the IRS of the resources it needs to do its job, and, true to form, this bill expressly forbids any additional appropriations to carry out this mandate. Here is the reality. The IRS customer service didn't decline because of lazy employees. It declined because of significant budget cuts. This year, thanks to an extra $290 million in funding, it has rebounded to about mediocre, still a disservice to many Americans who need help. So I agree with the ranking member when he says to look in the mirror and you will see who is responsible. Instead of helping the struggling people of Puerto Rico or Flint, Michigan, or passing a budget--tax day passed a few days ago--this Congress is fiddling with weakening the IRS. You can't deny that all these attempts to harm the IRS are really harming taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of Detective Marc Kovar, who is being honored by the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist during the 16th Annual Dean McNutly Awards Dinner this Sunday, April 17, 2016. Detective Kovar is the Executive Vice President of the 33,000-member strong New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association (NJSPBA). He is committed to fighting for the rights of the men and women of law enforcement, who place their lives on the line each day for the people of New Jersey. Marc has served the residents in the City of Passaic for more than 20 years, and holds the rank of Detective. He has been involved in many other committees and sits on the National Board of NAPO (National Association of Police Organizations). As a labor leader, Marc rose through the ranks of the Passaic PBA and State PBA. As the Delegate for the PBA Local 14, he was appointed to the State PBA Executive Board in 2008 and served six years as Chairman of the Collective Bargaining Committee. Furthermore, he is an active voice in the PBA Committees on legislation, legal defense and training of new union delegates. Marc is widely known for his volunteer work on behalf of fallen officers and their survivors; including over 10 years of service on the Passaic County Blue Mass Committee. He currently lives in Clifton with his wife Nicole and his two daughters Rachel and Isabella. Marc is one of the most passionate union members and is exceptionally loyal to the PBA. Until his appointment as Executive Vice President, he was Chairman of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association Collective Bargaining Committee. His involvement with this committee has given him the unique perspective and experience needed to carry out his duties as PBA Executive Vice President. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I understand that law enforcement officials such as Detective Kovar are a critical part of keeping our local communities safe. I have the great honor of recognizing Marc's strong leadership and tireless dedication to his fellow officers as well as the communities that they serve. I have known Marc personally as a law enforcement officer and as a friend, and I can tell you that there are few people who you would rather have in your corner than him. The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating the achievements of public servants such as Detective Marc Kovar. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, his family and friends, fellow officers, all those whose lives he has touched, and me, in recognizing the work of Detective Marc Kovar.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the achievements of an outstanding faith community, the Union Baptist Church, who are celebrating their ministry's 80th Anniversary of successful service to the community of Passaic on Sunday, April 3, 2016. Eighty years ago the Union Baptist Church was established through the Merger of two parishes in the city of Passaic NJ; the Ebenezer Baptist Church and Greater St. Paul Baptist Church on April 4, 1936. The combined Church membership was approximately 150 parishioners. The Church and its members worshipped Christ for 28 years at its 315 Oak Street and 30 Ann Street location. Due to an increase in membership the Union Baptist Church purchased 221 Myrtle Ave on September 27, 1964 and began to worship there. The Union Baptist Church is located in a welcoming neighborhood. Current ministries within the church include traditional Sunday morning worship service, Bible study, Sunday school, voluntary work such as feeding the homeless on Saturday afternoons, Camp Union for the youth, and the services provided to the senior citizens. Union Baptist has always focused on spiritual leadership accompanied by a strong sense of commitment to community involvement. I know that their dedication will continue to grow. In fact, the church has been an integral part of Passaic and the surrounding area for more than three quarters of a century. Its hallowed grounds have witnessed the miracle of new-born baptism, the holy matrimony of marriage as well as the somber rituals of burial. But most importantly, many lives have been changed by the people that have called the Church home since 1936. Indeed, the ministry has been a major part of the Passaic community and continues to serve all. In this sense, the Union Baptist Church clergy and organizers have worked passionately to build many bridges between different groups within the faith community. At the forefront of this cause has been the church's many leaders throughout its history. The first among several leaders to grace the halls of the church was Reverend O.D. Henry--who served from 1936-1942. His work undoubtedly laid a strong foundation for the others to follow, such as Reverend T.H. Alexander--who continued his predecessor's work until 1932. Reverend Ronald W. Johnson was the next to answer God's calling, and he devoted himself to the Union Baptist Church until 2010. Indeed, the Union Baptist Church has had many leaders throughout its years. Today, it is led by Reverend Kortney L. Haigler, who has inspired many to follow the path of faith and kindness. It gives me pride to recognize the excellence of the Union Baptist Church, as well as a deep sense of satisfaction for their service to the residents of Passaic. I am grateful to represent the Church and its congregation within the 9th Congressional District of New Jersey. The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating the achievements of faith communities such as the Union Baptist Church. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, and the Union Baptist Church in celebrating their 80th Anniversary and recognizing their leadership, dedication and loyalty to serving the community.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the outstanding achievements of Walter G. Wargacki--the great Mayor of Wallington, NJ--who celebrated his retirement on April 1, 2016. Walter Gerald Wargacki, Jr. was born on April 26, 1938, to Walter John Wargacki and Mary Dancsisin Wargacki. His service to the public began as early as 1965 when he joined the Wallington Fire Department, Park Roe Hose Company #3. He eventually was promoted to the rank of Fire Chief in 1986 for his outstanding service in the line of duty. Yet, his service to the public was not limited to emergency services. In the same year he joined the Wallington Fire Department, he was also elected to the Wallington Board of Education where he eventually served as Board President for three terms. During his tenure, he led the way in evaluating accreditation for the Township's high school system. Furthermore, he planned the renovation and replacement of the century- old Lincoln School. Mr. Wargacki's dedication to this task was no less exemplary than his outstanding service as a fire fighter. Upon completion of his tenure as Fire Chief and as a member of the Board of Education, Mr. Wargacki served proudly as the Mayor of Wallington for over 24 years. Through his hard work and dedication, he improved the Township of Wallington both aesthetically and communally. For instance, he oversaw the construction of new parks and recreation areas such as Liberty Crossing Park and Centennial Field. Undoubtedly, these and other initiatives helped create the welcoming environment for families that Wallington is known for today. Furthermore, he designated a newly constructed facility for the Wallington Emergency Squad--a testament to his years of service and dedication to emergency services. Indeed, under his leadership, the Township of Wallington has been in extraordinarily capable hands, and his leave from office will not go unnoticed amongst members of the community. I have the great honor of representing the residents of Wallington in Congress and it gives me great pride to recognize one of their native sons who has spent his life serving the public. I can say with personal knowledge that Walt is not only a good leader, but also a good friend-- the kind who can be counted on both in good times and in bad times. The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing and commemorating the achievements of public servants such as Mayor Walter G. Wargacki of Wallington. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, denizens of Wallington, family and friends, all those whose lives he has touched, and me, in recognizing the work of Mayor Walter G. Wargacki.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. This bill is terrible. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with protecting consumers from anticompetitive mergers. What I just heard from the gentleman is that this is all about getting rid of red tape. Baloney. This is about money, this is about keeping money in your own pocket and protecting yourself against the consumers. Concessions we are talking about here. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with protecting consumers from anticompetitive mergers. That is what the job is. Corporate mergers can make industries more efficient and bring benefits to customers, but in some cases, they have the potential to increase costs and hurt competition. Mr. Speaker, if you deny that, then you don't have the facts, and I am going to lay them out right now. Government should not be in the business of setting prices for healthcare services or anything else for that matter--for airline tickets, cable Internet services, or anything else. I hope we agree on that. That is why we need to rely on robust market competition--to keep the prices of goods and services down and ensure that consumers are getting a fair deal. I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, with due respect, that we are pretty good fans of competition; yet here we are, after Bloomberg dubbed 2015 the ``Year of the Mergers,'' weakening a key FTC tool to ensure healthy competition in a variety of markets. Mr. Speaker, I have been particularly concerned with this issue, and I mentioned four areas here. I am very, very concerned about the mergers we have seen in many sectors of the healthcare industry. Read my lips: look at the facts through the Speaker. In my left hand, a recent report by the Health Care Pricing Project, which was written up in The New York Times late last year, found that monopoly hospitals have prices that are 15.3 percent higher than hospitals in an area with four or more hospitals--even after controlling for costs in each area. Don't you really believe in competition, or do you just say that? Is that simply a bumper sticker, a slogan, or do you mean that? Two pending mergers in the insurance industry, between Anthem and Cigna and Aetna and Humana, set the stage for major consolidation in this industry as well. In other words, what this report did was establish the fact--I hope you are interested in the facts--that the reason we have increasing healthcare costs--a major reason--is for the merger and the reduction in competition in health care. Then there are the mergers that are motivated by U.S. tax dodging, Mr. Speaker, and we have talked about this, which have major implications on competition but also on the United States tax base. One pending merger would see a major United States company slash its United States tax bill by moving its headquarters overseas and creating the largest drug company in the universe.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, what we need to understand is that we are not only talking about the FTC, we are talking about the Justice Department, which oversees these mergers regardless of whether we are talking about health or airlines, which is a catastrophe. I only brought up health care today. We are having that discussion you just talked about.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am mainly concerned about this piece of legislation because you have determined--you have defined--a nonexistent problem while applying a less consumer friendly standard. That is my position. What I brought up here is part of the mix. It is putting it in context as to what has happened. The consequences of what has happened are higher prices for us--for you and me--and I know you are concerned about that.

Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PASCRELL. Working Americans across the country do not have the benefit of hiring consultants, of shifting their earned income around the globe to find the lowest tax rate. And you are standing there, saying you want to help the consumer? It is just the opposite. Many multinational corporations do just that. Corporate inversions allow companies to renege on the obligation to America, eroding the United States tax base and hurting American competitiveness. Who are you with anyway? If you live in a neighborhood and one house--let's say the biggest house on the block--doesn't pay its property taxes, what happens? Everyone understands that the rest of the houses on the block have to make up the difference. The Treasury has taken steps to address inversions, but it is up to Congress to pass legislation that addresses this problem immediately. In the meantime, the bill before us today would weaken the FTC's ability to monitor and enforce against unfair, anticompetitive mergers, and they are all over the place. I blame, partially, the administration, as the former Attorney General did nothing about mergers. While people were trying to get him to resign for other reasons, that would have been a darned good reason. This is not Republican or Democrat, my friends. These are simply the facts, and I can tell you this one report will very, very much crystallize what those facts are.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend from Texas. We went through a period of time in the first decade of this century of U.S. prosecutors and attorneys looking at the subject of deferred prosecutions. I am talking about justice here. That is the bottom line. That is what we are talking about here. Instead of bringing corporations to trial that had violated the law-- and I am not an attorney. I am not the reason for two of my sons being attorneys, but I am not an attorney--they worked out a proposition. This is what they are trying to do, and this is what this is all about, if I could draw a comparison, which is you slap a corporation on the wrist, it pays a fine, and the fine becomes the cost of doing business. Mr. Speaker, this is going in the wrong direction. It is attacking a problem that does not exist instead of attacking a problem that does exist.