Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, what are we writing here, a new Magna Carta? They have had 4 years, for crying out loud; and we still don't have legislation in front of us. It has been 2 months since we were last here. We had a lot of talks 2 months ago about how bad extensions are for transportation planning and policy, how the last extension was going to be the last extension. Nothing has changed. You keep on talking about the anxiety over tax reform and tax change. What about the anxiety that the American people and the contractors and workers have of getting our roads and highways and airports up to snuff? The bill before us today has the Congress paying for our highways and transit systems with more gimmicks. Tax compliance--these are the same provisions the House rejected last year. Transportation security administrative fees--Nick Calio at the airlines trade association rightfully criticizes: ``This plan proposes to use tomorrow's dollars to pay for today's problems.'' The international tax can be part of a solution to bridge the gap, but corporate America is counting on those revenues to lower their rates and not pay for highway spending. Using an international tax scheme now will make it that much more difficult to get back to a user fee system. The people who use the system should pay for the system. That is what we should be agreeing on. The Ways and Means Committee did hold two hearings on renewing the trust fund--and we come to this? This is the new Magna Carta. I am waiting to see the final results 6 months from now. It has been 10 years since this Congress passed a transportation bill. Neither party has the courage to deal with it.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Fitzpatrick Amendment. The unique device identifier (UDI) is an extremely important patient- safety tool, and can help identify safety concerns with devices more quickly or disprove a suspected problem. I support the inclusion of UDI in electronic health records, as this amendment encourages. But I have also been working in the Ways and Means Committee to include the UDI in Medicare claims. As is the case with any new medical technology, not all adverse events are detected in the product's market approval or clearance processes. However, we can mitigate the impact on patients with a robust post-market surveillance program. In 2013 and 2014 alone, the FDA recalled more than 120 medical devices, but in many cases, the recall occurs only after the devices have been implanted in or used by hundreds or thousands of patients. This can result in extensive revision surgeries, severe pain or other medical problems, and in some cases, even death. In a 2001 device recall case, Sweden's post-market surveillance program successfully identified the faulty device after it had been implanted in 30 patients. By contrast, the same device was implanted into 3,000 U.S. patients before the gravity of the problem was recognized. The FDA's Sentinel Initiative, which has been very successful in tracking and evaluating adverse events linked to the use of pharmaceuticals, relies primarily on data from health insurance claims. Because claims currently lack information on the specific devices used in patients' care, Sentinel cannot be expanded to include medical devices as Congress has directed FDA to do. This is a missed opportunity. Patients deserve access to innovative new devices that improve their health and their lives. And a vote for this amendment tells patients that we owe it to them and to be able to quickly identify problems with devices when they arise. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 407, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Pearce

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from both sides of the aisle the term ``winners and losers.'' Our workers who are laid off because of the deals that have been put before this Congress in the last 15 years are not losers. They are the most productive workers in the world. How dare you call them losers. We are all patting each other on the back here. We are talking about a piece of legislation that is like putting the cart before the horse. We want to prevent people from being laid off--engineers, laborers, technicians. Our trade deals have been a joke. Not one person has come to this floor to explain to us--and I know that is not the bill we are talking about, that has already been deep-sixed in its past--not one person has come to the floor and told us how these jobs are going to be created through trade. We are not antitrade. What we want is fair trade deals. How dare you call our workers losers.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I say that through you to them. All we have been hearing over the past few months is that we need to grant the President fast-track authority so we can finalize the Trans- Pacific Partnership because it will be good for American workers; and yet here we are today, voting on a package to prepare for the opposite: the loss of American jobs because of a trade deal that doesn't put American workers first. I could support the Trade Adjustment Assistance. You need to help those people who are going to be laid off because of these trade deals that are so great so that they kept their jobs or some other jobs were created. Where are those jobs? If American workers are going to have the rug pulled out from under them because of trade deals, something should be there to break their fall. The sad reality is that we need TAA. And even the sadder reality is that, despite the great need, this TAA bill before us today is inadequate.

Mr. PASCRELL. The trade adjustment bill we are voting on today contains a number of flaws. The TAA has been used as a bargaining chip to push the TPA over the finish line. I would prefer that we didn't need a TAA at all. Trade Adjustment Assistance is not preferable to a job. Secondly, the bill cuts funding for the worker from $575 to $450 million per year. You got your pound of flesh. At a time when trade is expanding, this bill slashes funding for worker training by 20 percent.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. That seems to be the approach on trade. Despite the fact that TPA passed the House last week by only eight votes, at no point did the lightbulb go off for the leadership that perhaps they could work with the majority of the Democratic Caucus to find agreement on how to move forward. I don't know why that didn't occur to you. Instead of cooperation, they have opted to use procedural tricks to pass the TPA. The leadership has chosen to take a bipartisan bill passed by both Chambers of Congress that would aid our law enforcement officers and public safety workers and inject the unrelated, controversial trade debate into it. I can speak firsthand because I am one of the sponsors of the bill. This bill, the Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act, I have worked on with my friend Congressman Reichert, on behalf of the men and women who serve the public in physically demanding work each and every day. It would ensure that they could access their full retirement benefits at the time they retire without incurring a tax penalty. It is a good bill. I am not only one of the sponsors, I vote for it. Today, this bill to provide tax fairness for our law enforcement officers has been twisted and diminished to a convenient vehicle to ram through fast track for a deeply flawed trade bill. This is not the same bill that we voted on Friday. Please read this bill. It is not. I urge a ``no'' vote. In fact, Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, has written a letter urging Members to oppose attaching TPA to this bill. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would establish the biggest trade agreement we have seen in years, encompassing 40 percent of the world's economy. We need to take our time and do it right. In its current form, TPP is woefully inadequate and fails to ensure a fair deal for American workers. Issues such as prohibiting currency manipulation and ensuring food safety have been neglected in TPP. As an example, only 1 percent of imported fish into this country--seafood--is inspected. I hope the next time you go into the restaurant, you ask the proprietor: Has this fish been inspected? He will look at you like you have three heads. Isn't that interesting?

Mr. PASCRELL. This country got shafted with our deal with Korea on country of origin automobiles. You don't really see any more cars traveling through Korea--or certainly China--that are made in the United States of America. We are taking a backseat. Instead of protecting the interests of American U.S. workers--not protectionism, we are not advocating that--this trade bill gives protections and sweetheart deals to multinational corporations, pure and simple. The American people look at every poll--from the left, from the right, from north, south, east, west--and do not accept this deal, and we shouldn't either.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act. It was critical that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) included the cutting edge delivery and payment reforms that it did. But, I have never believed that the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will be effectively able to fulfill its stated mission of cost containment. I have concerns with how IPAB will operate and that it gives up important Congressional authority over payment. For these reasons, I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, but once again, the House Republican majority has decided to kill the bipartisanship of this bill with a controversial pay-for. My Republican colleagues continue to prove that they would rather have an anti-ACA talking point rather than a real solution. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, my home state of New Jersey has received more than $20 million for evidence-based programs to prevent heart attacks, strokes, cancer, obesity, and smoking from the ACA's Prevention and Public Health Fund. This bill, as it is being considered today, would completely gut this fund by cutting $8.8 billion--nearly $2 billion more than is needed to pay for repealing IPAB. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to find an agreeable way to pay for this bill, and I urge opposition to this bill in its current form.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the gentleman from Indiana is leaving the floor right now because one of the companies he mentioned-- one of the companies, there are others--was brought before the Justice Department because of their behavior not long ago. So my friend from Indiana talks about Zimmer Holdings. That is one of the reasons why I am asking you to review your support of this legislation. Because let me tell you what happened to Zimmer and Stryker in the State of New Jersey not that many years ago when the U.S. Attorney looked at these two companies and many others. Here is what they were brought to heel about: bribing doctors to recommend their prosthetic to senior citizens under Medicare. Dante said, what place in hell will they be? These guys should be in the deepest place in hell--the deepest. You check the record. You can't make this stuff up. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation. When the Affordable Care Act was being negotiated, these companies were at the table. They agreed to this. You can't deny that. Because of the ACA, the health care market includes millions of newly insured Americans, more business for these companies, by the way, driving up the demand for medical devices and other health care services--increased demand, capitalism, you know about that. However, the device industry wants it both ways. They want new businesses, and they want new business under the ACA, that the ACA has created, and since the law was passed, they have been lobbying for repeal of what they agreed to. I swear you can't make it up. Mr. Speaker, I support the ACA and its goals. You don't. And it needs to be funded. It is the law of the land, as the Speaker once said. You can't support the goals of the ACA and then start stripping out the pieces of the law that fund the realization of the goals. Oh, but you can. And you have tried 56 different times to repeal this legislation, and you failed every time, even though you are in the majority. This legislation would add $24.4 billion to the deficit--through the Speaker to my good friend from Pennsylvania--and it is not paid for. Despite industry claims of job loss and economic hardship, medical device companies have seen a 7 percent growth in employment since the ACA. Furthermore, I remain concerned about some of the behavior we have seen in this industry.

Mr. PASCRELL. Sure, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I became highly involved in the medical device issues since 2007 when a number of device manufacturers entered into controversial deferred prosecution agreements for providing doctors with kickbacks for using their knee and hip replacement devices. A number of these products ended up being recalled. That is the record. As a result, on the justice side, I have worked to put an end to deferred prosecution agreements that don't hold the bad actors accountable. There are many good companies providing medical devices, but the facts are the facts, and the history is the history, and the culture of this industry needs to be known. I have also worked to improve the safety of medical devices for patients by encouraging the use of clinical data registries. Repealing the device tax is not good policy, Mr. Speaker, and it is not good for our budget--another $24.5 billion added to the deficit. I think if you would ask our ranking member, Mr. Levin, he would give you a precise number as to how much you have increased the deficit in legislation you have provided over the last 6 months. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what an innuendo is. It is saying that the jobs that we lose are going to be replaced by just as good or better jobs. Well, here is the record. Remember, you are giving assistance to workers who already lost their jobs. Wouldn't it make sense logically to try to save the jobs in the first place? Or do we believe, as President Bush said in February of 2004 in his economic report: Hey, if they make it cheaper overseas, we have got to do something else? That is a way out. That is innuendo. If you want to talk about inequality, the jobs we are losing in manufacturing are paying over $600 a week, and the jobs that are being replaced pay $330. Who are we kidding here? Get to the facts. Get to the facts. Past trade deals have hurt the American worker. By the way, you placed this thing--those who are proponents of this legislation--that we are against trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want fair deals that help our workers. That is what this is all about. In my town, a textile business lost everything 40-50 years ago; 25,000-30,000 people were employed with that textile industry. We sat here in the Congress of the United States and watched these people lose their jobs. You are sure as heck they want the retail jobs. Do you know what they paid? Fast track and the underlying Trans-Pacific Partnership will continue the trend of corporations offshoring American jobs, driving down wages; and now, we are going to be competing with the Vietnamese who pay maybe 60 cents an hour. That is the level. Everybody can't be like us. We understand that. We are not against trade. We want it to be fair, and we want the American worker to be protected. That is what this is all about. We had our fears confirmed when the President told us that China wanted to join the TPP. That is the icing on the cake, making a bad deal even worse.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that yesterday, June 10, 2015, I incorrectly cast my vote in favor of the Country of Origin Labeling Act (H.R. 2393), Roll Call No. 333. I intended to vote ``NO'' on this legislation.

Mr. PASCRELL

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

Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment with Congressman Rooney, my co-chair of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force. Traumatic brain injury continues to be the signature injury among our Nation's servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 300,000 troops have been diagnosed with mild TBI since 2000. This number continues to increase as identification and detection methods become more accurate. Despite these staggering figures, there was a decrease of 20 percent from last year's funding level. Our amendment would restore the same funding level to the TBI program. The program supports the DOD's Psychological Health and TBI Center of Excellence in its efforts to educate servicemembers and their families, enhance clinical and management approaches, and facilitate other vital services to best serve the needs of our servicemembers impacted by TBI and psychological health problems. In recent years, the DOD has made significant strides in improving both in-theater and post-incident assessment and diagnosis, but still more needs to be done in evaluating troops' ability to return to duty. As it is, we are not living up to our responsibility in caring for servicemembers who have already been diagnosed with TBI. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for providing $212 million for suicide prevention outreach programs, $20 million above the President's request. I am offering this amendment with my colleagues, Representatives Pallone, Smith, LoBiondo, Garrett, Lance, Sires, Payne, MacArthur, Norcross, and Watson Coleman, to continue support and funding for the successful confidential peer-to-peer Vets4Warriors program, a Pentagon- funded call center operated by Rutgers University Behavioral Health Care that provides troops struggling with depression and other psychological or emotional concerns support by veterans. Despite the troubling increase in Active Duty military suicides after 9/11, the Defense Department announced last month it would stop funding the Vets4Warriors program, which has provided valuable assistance to reduce these incidents. Through Vets4Warriors, servicemembers have been able to find confidential assistance from peers who share lived experiences and who can quickly connect and listen in highly effective ways. Since December 2011, the program has had over 130,000 contacts. The Defense Department's plan to integrate these services into the Military OneSource without a public process is concerning because we know that many servicemembers are reluctant to contact superiors for assistance with mental health needs. Military OneSource is only billed as available to veterans and their families within 180 days after leaving the service. Vets4Warriors provides a deep place for veterans to seek help outside the Defense Department. We believe removing funding for this program is shortsighted. This move will also result in the layoff of approximately 30 well-trained, talented veterans who have been providing support services around the clock. We want the Defense Department to use this funding to fully fund the Vets4Warriors program, ensuring our troops receive the best mental health resources available.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and my brother in the Law Enforcement Caucus, David Reichert, from Washington. I want to thank my colleagues who have joined in a strong show of bipartisan support for the COPS program, Ms. Herrera Beutler and Mr. Dent included. Let us be clear what this amendment does. The Reichert amendment increases funding for the Byrne JAG by $100 million for hiring purposes, a critical step--I think, an important message. Our amendment is supported by the major voices in the law enforcement community, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Sergeant Benevolent Association, so I urge my colleagues to support it. But despite all of the debate about community policing happening across our Nation, as Mr. Reichert referred to, the American people need to know that, despite what our amendment does, the underlying bill eliminates the Federal COPS Hiring Program. It is simply unacceptable that every year we ask the law enforcement community to do more and more with less and less. Mr. Chairman, in last year's House bill, the COPS program was cut by $109 million, 61 percent. So we can pontificate all we want about how we are behind the police officers of this country, but what we continue to do with successful programs, successful programs by any account, cut and cut. We were able to restore some of the money thanks to David Reichert and a few other people from both sides of the aisle, thanks to you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. This year--this, despite being joined by over 150 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle in asking the committee to support the COPS program--you gutted it. We can't even amend it. It is done. It is over. As a cornerstone of the Federal Government's efforts to assist State and local law enforcement, COPS Hiring has funded over 127,000 public safety officer positions. David Reichert was on the front line. He can speak to the issue over and over again. He has been there and done it. I just can talk about it. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, it is plain and simple. Fewer cops on the beat mean more crime on the street. Fewer cops on the beat mean more crime on our streets. I ask you--I ask you to do everything in your power, as you have done in the past--to restore what I think is probably one of the most efficient programs in the entire Federal Government, the COPS program.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the chairman. I am not going to vote for this piece of legislation--not even close. Everyone talks about how we must maintain the roads. If you listened over the last 45 minutes, all of these infrastructure issues are in bad shape, terrible shape. We know the problem. So long speeches about this and the problem don't make much sense. Here is my question to every Member of this body: What are you prepared to do? Make believe you are doing something? Hide under the desk in your office? How much money have we used, Mr. Speaker, from the general fund to bail out transportation? The percentage of general funds increases each budget that we are using. So without a clear source of long-term funding, our States cannot plan for the future. In fact, many States are not putting money into their trust fund. My own State, the State of New Jersey, I guess the money is going to fall out of the sky. So 2 months, 4 months, 7 months, it is all a joke. Ensuring the solvency of the trust fund is not only a key component of meeting our transportation challenges, it is our job. The Committee on Ways and Means has not even had one hearing, Mr. Ranking Member, Mr. Chairman. How many States have put themselves in the same position as the Federal Government? I understand that some Members are already planning another short- term extension in July because you say now we are ready to have a long- term solution, but you are already planning for another short-term in July. In fact, we are moving towards the omnibus bill, where we will put everything together. It will be like a stew: trade, transportation, lollipops, put them all in there. Put it all in there, and then we will vote on it and have some of our Members vote against motherhood so that they will be on the block a year from this November. Look, let me suggest something novel for this group. Let's spend the next 8 weeks resuscitating a system where users of the system pay to maintain and grow the system. International tax can be a part of the solution. I say to the President and the Congress, it is not nearly enough money. A group of us presented a bipartisan plan--Republicans and Democrats--to fund the Federal highway trust fund. Through Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, through Democratic Houses and Republican Houses, we have always been able to come to a resolution on this until the last 3 or 4 years. Why? Why is this?

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, neither party has the wherewithal to deal with the problem. I believe our model must receive serious consideration as the clock counts down on the trust fund's expiration. Our legislation has the support of both business and labor. I am done with extensions, and I plan to vote ``no'' today. I ask my colleagues to show support for a long-term bill and cosponsor the Renacci-Pascrell plan, because if we don't change something, we will be right back here in July talking to each other.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that on May 18, 2015, I was attending my grandson's graduation ceremony in New Jersey and missed the three roll call votes of the day. Had I been present I would have voted: AYE--Roll Call No. 240--H.R. 91--Veteran's I.D. Card Act AYE--Roll Call No. 241--H.R. 1313--Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act AYE--Roll Call No. 242--H.R. 1382--Boosting Rates of American Veteran Employment Act