Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise personally ashamed at the political sideshow in front of the White House perpetrated by Ms. Palin and Senator Cruz and his congressional allies. For Members to protest against the consequences of a shutdown they, themselves, caused is the height of hypocrisy. The truth is we could pass a clean continuing resolution today and get our government back to work. I was outraged by some of the imagery we saw from the Tea Partiers who were rallying in front of the White House. Calling for the President's impeachment not a year after his reelection by a large majority of the American people and continued lies about the President's religion, including one participant saying, Put the Quran down, have no place in civil discourse. But I was especially disturbed by the waving of the Confederate flag, a symbol of racial oppression, being waved at our first African- American President. I call on my colleagues to condemn this hateful rhetoric and to renounce these fringe voices within their coalition. This is a shameful display of Members on the other side of the aisle, and they ought to stand up--the majority--to the extremists in their own party, as we have with our own party, and stop trying to hold the government and full faith and credit of the United States Government hostage.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Garamendi for bringing us all together tonight. I couldn't stand with better Americans than I am standing with tonight. I mean that. Mr. Speaker, the latest supercommittee plan that folks on the other side of the aisle gave us today is really absurd. In fact, as a member of the Budget Committee, this new-found Republican insistence on negotiations, referred to by Mr. Doyle from Pennsylvania, is mind boggling, since my colleagues have spent the last 6 months avoiding negotiations. And I didn't come here tonight to water the wine, so we're going to say it like it is. My fellow Americans, this House of Representatives passed its budget over 200 days ago on March 21. Then the Senate passed its budget 2 days later. Now, think about what I just said. What happened to it? Well, the usual protocol is the two sides name conferees, they come together in conference, and they work out a budget. That didn't happen. That's 6 months ago. We've been asking to go to conference so we can resolve our differences, and there are always differences within parties, between parties, you name it. We want to fund the government. We want to get rid of sequestration, like Chairman Rogers said on July 31, 2013: I believe the House has made its choice. Sequestration--and its unrealistic, ill-conceived discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end. Mr. Rogers is the chairman, a Republican, he said it. He said that; I didn't say that. He said it better than I could ever imagine saying it. So what happened? Democrats attempted to go to conference 20 times. The Republicans objected every single time. Fact check this: over here in the House, we have almost 200 Members who signed the discharge petition calling for a conference on the budget. We tried four times to bring the resolution to the floor. Leader Pelosi even went so far as to name conferees. Some of them are in this room. Some of us are conferees. She did that on June 27. What's the date today--October 8? June 27. So why, after this stalling, have the Republicans finally found religion and now they want to negotiate? I'll tell you why: we've just discovered we have a phantom government in the United States. Every Congressman, every House Member, every Senate Member should be concerned that they're elected by the people of this country, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, it doesn't matter, they've been elected. They stood for election. We respect that, regardless of denomination, because we know that neither party is ever perfect. Come on, we all share in the pluses, we share in the minuses. There's never one party that has all of the answers. We know that. But why? Well, just this past Saturday, October 5, we had a front page story in The New York Times. It was mind boggling--mind boggling--that article. Here's the title of that article, ``The Federal budget crisis months in planning.'' Well, I don't remember planning this. I don't know if any Republicans were out planning this. Who in God's name are they talking about? And this is what it says in the article in the second paragraph, which refers to a manifesto--a manifesto--put together by non-elected people in this country. Hear me, America, hear me. They sat down one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret. Wow. And came--little noticed--a blueprint. This is what they said, Mr. Speaker. A blueprint to defunding ObamaCare signed by--oh, you're going to love this, Ed Meese. Boy there's a name that pops up. I can't believe it. Ed Meese. It's not funny, it's serious; a phantom government. Leaders of more than three-dozen conservative groups, and I will put in the Record tonight who those groups are, and I got part of their manifesto. Listen to this. This is what they put together. And I'm sure there are only a few Congressmen on the other side who even knew about this. It says this: Conservatives should not approve a CR unless it defunds ObamaCare. This includes ObamaCare's unworkable exchanges, unsustainable Medicaid expansion, and attack on life and religious liberty. They said that February 14, 2013. This did not just happen, Mr. Speaker. It didn't just happen. It wasn't an accident; it was planned. That is the lowest thing you could ever read about a government that wasn't even elected. Who the heck are these people to decide what we're going to do? Now we know why Mr. Ryan did not want to go to conference. Now we know why Mr. Boehner did not want to go to conference, because that was not the plan. Read it. Judge for yourself. Judge for yourself. It also said that these 30 groups, and the names of each group besides Mr. Meese's, are right here. You've got every right-wing group in the universe. They go into this manifesto on Medicaid expansion, permanent appropriations, implementation. They want to run the government. These people actually wanted to run the government. My friends, the Republicans don't want to negotiate. They want to use this shutdown and the threat of default to invalidate the results of-- oh, an election last November. These people weren't elected, we were elected. And I love debating people from the other side who are elected. That's their God-given right. That's what liberty is all right. Why don't they come in here, this shadow government, this phantom group, why don't they stand there and tell us who they talked to within the Republican Party. Tell us. America has a right to know. Don't you talk to me, Mr. Speaker, about let's have transparency in government when you have this vagabond group out here funded by--guess. I'll give you three guesses. No, I'll only give you one guess: the Koch brothers. They think they're running this government. The Supreme Court heard another case today--isn't that interesting. This is mild compared to what would happen if they were able to do and spend as much money as they want. I did not come here to water the wine. You better listen to it, and every member of the staff better listen because they tried every trick in the book, putting your own health care in jeopardy, saying that you get a subsidy from the government when it's just like any company that in some way contributes to your health care. Somebody gets hired by the Federal Government to be a secretary, making $20,000, $25,000 a year, the cost of their health care will go up between $5,200 and $12,000. How are you going to live on that being a staff member here on the floor or back in your districts. They will stop at nothing, nothing, to bring the government down at any cost. At any cost. The November election apparently did not occur in their minds. We are dealing with dangerous people. Either they are on hallucinogenic drugs or they just lost their minds. This is what we're dealing with. To bring us to this precipice only a few days away, something's wrong. This is not how we debate things in the United States of America. This is not in any manner, shape, or form. As President Obama said, Democrats are willing to negotiate, but not with a gun to our heads. Never. I'm from Paterson, New Jersey; you never put a gun to my head, I've got news for you. Let's end this irresponsible shutdown and default threat, and let's get back to work. That's what we were sent here for. I thank you, Mr. Garamendi for your patience. Signed: Edwin Meese III, Former Attorney General, President Ronald Reagan; Chris Chocola, President, Club for Growth; Jenny Beth Martin, Co-Founder, Tea Party Patriots; Penny Nance, President, Concerned Women for America; The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell, President, Constitutional Congress, Inc.; William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government; Duane Parde, President, National Taxpayers Union; Susan Carleson, President, American Civil Rights Union; Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition; Alfred S. Regnery, President, The Paul Revere Project; Lewis Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; Brent Bozell, President, ForAmerica; Matt Kibbe, President, FreedomWorks; Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List; David Williams, President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance. The Honorable David McIntosh, Former U.S. Representative, Indiana; David Bozell, Executive Director, ForAmerica; Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring; Stuart Epperson, President, Council for National Policy; Heather Higgins, President, Independent Women's Forum; Cindy Chafian, President, The Mommy Lobby; Gary Bauer, President, American Values; Mike Needham, CEO, Heritage Action for America; David Bossie, President, Citizens United; Mathew D. Staver, Chairman, Liberty Counsel Action; James Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association; Erick Erickson, Editor, RedState.com; T. Kenneth Cribb, Former Domestic Advisor, President Ronald Reagan; Becky Norton Dunlop, Former White House Advisor, President Ronald Reagan; Grace-Marie Turner, President, The Galen Institute. Myron Ebell, President, Freedom Action; Craig Shirley, Reagan Campaign Biographer; Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition; Richard Rahn, President, Inst. for Global Economic Growth; Lee Beaman, Businessman, Nashville, TN; Bob Reccord, Executive Director, Council for National Policy; Angelo M. Codevilla, Professor, Emeritus, Boston University; Tom Donelson, Chairman, America's PAC; Brian Baker, President, Ending Spending; Kay R. Daly, President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary; Don Devine, Senior Scholar, The Fund for American Studies; Gary Aldrich, President, Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty; Ralph Benko, President, Center for Civic Virtue; Andresen Blom, Senior Strategist, Center for Civic Virtue; Joe Gregory, CEO, Gregory Management Co.; Rebecca Hagelin.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to attend today's session of Congress, as I was unavoidably detained in my district. Had I been present, I would have strongly supported passage of H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. Federal employees are currently caught in the crossfire, collateral damage in the Republican Party's war against the Affordable Care Act. The Republican Party's refusal to fund our government has resulted in a shutdown that is threatening our economic recovery and severely impacting crucial federal services. It needs to end immediately. This shutdown has caused 800,000 federal employees to be furloughed, with no end in sight. This is personally impacting these dedicated federal employees and their families, who are not receiving a pay check, while many Members of Congress continue to take theirs. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that these furloughed workers will receive back pay when this crisis is resolved. These employees should not be punished because of Congress's failures. I support this legislation because it will ensure that as soon an as the Republican Party comes to its senses and allows an up or down vote on a clean Continuing Resolution, our government will reopen and these employees will receive their just compensation.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to correct the record regarding the health benefits for Members of Congress and their staff. Recently, many on the other side have been falsely claiming that Congress is trying to exempt itself from the Affordable Care Act in an effort to distract the public from their failure to do their job and keep our government open. The fact is that Members of Congress and their staff are the only people who are required by law to give up current employer-provided health care and go into the exchanges. I support this because I know the exchanges will provide all Americans, including Congress and its staff, quality, affordable health insurance. The exemption my friends want to get rid of is ending Congress' employer contribution, which all Federal employees currently receive. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues probably have, like many of us do, young staffers working in their offices that make around $25,000 a year. We are going to ask these devoted civil servants to pay $5,000 to $12,000 more per year for health insurance than they currently pay just to score a cheap political point? Ask the Speaker. He supports maintaining this contribution. Case closed.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, tragedy happens, and we say we are shocked. ``This is a quiet neighborhood.'' ``This is a quiet town.'' ``This is a quiet city.'' When you examine the mass shootings in America over the last decade, it becomes abundantly clear that there are serious cultural and spiritual problems that have not been recognized. Any attempt to be reasonable, thoughtful, earnest in facing the recognized horror is, even in the Congress of the United States, met with downright skepticism or outright hate. I wonder if we want to resolve this unique national paralysis. Somewhere between taking everyone's guns away and maintaining the status quo, we must find some workable answer. Do Senators and House Members have to be directly threatened before we agree to work together? One of our own has been shot down in her own district. We all said all the appropriate things and didn't do anything to prevent this kind of violence from happening again. It would seem to me, Madam Speaker, to be very desirable to review the biography, at least, of any person who applies to own a gun. Oversight of the process could be left to citizens representing the entire gun issue. We won't accept these violent acts in America any longer.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Beatrize, a mother from Camden, New Jersey, a face of hunger. This is her child.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule and the underlying bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle like to act like 11 million unemployed Americans are out of work because they want to be out of work. This is a debate between two things, common sense versus no sense. You even offer a jewel to the States. And you say to the States, if you cut more people off your roles, we'll let you keep half the money. And then you can do with it whatever you want. That is immoral. That is totally nonsensical. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We're talking about kids, we are talking about veterans, and we are talking about the disabled. That's what we're talking about. And if you don't think this bill cuts many of those people off the roles, then you, obviously--to use your term--you didn't read the bill.

Mr. PASCRELL. Nearly 30,000 households in my current district benefit from this program. I would ask you to examine the bill and examine your conscience before you----

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. More troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that recent studies estimate that one-quarter of American jobs are at risk of being outsourced in the coming years. We're not talking about chump change here. This is a lot of jobs. So let's defeat this motion so we can actually debate a bill that will end corporate welfare that allows companies to continue to engage in outsourcing and then get a tax cut for doing so. Instead, let's provide incentives that will grow good-paying manufacturing jobs in the USA.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill before us today, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. I just think it goes too far. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and take up this legislation, which we've worked on for a full year now, the Bring Jobs Home Act, a bill which, for the first time, makes sure we promote insourcing of jobs and stop the corporate welfare business for outsourcing jobs. The underlying legislation would set a dangerous precedent by waiving mining projects from environmental reviews and eliminating public access to the justice system itself. Pushing mining projects through the permitting process is sure to continue to degrade our environment and create workplace situations which are definitely unsafe. But it won't solve the employment problem. Since that's been injected into the discussion, the legislation will simply allow our Nation's resources to be used to pad the pockets of the same international corporations who ship jobs overseas; and, by the way, that process of shipping jobs overseas is subsidized by the Federal Government. We have for years helped corporations send jobs overseas. What we should be doing is helping them get jobs back to America, particularly since we see an upgrading of the past 16 months in the manufacturing sector of our economy. With this bill we're going to end the tax breaks that encourage companies to ship their jobs overseas and use that to pay for tax credits for patriotic companies that want to bring jobs back home. Do you want to have real job improvement? This is the way to do it. Over the last decade we've lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs--more than during the entire Great Depression. Our trade deficit increased by $300 billion. During the recession, the manufacturing workforce plummeted to a near 60-year low.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, like my Republican colleagues, I too am concerned about fraud in any public program, whether it's ObamaCare, food stamps, Medicare. Who could be against verification? But this is not about verification. Again, the 41st failed attempt to submarine reform in health care. The question before us today is whether or not the risk of fraud in ObamaCare is so pervasive that we should shut down an essential part of the law. My friends on the other side would have you believe that the administration's decision to delay income and coverage verifications leaves the health care marketplace vulnerable to rampant fraud. This is not the case. First, federally operated and partnership exchanges still will verify such information beginning in 2014. Only 16 States and the District of Columbia will wait until 2015 to begin more comprehensive verification. In those instances, the incentive to provide false information is greatly overshadowed by the benefit of doing so. Lying on the exchange form carries with it a penalty of $25,000. On top of that, anyone who provides false income information will have to pay back the extra subsidies when filing a tax form for 2014. Additionally, States will audit a statistically significant number of individuals, meaning that everyone has an equal opportunity to be audited. Finally, fighting fraud requires an investment of funding and resources. How dare you get up here and talk about a plan when you, in the regular budget, want to cut every penny from resources, from research, from helping us get to the point where American people will be served. Look, you can't stand success. Help us improve the system, not continue a system where patients are playing second fiddle.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, it has been over 10 years since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is extremely important that we continue to focus on addressing traumatic brain injury, TBI, and psychological health, PH, issues. Congress must properly allocate funds to care for wounded warriors and to improve research in these critical areas. As you know, TBI continues to be the signature wound of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with some 100,000 troops diagnosed since 2003 with mild TBI. This number will only increase as detection becomes more accurate. The Department of Defense has made significant strides in improving assessment and diagnosis, but more needs to be done to evaluate troops' ability to return to duty and to follow them after exposure to blasts. Intensive and innovative rehabilitative care is also needed for those sustaining severe TBIs and left with varying levels of disorders of consciousness. This year's Defense Health Program receives an increase above last year's level. Specifically, the bill contains $33.6 billion--$858 million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level--for the Defense Health Program to provide for the health of our troops and retirees. Increases above the request importantly include $125 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, and $20 million for suicide prevention outreach programs. Our men and women serving in uniform must be given every possible opportunity for the best medical care, rehabilitation and community reentry assistance that we as a nation can provide. It is important these funds be used wisely to ensure that our men and women in uniform are getting timely and proper care. Pre and post deployment testing, as well as long term care and family services are integral parts of preventing and treating TBI and PH. As a Congress, we must live up to our commitment to our troops when they leave the battlefield and in my capacity as co-Chair of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I look forward to working with the DoD to make sure these funds are used effectively to address these invisible wounds.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Hastings. He's a fair, civil individual. But this bill is off the charts. At least the last one that we voted on had some redeeming qualities--some redeeming qualities. We know there's more oil been produced in the last 3\1/2\ years. The increase is greater than the previous 20 years. So you're trying to target the administration, and the administration can speak for itself and defend itself, but this is not right. This is not right. This is not right. So let's talk about this. I am opposed to this legislation. This bill would completely rewrite the administration's plan for offshore leasing in a reckless and irresponsible manner. For example, this bill would force the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sale 220, located off the shore of Virginia, 70 miles from the beaches of my home State of New Jersey. Now, look, a lot of the folks that are going to vote for this bill voted against even helping those people in New Jersey respond to the Sandy storm. You know it, and I know it. And here we are on the floor perpetrating untruths about why this is needed now. Look, it's not the amount of land that we've set aside on water or on land for oil exploration and production. We've got plenty of oil coming out of the ground. We don't have any refineries, and this is the same debate we had 25 years ago. How dare anybody stand in this astute body and then claim we don't care if gas prices go up. The fact of the matter is this is an oil Congress and this is an oil economy, and you don't want to bring in--I want to talk about the special interests of the people who are hurting out there.

Mr. PASCRELL. I want to talk about the special interests--not oil companies--us. Let's talk about us and what we get out of this. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, the administration is committed to ensuring that American taxpayers receive a fair return from the sale of public resources, public land. As drafted, as this bill is before us right now, the revenue-sharing provisions of H.R. 2231 would ultimately reduce the net return to the taxpayers from development of Federal resources directed to be leased under this bill. So, with summer upon us, tourism at the Jersey shore is one of our State's greatest economic drivers. These jobs that are committed, these jobs depend upon the responsible stewardship of our waters and coasts, and the legislation before us now puts those jobs at risk. For communities across the State still working to rebuild from Sandy, this is not a risk they are willing to take. Instead of bending over backwards for Big Oil, we need to bend over and help as best we can the average citizen. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this Farm Bill, H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, due to the unconscionable cuts to the SNAP program, formerly known as food stamps. Across the country, over 47 million of our fellow Americans depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to put food on their tables each and every day. In my home state of New Jersey alone, SNAP serves over 800,000 individuals. These are our friends, family, and neighbors. An average monthly benefit of $133.36 per person for recipients in New Jersey amounts to $1.48 per meal. This does not go very far towards buying nutritious food in a state where the cost of living is high. That's why 90 percent of benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month. Eighty-three percent of SNAP benefits go to households with children, seniors, or disabled Americans. These are not freeloaders or people trying to game the system; they are our most vulnerable citizens. When the going gets tough, we have a responsibility to ensure that a safety net is in place for them. When our people go hungry, we pay the consequences down the road. Poor nutrition and hunger leads to costly but entirely avoidable health problems. Furthermore, as a former teacher, I know that students who go hungry have trouble focusing in school. We need to ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to excel to keep us competitive in today's global economy. This bill, however, would take us down the wrong path. It further tightens eligibility requirements for SNAP, cutting $20.5 billion by kicking about two million people off the program. This bill will also kick 210,000 kids off of school meals, and reduce benefits by an average of $90 for 850,000 additional households. If we want to reduce the costs of this program, don't cruelly throw people off the roles. Let's create some jobs and as our economic recovery gains steam, SNAP costs will decline as more and more Americans find steady work. We are the greatest nation on earth. Our Farm Bills are designed to ensure that we can produce food to feed the world. Shouldn't we first ensure that we can provide for our own?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that today, June 18th, I regrettably missed several rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted: `nay''--rollcall Vote 248--On Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 266--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia; ``nay''--rollcall Vote 249--On Agreeing to the Resolution on H. Res. 266--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1947, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through FY 2018; and providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, to amend title 18, U.S. Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia; ``aye''-- rollcall Vote 250--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1151-- To direct the Secretary of Taiwan at the triennial International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly, and for other purposes; ``nay''-- rollcall Vote 251--On Final Passage of H.R. 1797--Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; and ``aye''--rollcall Vote 252--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1896--International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1797, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As Members of Congress, we should not reach into the private lives of our constituents with decisions that are this personal. We are not qualified to make complex medical decisions, and the government is certainly not in the position to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. But that is exactly what this bill would do by increasing medical liability for doctors, and criminalizing procedures that are safe and legal. A woman should be able to make decisions about her health in consultation with her family, her individual faith and health professionals. Restricting access to safe abortions is clearly not the answer. With the continued economic challenges facing this country, we should be focused on getting Americans back to work, not preventing women from making choices that are best for their families and their health. Throughout my years in Congress, I have been against any government funding of abortion, and I believe that some guidelines are important and reasonable. However, this bill clearly goes over the line and serves not to protect the health of women and children, but rather as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, it has been over 10 years since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I fear we are still not properly addressing traumatic brain injury, also known as ``the signature injury of the war.'' I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their commitment to this issue in recent authorizations. I would also like to thank Mr. Thompson for his cosponsorship of my first amendment. Over the last few years, Congress has continued to emphasize the importance of this issue and has made funds available for the identification and treatment of brain injuries in our soldiers. It is important these funds be used wisely to ensure that our men and women in uniform are getting timely and proper care. A January 2012 GAO report highlighted the need to coordinate TBI and psychological health activities within the Department. In the National Defense Authorization for FY 2013, Congress mandated that the Secretary of Defense submit a plan to Congress that would improve coordination and integration of the programs that address traumatic brain injury and psychological health of members of the Armed Forces. Specifically, this report would require the identification of gaps in services and treatments, a plan for addressing any gaps or redundancies and identifying an official to lead the implementation of any changes. This report is due in July of this year, and my amendment underscores the importance of this mandated report, and strongly urges the Secretary to deliver it to Congress within the appropriate timeframe. My second amendment addresses the continuing issue of identification of traumatic brain injuries. Although the Department of Defense has made a strong commitment to identifying, and treating those men and women who have suffered a traumatic brain injury while serving our Nation, there are still problems with screening our troops. In June 2010, a memorandum issued by the Department of Defense made a 50- meter distance from an explosion the criterion to identify, refer, and treat members for potential traumatic brain injury in theater. However, the Department of Defense has yet to address those service members who may have been exposed to a blast prior to that time. Many of these soldiers remain on active duty and we must ensure they are tested and treated. My amendment mandates a report on how the Secretary of Defense will identify, refer, and treat possible traumatic brain injuries with respect to members of the Armed Forces who served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom prior to June 2010. This is a vitally important report for ensuring the health of our troops. I ask that my colleagues support these amendments for those service members who are struggling with invisible wounds.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that yesterday, June 13th, I was not recorded on one rollcall vote. I would like to state for the record that I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall Vote number 221: On Agreeing to the Resolution on H. Res. 260--Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Congressman Smith, for your great service to your State and your country. Madam Speaker, we've lost a great man. When Senator Lautenberg passed away Monday morning, last Monday, I lost a good friend. The Silk City has produced many great individuals and characters alike, but few, if any, have a life story like that of Frank Lautenberg. Like me, Frank grew up on the streets of Paterson--literally. Both of us came from families of immigrants who came to Paterson, like pilgrims, like Plymouth Rock. It was Paterson/Plymouth Rock. That's what it was, when you come down to it. We had the same dreams. Many thousands in our city had the same dream. Through hard work and determination, we learned that you could provide your children with a better life and a successful future. Despite all their dreams for their young son, I don't think that Sam and Molly Lautenberg, Frank's dutiful parents, deceased, ever could have imagined all that Frank would eventually achieve. Only in America. But then again, Frank never forgot the sacrifices family made for him. He learned what real hard work was from his father, who labored into the silk mills of Paterson to provide for his family. He learned how to persevere from his mother, who raised him in the face of poverty. They lived in four or five different places in Paterson as they moved around. His dad passed away when his dad was 43 years of age. In the face of poverty, at the age of 19, Frank Lautenberg had to summon all those lessons and more when his father passed away leaving him to support the entire family. He never forgot those hard lessons. They served him well throughout all the journeys of his life. He spoke about those journeys every time he came before a classroom in Paterson, New Jersey. He visited, revisited, and revisited and brought computers. He brought computers. And, of course, ADP was one of the great corporations in America, formed in a garage in the back of a house in Paterson, New Jersey. And I say, Madam Speaker, how many people must be kicking themselves for not having invested way back when they thought it was a wild idea, taking care of people's payroll. It's not easy to grow up on the streets of Paterson, New Jersey. Take it from me personally, Congressman Smith. You have to fight for every inch in order to get ahead. Frank truly embodied what it means to be a fighter. That's what made him such a successful representative from New Jersey. You've heard the Congressman, Congressman Smith, specify all of the issues that he was involved in; and when he was involved, he was totally immersed in the subject therein to help Americans. It didn't matter what nationality, what ethnicity, what color. It didn't matter what religion. It mattered that you were a human being in the greatest country in the world. He talked about it often. When he came back from the service, he talked about it. He served his country in the Second World War. Regardless of how you feel on issues, you don't take on the gun lobby to ban firearms for domestic violence offenders, you don't take on Big Tobacco to ban smoking on airplanes without getting a few scars in the process. The thing Frank's opponents didn't realize was that he got his scars long ago, growing up on the streets of Paterson, New Jersey. His roots are exactly what made Frank so successful, first in the Army, then in the private sector, and, finally, in the hallowed Halls of the U.S. Senate. But despite all that he achieved, he never forgot where he came from. That's the secret. When you forget where you come from, when you forget your roots, when you forget the street you lived on, the guys and the gals that you talked to, your mom and dad, how they sweated it out every day, I mean, when you worked in those silk mills it was no day at the beach, not by any stretch of the imagination. We, many times, forget our roots, Congressman Smith, and you know that. We forget where we came from. We think we're better. If you're a Congressman, oh, God. He never forgot where he came from. Despite all that, what he achieved, he knew his roots. One of the proudest moments of my career was standing shoulder-to- shoulder with him when we were able to successfully pass legislation to finally establish the Great Falls National Historic Park in Paterson, New Jersey. It's our Yellowstone. It's our Grand Canyon. It doesn't take up nearly the amount of space, but it meant so much to not only Patersonians, but people in that area, Paterson, the third largest city, first industrial city. Alexander Hamilton knew what he was doing. Frank Lautenberg knew what he was doing. We'd been pushing many, many years for Federal recognition. In fact, I still have a picture hanging in my office of Senator Lautenberg and me touring the Great Falls when I was the mayor of that city. In the true Paterson spirit, despite opposition from the Park Service--we weren't getting off to a good start--and opponents in Congress who never wanted to see an urban national park, we never stopped fighting. And just a few years ago, we finally reached our dream to get the Great Falls the Federal designation it deserves. Members of both sides of the aisle came together. And on that day, when Secretary Salazar was there, Democrats and Republicans joined together where industry started in this great Nation. The park is now in the first stages of its development, and I believe one day it will be a crown jewel in the National Park System, thanks in no small part to our great Senator. It's a fitting legacy for him to leave to the city he loved so much. These last few months, with his health getting weaker, necessitating long absences from the Senate, Frank never lost his passion for the issues he had spent his entire life defending. Despite his health, he came to Washington to cast a critical vote on a bill to expand background checks. No one was going to stop Frank Lautenberg from fighting to make this world a better place. Even the limitations of his own body couldn't hold him back. I join my friends and neighbors in Paterson, where he used to cut his hair, Pasadena Pete's, where he used to stop at the markets, and he'd stop in to a coffee shop downtown. We mourn this tremendous loss of one of our favorite sons, one of our patriots. He was a person first. He was a legislator second. He was the same man on the street that he was on the Senate floor. You always got the genuine article. Frank Lautenberg was not a spectator to life. Frank Lautenberg was a leader, a loving husband, a loving father, a trusted friend, and a true Patersonian.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chair, I rise to express my support for the Urban Area Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant Program. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, provides critical support to nonprofit organizations at high risk of terrorist attack. This is not a theoretical threat. This is a real threat. For example, a string of anti-Semitic hate crimes took place just 2 years ago targeting synagogues in Bergen County, New Jersey, which I represent. These heinous acts culminated in arson when a fire bomb was thrown through the window of an Orthodox Jewish temple, the residence of a rabbi, his wife, his five children, and his father. Thankfully, the rabbi and his family escaped serious injury in this attack, and local authorities have arrested the suspects and are in the process of bringing them to justice. Other events across the country have shown the continuing need for these grants as well. Last year, a gunman killed six and wounded four in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. A security guard was tragically killed several years ago at the Holocaust Museum here in Washington by a Holocaust denier and White supremacist. Crimes are not being investigated by White supremacists in this country, just as an aside thought. These are just a handful of the examples showing the vulnerability of nonprofit organizations to attack. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program was designed precisely to allow at-risk, nonprofit organizations such as houses of worship and community centers to protect themselves from these types of tragedies by acquiring and installing equipment to ensure against potential attacks. These capital improvements include upgrading security measures, such as installing alarms, barriers, cameras, or controlled entry systems. In fiscal year 2011, the year during which these terrible events took place in Bergen County, the Nonprofit Security Grant Program was allocated $19 million. For the past 2 years this amount has been reduced by nearly half, to $10 million, despite the ongoing need for this assistance. If we can't protect our houses of worship, what can we protect? The program is funded out of the Department of Homeland Security's State and Local Programs account, and allows the Secretary discretion to allocate this funding as she sees fit, or he sees fit, who's ever there. I call upon the Secretary to allocate at least $15 million to the Nonprofit Security Grant Program as a step towards restoring adequate funding to this vital program. Although I hope that we can bring this funding back to the 2011 level and beyond, $15 million should be the baseline level of funding these vital programs. I also believe that the Nonprofit Security Grant Program should receive its own dedicated funding, rather than competing with other important initiatives for a small share of the Department's State and Local Programs' dollars. I urge my colleagues to support the Nonprofit Security Grant Program in order to ensure that these nonprofit organizations, which serve as the heart of our communities, receive the protection they need. Madam Chair, let me just add one other thing, and that is, it reduces a tremendous amount of anxiety at these houses of worship--and I mentioned a few religions here just now, but I can cite others--reduces the anxiety of being safe even where you sleep or even where you worship. Now, we had the right idea. This was a bipartisan idea in 2010, 2011, and before that. Why can't we do the right thing? It's not that much money. It will help a lot of institutions to protect themselves, especially when you put in a camera or the other things that I mentioned. It makes people feel a lot more relaxed and it reduces anxiety. I hope that we can do this. I know, Madam Chair, and I'm sorry if I'm appealing to you directly, which I am. Madam Chair, you understand this program very, very well. I would solicit your support for this. And I think it's very important because it's going to stop terrorism in this form. I mean, this gentleman was sleeping with his family, the rabbi, and the bomb came in through the window. It was thrown up to the second floor and exploded. I mean, can you imagine the trauma for those children? I apologize for directing my attention to you because you know about these things, and I'm asking you to be helpful to me. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I stand to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide $5 million in additional funding for Firefighter Assistance Grants. This funding would be equally divided between the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) programs, which provide equipment and staffing assistance for local fire departments. In my work to develop the AFG and SAFER programs, I envisioned them as ways to fill needs that local budgets sometimes can't. As we all know, in today's tough budget environment, many states and towns are strapped for cash and have asked their first responders to make sacrifices. These are the times when AFG and SAFER are most important. These programs put more firefighters on our streets and provide better equipment to keep them safe. For example, in New Jersey's Ninth Congressional District, the towns of Garfield and North Arlington have recently received hundreds of thousands of dollars in AFG assistance for the purchase of electronic accountability systems and Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses. These firefighters are risking their lives to protect our lives and property, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are protected with the best possible equipment. Earlier this year, my hometown of Paterson received a SAFER grant of almost $7 million to prevent the layoff of 40 firefighters and allow the city to hire 9 new firefighters to replace retirees. This funding goes directly to job creation in our local communities while helping our departments to maintain adequate staffing levels for public safety. I am relieved that President Obama signed into law reauthorizations for AFG and SAFER this January after the program authorizations had been allowed to lapse. Now we must continue to provide adequate funding. Working together in a bipartisan manner, we have been able to restore over $800 million in proposed cuts to AFG and SAFER over the past 3 years. I am proud that the Fire Caucus gathered the signatures of over 140 on a bipartisan letter to the Appropriations Committee opposing any cuts to these critical programs in FY 2014. I would like to thank Mr. Runyan for his work on this amendment and this issue, as well as Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Price for their work on this bill and for allowing this amendment. Our firefighters are on the front lines of our homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support their local firefighters by supporting this amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Frank Lautenberg was my friend for 45 years. We drank the same water in Paterson, New Jersey. He was a person of very small means when you looked at his mom and dad. They worked in the factories in Paterson, New Jersey, as so many other people did. His father died when he was 43 years of age. He got sick from the jobs that he had when there was no protection for workers, not like it is now. Now, can you picture this in a garage in Paterson, New Jersey, off of Carroll Street, four guys together, putting a company together, that if you didn't invest in it you kicked yourself after that, ADP? He had a business acumen, a business sense, that went beyond votes on the floor of the Senate. He was a good guy, and I know that the talking heads would say he was a liberal's liberal. Frank Lautenberg was a very basic, conservative guy when it came to our values in this country. He was not a spectator by any stretch. He was in there. He was in the battle. He came back to School No. 6 on Mercer Street in Paterson to take care of those kids, to give them computers and to say make sure you take care of those computers because this is going to get you, perhaps, on a path to something better in life for you and your family. He didn't forget it. A lot of people say he didn't forget his roots. That's a wave. That's a passing by. He was not that kind of a person. So, to Bonnie and to his beautiful family, our best, best, deepest feelings of condolences and sorrow. We don't know what we've lost--we never do--but we pray that everyone begins to understand, at least now, that each of us is significant, that each of us is important and, as Frank would say, that no one is better than anyone else. God bless Frank Lautenberg.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers H.R. 1919, the Safeguarding America's Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013, I would like to voice my specific concerns with one provision within the legislation. While the underlying bill seeks to address the issue of preventing counterfeit drugs from reaching consumers, and improving national regulatory standards for pharmaceuticals, Section 8 of the proposed legislation instead mandates an electronic labeling requirement for pharmaceuticals. This serves to eliminate hard copy professional literature, and transition exclusively to electronic only literature. Based on legislation passed by Congress in 2012, GAO was tasked with studying the issue of e-labeling. This study is expected to be issued in July of this year. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the potential ramifications of exclusive electronic labeling, and be cautious about any premature legislative action on this issue until the GAO report is released. The findings of this Congressionally mandated study should be deliberated before making a change that has the potential to impact consumers and providers.