Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a moment to welcome the entire Seton Hall community here to Capitol Hill for their annual `Hall on the Hill' Reception. Let me thank Monsignor Sheeran for his leadership at Seton Hall, as well as his profound words given at invocation on the House floor this morning. Let me also congratulate my good friend Phil Thigpen for the honor he is receiving this evening. Phil has always been active in the community and clearly he has done his alma mater proud. As Seton Hall University celebrates 150 years of service to our educational community, it is appropriate to take a moment to acknowledge what a remarkable achievement it is. Founded in 1856, Seton Hall University predates even the Civil War. Throughout the years, Seton Hall University has educated our Nation's youth, providing them with the tools necessary to succeed in the ever- changing world. One of Seton Hall's greatest aspects is its versatility. With programs in business, law, medicine, and the humanities, students are free to explore all areas of academia. The John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations is world-renowned for its fantastic professors and unique alliance with the United Nations Association of the United States of America. Ranked in the top 125 national universities by US News and World Report, Seton Hall is truly a premier academic institution. But, it is not just academics which makes Seton Hall University such a great institution. Being the largest Catholic University in the state of New Jersey, Seton Hall has a special focus on its ethical mission, teaching students not just how to be great scholars but great people. Part of this ethical mission includes tolerance and openness. In fact, few schools are so diverse and welcome students of so many different backgrounds. Its location in South Orange, New Jersey also allows the university to benefit from the diversity of its surroundings and proximity to New York City. A Seton Hall University experience does not end at the doors of the classroom. Many Pirates have gone on to achieve great feats at both the collegiate and professional athletics level, including baseball player Craig Biggio and ESPN sportscaster, Dick Vitale. Students also have the opportunity to take part in over one hundred different extracurricular organizations to expand their interests and talents. Educating our Nation's youth is a service to more than just the students who earn degrees. Universities such as Seton Hall provide a service to our entire community by training future generations of our Nation's leaders. It is an honor to celebrate this 150th anniversary of Seton Hall University and I hope that it will continue to educate our students for at least another 150 years.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleague Todd Platts of Pennsylvania and I are introducing the Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2006. We are joined by a bipartisan group of original cosponsors, a complete list of which follows this statement. Originally passed in 1996 and reauthorized in 2000, the TBI Act is designed to promote sound and coordinated public policy in brain injury prevention, research, education, treatment and community-bases services and supports for individuals living with a TBI and their families. The Act also encourages basic and translational scientific research. It is the only Federal law that specifically addresses the issues faced by persons with brain injury. As a founding co-chairman of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, I have witnessed first hand how these programs make a difference in people's lives and have worked to educate your colleagues on the enormous impact traumatic brain injury has on our society. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in young Americans. Approximately 1.4 million Americans experience TBI each year. Every 21 seconds, one person in the United States sustains a traumatic brain injury. About half of these cases result in at least short-term disability, and 50,000 people die as a result of their injuries. Every year about 80,000 people sustain severe brain injuries leading to long term disability. An estimated 5.3 million Americans are living with long term, severe disability as a result of brain injury. The national cost is estimated at more than $60 billion annually. Individuals with TBI account for 2 percent of the total US population and represent nearly 10 percent of our Nation's disability population. The statistics involving brain injury are increasing even more now that reports show that traumatic brain injuries account for 14 percent to 20 percent of casualties for those who survive combat in Iraq. Despite the staggering statistics, TBI remains the ``silent epidemic'' in this country. In fact, the annual incidence and prevalence of TBI is higher than breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury and HIV/AIDS combined. Despite these staggering statistics, TBI remains a silent epidemic plaguing our Nation. Traumatic Brain Injury is a unique issue. An epidemic so vast it is almost overwhelming and so personal its effects defy definition. It is a global health problem and there is no cure. For 10 years, the Traumatic Brain Injury Act has successfully provided direction and legal authority for the vast traumatic brain injury community. The Act was not designed to provide direct care to persons with TBI, but rather, to inform. Before the TBI Act, the State governments were left basically on their own. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) grants have helped states to improve access to health and other services for persons with TBI. Prior to the 1996 law, they did not have the tools to even assess their own needs. Thanks to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we now have a record of incidents including details and prevalence, plans for prevention, and finally, access to treatment. We have also begun to educate the public and provide much needed scientific data for our scientists, healthcare providers and policy makers. In 1998, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a report on the rehabilitation of persons with brain injury. The consensus was that more research was needed so the NIH established brain injury centers all over the country. The Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2006 builds on the law's successes. It directs the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to make grants to States to coordinate, expand, and enhance service delivery systems and charges the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with identifying strategies to prevent TBI, as well as increasing awareness and understanding of TBI by implementing public education programs. Finally, the legislation directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct much needed basic and applied research on brain injury rehabilitation and development of a cure. With such a vast and diverse community, it is often difficult for the TBI community to speak with a unified voice. This bill represents a consensus among the national stakeholders who strongly support swift action on the bill this year. The Congressional Brain Injury Task Force is dedicated to the health of these programs as part of a larger goal of improving the quality of life for those who have sustained brain Injuries. Mr. Speaker, only a strong commitment will allow us to continue the incredible advances we have made in the area of basic brain research; prevention, detection and early treatment; physical and mental rehabilitation; long-term care and patient advocacy issues. I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this critically important bill, and I urge the committee of jurisdiction to consider it without delay. Original Cosponsors, The Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2006: Platts, Andrews, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Brady (PA), Brown (SC), Brown (OH), Capuano, Cleaver, Davis (VA), Davis (CA), Davis (IL), DeFazio, Drake, Emanuel, Etheridge, Farr, Goode, G. Green (TX), Hayes, Herseth, Higgins, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Holden, Holt, Inglis, Jackson Lee, Jefferson, Kennedy (RI), Kildee, Kuhl, LoBiondo, Markey, McCarthy, McCotter, McDermott, McGovern, McNulty, Meeks, Miller (FL), Moran (VA), Nadler, Neal, Owens, Pallone, Payne, Ruppersberger, Sanders, Saxton, Schwartz (PA), Strickland, Towns, Van Hollen, Waxman, Wexler, Woolsey, Wynn.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bob Etheridge should be commended for what he did 3 years ago; and we had an overwhelming vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, none of the survivors of the 135 firefighters that he mentioned just a few moments ago and which Mr. Kennedy mentioned a few moments ago that died have received a single penny of the authorized benefits. This is because the Justice Department has not approved the regulations that would put the provision of the Hometown Heroes Act into effect. This is unconscionable. This is wholly unacceptable. This is another time where the will of the Congress has not been activated. This amendment sends a necessary directive to the Attorney General that the families of our Nation's first responders should not be made to wait for what they deserve any longer. This amendment is a clear message that the Congress will no longer allow the Department of Justice to inexplicably harm the families of our Nation's heroes. This was the right thing to do 3 years ago. It is the right thing to do now, to pass this amendment now. I was proud to stand with the gentleman from North Carolina when we passed this, many of us, all of us, in December, 2003. We want their loved ones to be fully taken care of. This amendment is that message. It is time for us to act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today, I have a heavy heart because Paterson has lost one its greatest daughters with the passing of Evelyn ``Evy'' Dubrow. For over 60 years, Evy gave her life and spirit to the fight for fair wages, gender equality and the improvement of the human condition. Evy was that rare individual who had the passion of her convictions, yet never alienated anyone and was almost universally admired by all, truly a rare combination for a lobbyist in Washington. Indeed, Evy was an old-fashioned advocate who endlessly walked the Halls of Congress using her charm, wit and intelligence to lift the rights of workers. The fact that she was one of our Nation's most important labor leaders shows that the workers rights movement has no gender preference, no racial preference, nor does its message stop at any border, it is a movement for all of humanity and Evy exemplified that message in every way. The fruits of her labor were justly recognized in 1999 when President Bill Clinton awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, calling her ``a tiny woman, larger than life.'' But Evy did not do her life's work in order to collect awards or receive recognition, no she got up every morning to fight for the convictions she felt in her heart and that was always clear to those who knew her. I am honored to say that Evy Dubrow was a good friend of mine for many years, I join the people of Paterson, America and indeed the global community of workers who mourn her loss.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, their side of the aisle, your side of the aisle, has a major problem. Yesterday, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki suggested that they would provide amnesty for those people who killed or who wounded our soldiers. We are going to see who are the patriots here in the future. In a speech that Jack Murtha gave on April 20 this year, he started off by talking about President Teddy Roosevelt. He said, ``There must be no criticism of the President or that we have to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.'' You are going to have to explain that. You made a very big mistake. I voted for the war, for the efforts of the President, the Chief, the Commander in Chief in December of 2002. And here we are a few years later, looking back at what that decision was based upon. Talk about impunity, we have had people come on the floor in the last 2 years to impugn this gentleman's character. The CIA impugned the very facts that the administration has tried to provide. Every day a former CIA agent says that this administration failed to listen to the advice and counsel of those folks who have boots on the ground. That is a shame. And the other side, the other side has simply provided a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp to all of the policies. You have mindlessly rubber-stamped the mismanagement that has cost our sons, and you may laugh, these are our sons and daughters, our sons and daughters their lives. And now, here we are today--considering a partisan, political resolution that ultimately means nothing; a resolution that won't assist our troops on the ground; a resolution that does not help us move forward in bringing our men and women home. This is just another shameful example that the leadership of this body is not fit to serve. This Congress has failed to fulfill its most basic of duties. Shame should permeate every hallway and every hearing room. If we were serious--truly serious--about helping our men and women in the military, we would not waste our time on this resolution. Instead we would delve into the deception, the intelligence failures, the scapegoating of the C.I.A., and the mismanagement that has placed us where we are today. The generals, the men and women of our Armed Forces have done their job. We have voted time and time again in budgets and supplements supported their protection, yet we have had the real culprit come to this floor and demean, undermine, those who ask questions or may criticize. Teddy Roosevelt turned over from the clownish gyrations of the Congressmen or women from Ohio. And we'd also take up H.J. Res. 73--Congressman John Murtha's well- reasoned, essential call to redeploy our troops from Iraq. We are faced with a choice--more of the same from the Bush administration, or Jack's way. I believe that rapid turnover of Iraq to the Iraqi people is essential and that our troops need to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. That is why I am proud to cosponsor my friend's resolution. Today is just another sham in the House of Representatives, but that is what we've come to expect. Our troops deserve better.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, and it is bipartisan, Members on both sides of the aisle. Congress has rejected, two times already, attempts to change foreign ownership and control requirements. Let us get it right this time. The Congress spoke in unison about the Dubai Ports deal, and they are speaking in unison today to stop this insanity of giving away our assets and having them controlled by foreign investors. This is not to stop foreign investment. We must have a robust debate. This is a radical change. Altering the foreign control requirement for U.S. airlines does not belong in rulemaking, and that is what you are trying to do today. Being a member of both the Transportation and Homeland Security Committees gives me a unique perspective on the vital role the U.S. airline industry plays in the homeland security and the national defense of our Nation. I am concerned that the proposed rule is unclear and does not guarantee that heads of security and safety would have complete autonomy from their foreign national leadership. It is no secret that security costs are one of the financial challenges facing our domestic industry. In fact, many additional security measures have been voluntarily undertaken by U.S. carriers. I hope that both sides of the aisle support what I believe is a very reasonable amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe Amendment prohibit to the use of funds in this bill to implement a proposed Transportation Department regulation that makes a profound change to federal aviation policy. I would submit that it is actually a radical change. Altering the foreign control requirement for U.S. airlines does not belong in a rule making. We need robust debate--when we didn't have debate you saw what happen the Dubii Ports deal. In their attempt to complete an Open Skies agreement, the administration has sought to avoid an open debate in the halls of Congress. Congress has twice rejected attempts to change foreign ownership and control requirements. This time should be no different. The proposed change is heavy-handed, too vague and leaves too many legitimate questions and concerns unanswered. Being a member of both the Transportation and Homeland Security Committees gives me a unique perspective on the vital role the U.S. airline industry plays in the homeland security and national defense of our Nation. For these reasons, unlike most other industries, airlines do not easily lend themselves to foreign control. I am concerned that the proposed rule is unclear and does not guarantee that heads of security and safety would have complete autonomy from their foreign national leadership. It is no secret that security costs are one of the financial challenges facing our domestic industry. In fact, many additional security measures have been voluntarily undertaken by U.S. carriers. But under foreign control, commercial interests may carry more weight when it comes to cutting costs. Measured foreign investment may be beneficial for U.S. air carriers. However, throwing open the floodgates to foreign control is not the answer. At the very least, Congress should have a vigorous, robust debate on this highly sensitive matter before anything is finalized. I am confident that most members, upon judicious review, will conclude that this proposed rule change, as it stands, is not in the best interest of our nation. And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller- Johnson amendment to restore funding for the HUD Brownfields program. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for his amendment. As a former mayor, I believe that this amendment will have a very positive impact on our Nation's cities. Since the inception of its Brownfield programs, the federal government has allocated over $800 million in brownfield assessment and cleanup funds. In addition, this investment has leveraged over $8 billion in cleanup and redevelopment dollars, a better than 10-to-1 return on investment. It has resulted in the assessment of more than 8,000 properties and helped create over 37,000 jobs. This is because EPA and HUD grants work in conjunction with funding from state, local and private sources to address cleanup of brownfield sites. Brownfields sites include inactive factories, gas stations, salvage yards, and abandoned warehouses. These sites drive down property values, provide little or no tax revenue, and contribute to community blight. HUD's brownfields program serves as a catalyst to spur private sector investment, job creation and economic development in communities. HUD's program supports sustainable economic development that leverages investments from other public and private sources. In comments from last year's floor debate, an opponent of the HUD Brownfields program stated that ``HUD funds on average are just about 2.3 percent of the total development cost of each project. Moreover, for each HUD dollar, there are $28 in private and $12 in State and local funds committed to the project.'' These statistics were cited as a reason to eliminate the HUD Brownfields program, but instead they demonstrate its unique value. An initial influx of capital is often the greatest barrier to remediation of brownfields sites, and HUD's program provides that essential start up money. The HUD program has been remarkably effective at leveraging private and local financial resources to achieve new successes on old properties. This is an exciting time in the brownfields marketplace. Federal brownfields programs have provided the foundation on which state initiatives have flourished. New Jersey has taken the lead creating a Federal Brownfields Inter- Agency Working Group comprised of 14 federal and state agencies. This unprecedented coordination of agencies, community partners and private investors has enabled New Jersey to solve environmental problems while providing businesses a place to locate, create jobs, build housing and entertainment venues--all without having to go into farmlands and areas with open space. This new business activity, housing or other types of redevelopment can restore the proud heritage of successful enterprise to our historic cities and other locales. Throughout New Jersey and the country, there are thousands of abandoned structures that were once thriving businesses, often part of large industrial centers. Economic development matched with environmental cleanup has resulted in the rebirth of many industrial and commercial properties and surrounding neighborhoods. Anyone who cares about our nation's cities celebrates these successes, and welcomes the flexibility of the program. HUD's particular expertise in incorporating brownfields remediation into a larger strategy for economic development and community revitalization is essential to the success we have had and will continue to have in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this very worthwhile amendment to restore funding for the HUD Brownfields program.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, in 1999, when President Bush was running for office, he made a pledge to veto any tax increase. Well, last week, he did what he said he would never do when he signed into law a tax increase for our Nation's young people. This Congress passed and the President signed a bill that will triple tax rates for the teenagers with college savings funds. Under the new law, teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 with investment income who had their long-term capital gains and dividends taxed at 5 percent, will now be taxed at 15. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent. So much for savings. So much for education. So much for hypocrisy. The bill passed last week and ironically is called the Tax Increase Prevention Act. Yet it increased taxes on students. And we have been insisting on tax cuts of billions of dollars to folks who do not need it. It is because of this outrageous tax increase that I have introduced the Student Savings Act of 2006, H.R. 5473. My legislation will be revenue neutral by effectively rescinding those tax cuts that go to those who make $1 million or more. We should be giving our students financial incentives and not giving them tax increases.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I ask unanimous consent to enter my statement into the Record.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for all the hard work they have put into bringing this bill to the floor. Homeland Security is a relatively new discipline for this body and in a short amount of time my friends from Kentucky and Minnesota have proven to be experts in this field. Likewise, I want to publicly acknowledge Congressman Weldon, Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Andrews for the leadership they have displayed in enhancing our nation's security. This amendment is another example of all our work to increase our emergency preparedness and response capabilities--and I ask all Members for their support. Firefighter Challenges 10,000 fire engines are at least 30 years old. 27,000 fire stations in the country have no back-up power; two-fifths of all departments lack internet access. The majority of portable radios that firefighters use are not water resistant. Currently two-thirds of all fire departments throughout America operate with inadequate staffing. In communities of at least 50,000 people, 38 percent of firefighters are regularly part of a response that is not sufficient to safely respond to a structure fire because of a lack of staffing. This is unconscionable. The Amendment This amendment helps to tackle these problems. It provides an additional $111 million for Firefighter grants. Of this money, $41 million will go to the base Firefighter Grant Program and $70 million will go to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program. This additional funding is $2 million above the FY06 level for these programs. Fire Grants provide money directly to local departments for equipment, training, and safety programs and have been an enormous boost to first responder readiness since its inception. Likewise, the SAFER Act provides annual grants for the purpose of hiring, recruiting and retaining career and volunteer firefighters. To be sure, Congress has made great strides to provide assistance for our firefighters-- but still more needs to be done. There's a reason the FIRE Grant program had 20,300 applications containing close to $3 billion in requested assistance from departments across the country this year. And at a time when local jurisdictions are facing tough budget decisions and departments all across the country are laying off firefighters, this amendment couldn't come at a better time. I implore support from my colleagues.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will help address the preparedness needs of emergency responders at all levels. I appeal to the chairman and I appeal to the ranking member, the preparedness needs of emergency responders, from the State emergency managers down to the rank-and-file first responders, the amendment would add much needed funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, the EMPG, by $40 million, and the SAFECOM program office by $10.3 million. Mr. Chairman, the Emergency Management Performance Grant program is the only source of funding to assist State and local governments with planning and preparedness readiness activities associated with natural disasters. Mr. Chairman, I will also include into the Record letters of support from the major organizations, the National Emergency Management Association and the International Association of Emergency Managers. The latter deals with local and county emergency boards. The EMPG program is the primary source of Federal funding to these State and local governments for planning, training, exercising, hiring personnel. This program is used to support emergency management personnel, natural disaster planning, training and drills, mass evacuation planning, population sheltering and emergency operations. It is critical for State and local governments, emergency management, capacity building. I know that the floor manager knows about this, since the organization is in Lexington, Kentucky, his home area. With hurricane season a week away, it is clear we need to be strengthening our Nation's emergency preparedness capabilities. In fact, a 2004 National Emergency Management Association study found there is approximately $264 million shortfall in the EMPG for all 50 States. This is prior to the enormous emergency brought about through Katrina and Rita. Mr. Chairman, funds could be cut from the office of the DHS chief information officer who received a plus-up of $41 million in funding he didn't even request. The Department never requested this money. I am appealing to the ranking member and to the chairman to take the money that was not requested and put it into an area which affects all of us in every one of the 50 States. The 9/11 Commission report made it clear, Federal funding for interoperable communication should be given the highest priority, and this is what the SAFECOM office is all about. Yet, Project SAFECOM has only five full-time employees. We are talking out of both sides of our mouth here. We need to address this at every level. How can we take seriously their claim that the Department is doing all it can to be prepared for the next emergency when it has not properly staffed Project SAFECOM.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I am going to support this resolution when it comes to a vote tomorrow. I want to take this opportunity, if I may, to speak about some of the issues that have been raised during this very important debate, very critical debate. We have lowered our voices, really, and raised our commitment on all sides of this issue. I represent one of the most diverse districts in the United States of America. When I was mayor of the city that was the center of my district, Paterson, where I have lived all my life, Jews and Arabs and Muslims and Palestinians, we worked together, we prayed together, and we still do. The conflict is very serious, we know that. Building bridges is part of my bone marrow. You learn that when you are a mayor. The conflict in Israel is the axis on which much of the Middle East and much of the Middle East politics spins, but let us not forget that what we do and say here has major implications across the globe. This is true in the Congress, as well as when the President speaks. The United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel as a Jewish state. There is no question that our friend and ally has every right to defend itself against those who oppose freedom and democracy. The record will show very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that I have not put my signature on every one of those pieces of legislation over the past 10 years, but I think this is different. Many of those pieces of legislation I think exacerbated the situation in the Middle East. The ranking member and I have talked about that many times. Not this time. This is a clear denunciation of Hamas, an organization motivated by hate, not pride. The world community harbors deep trepidation regarding the rise of Hamas. Having taken over the government of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas has reiterated its commitment to violence and the destruction of Israel. The charter of Hamas is quite clear about this. I have read that charter time and time again. It is unacceptable, and it is the duty of all nations to keep pressure on Hamas to renounce terrorism and recognize the State of Israel. The resolution before us today is an effective and noteworthy vehicle for the Congress of the United States to send this message. The United States will not give assistance, financial or otherwise, to Hamas or any Hamas-controlled entity. Terrorism cannot be tolerated. We will not treat this government as legitimate as long as their current dangerous policies and rhetoric remain in place. Many of us in the House are in favor of a peaceful, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this will be unattainable while Hamas refuses to renounce terror. We do not want to punish the Palestinian people. We know that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians and the overwhelming majority of American Palestinians and Palestinian Americans do not adhere to the destructive philosophy of Hamas. Hamas must reject its charter which calls for the destruction of Israel. Nothing less is acceptable. The United States must encourage the meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, planned for next week, a very critical time for this legislation, as an important way to keep a dialogue going between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I will vote for this legislation because I feel strongly that the loudest message practicable must be sent to Hamas.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, there is a credit card problem here on the House floor. You know what it would take to balance the budget while preserving these tax cuts? Let's take a look at your budget. To balance the budget by 2016, only 10 years away, while making the tax cuts permanent, you would have to cut Social Security benefits by 45 percent, you would have to cut defense spending by 66 percent, and you would have to cut Medicare by 56 percent. Every other program except Social Security, Medicare, Defense and Homeland Security you would have to cut by 32 percent. Now unless you are prepared to do that, you ought to take a look at the real facts. The President promised that 5.5 million jobs would be created by 2003. Those tax cuts that we passed, that you passed in 2003. Instead, less than half of those jobs ever materialized. If the workforce had only grown with the rate of population since 2001, there would be 3 million more people between the ages of 20 and 65 in the workforce than there is today. Last year, middle-income wages actually grew less than the rate of inflation, reducing their buying power and their ability to grow the economy. That is why the American people are not fooled by your press conferences, by your budgets, by your shenanigans about we want to tax and spend. They don't believe you anymore. Real wages have not grown since the passage of these tax cuts and are now at the level seen all the way back in November of 2001, before the tax cuts. In fact, one could make an argument that the economy would have grown the same if you would have increased taxes. It makes no sense what has happened since 2001. President Bush and the Republican leadership have instituted round after round of reckless tax cuts for the rich, and all they have to show for it is one of the weakest so-called economic recoveries in the Nation's history. That is fact, and I give you those facts, and I hope you chew on them and think about them before you introduce your next budget. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this substitute amendment is that like all fiscally irresponsible Republican budgets it will give large tax cuts for millionaires, while drastically cutting vital domestic programs used by average Americans. It will further grow our national deficit which stands at over $8 trillion, more than $28,000 per American. The truth is that average working Americans are not only getting the tiniest share of the tax cuts; they are also not seeing any signs of an economic recovery. Unlike my Republican colleagues, let me state some facts to support my claim. Fact: The President promised that 5.5 million jobs would be created by his 2003 tax cuts, instead less than half those jobs ever materialized. Fact: If the workforce had only grown with the rate of population since 2001, there would be 3 million more people between the ages of 20 and 65 in the workforce than there is today. Fact: Last year, middle income wages actually grew less than the rate of inflation, reducing their buying power and their ability to grow the economy. Fact: Real wages have not been growing since the passage of these tax cuts and are now at the levels seen all the way back in November 2001. I could state more facts all day and night, but I am limited by time, so let me just state what is abundantly clear: That President Bush and this Republican Congress have instituted round-after-round of reckless tax cuts for the rich and all they have to show for it is one of the weakest so-called economic recoveries in our nation's history and a bloated budget deficit. For shame!

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the SAFE Port Act, and I applaud Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Ms. Harman, Ms. Loretta Sanchez for their tireless work on this critical endeavor. I also want to commend my good friends and their kind remarks this morning, Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson, for the exemplary leadership they have displayed in navigating this bill through the legislative maze that is Capitol Hill, and it is a maze. The urgency of securing our ports cannot be overstated. As the 9/11 Commission noted in their report: ``While commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other models. Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or surface transportation.'' Let us heed the warning. Let this quote linger in our minds as we proceed with our debate today. While this measure wisely addresses a variety of concerns that others have noted, there are several provisions within the bill that are of particular interest, I think. For example, in March, Congressman Frank LoBiondo and I introduced H.R. 4880, the Maritime Terminal Security Enhancement Act. Components of our bill are now included in the SAFE Port Act. We require a port security operator to resubmit a facility security plan for approval upon transfer of ownership or operational control of that facility. Remember that debate a few weeks ago? This is significant. Having this in place will afford the Coast Guard the needed opportunity to question entities, foreign and domestic, on any changes in security they intend to put into effect at the terminals they intend to purchase. Likewise, we have included the requirement that facility security operators and officers are United States citizens, unless the Secretary offers a waiver based on a complete background check and a review of terrorist watch lists. The FSO, the facilities security officer, is the individual with the legal responsibility for all aspects of security at each port. We need to do everything we can to make sure that we have the right people in place for these enormously important and sensitive positions. This language helps in this regard. I am pleased that two amendments I offered with Congressman Dave Reichert were accepted when the Homeland Security Committee marked up this legislation last week. This bill now requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish a training program for local port employees on seaport security force operations, security threats and trends, and evacuation procedures. We have also required DHS to establish an exercise program to test and evaluate the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and foreign governments. Both provisions will enhance our safety and strengthen our security. This legislation by and large is an enormous step in the right direction. The unfortunate part of it, and we have talked to the Chair and we have talked to the ranking member about this, is what happened to the Markey-Nadler amendment mandating 100 percent screening. I hope in the near future that we can come to agreement on this issue. It is sensitive enough, it is important enough that we bring the same bipartisanship that we worked with on this bill to a conclusion and resolution of that most important and specific thing. I hope we can get a commitment from the chairman that we will try to work to that end.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, to the chairman, my good friend from Georgia, I thank you for bringing this to the floor, and the ranking member. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of House Concurrent Resolution 99, legislation designed to bring attention to what I would call an American tragedy, a stealthy thief who can strike anyone at any time without warning and often with devastating consequences. Traumatic brain injury, TBI, is a leading cause of death and disability among young Americans in the United States. As you have just heard, someone will sustain a traumatic brain injury every 21 seconds. We are talking about 1.5 million Americans every year. More than 1.4 million sustain brain injuries, more than the incidence of HIV/AIDS, spinal cord injury, even multiple sclerosis. Fifty thousand of those injured will die; 55 million Americans are living with TBI right now. Think about that, Mr. Speaker. These injuries manifest themselves in a myriad of ways, from a small behavioral change to complete physical disability and even death. Traumatic brain injury costs the country an estimated societal cost of $60 billion every year and, currently, there is no cure. Most of these injuries are due to falls, motor vehicle traffic crashes or violence. Additionally, due to the changing nature of warfare, American troops are suffering TBI at an alarming rate. Individuals with TBI account for 2 percent of the total United States population and represent nearly 10 percent of our Nation's disability population, 10 percent. Yet despite these staggering statistics, lack of public awareness is so vast that TBI remains a silent epidemic plaguing our Nation. The good news is that traumatic brain injury is often preventable. That is why awareness and education are imperative. The resolution before the House today, Mr. Speaker, to designate a National Brain Injury Awareness Month, will work toward enhancing public awareness and give this epidemic and its victims a voice. Former Congressman Jim Greenwood from Pennsylvania and I formed the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force in 2001. Today, that task force, which I chair with my good friend Congressman Platts from Pennsylvania, works to further education and awareness of brain injury, its incidence, its prevalence, its prevention and treatment. The task force also supports funding for basic and applied research on brain injury rehab and the development of a cure. It is my hope that this resolution will encourage Americans to learn more about the long-lasting effects of brain injury and its impact on both the civilian and military communities. The Traumatic Brain Injury Act is the only legislation that specifically addresses issues faced by people who live with long-term disability as a result of traumatic brain injury. It has successfully provided a foundation for coordinated and balanced public policy for people living with TBI and their circles of support. This law is due to be reauthorized. I look forward to continued congressional support to make it happen. Another important Federal program, Mr. Speaker, focused on TBI, traumatic brain injury, is the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. For our Armed Forces, TBI is an important clinical problem in peace and war, and its consequences may extend for many years. The Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center was established in 1992 after Operation Desert Storm. Military doctors are naming traumatic brain injury as the result of a blast the signature wound of the war in Iraq. Because soldiers are now equipped with state-of-the-art body armor, they are living through attacks that troops in past wars were unable to survive. Systemwide, the DVBIC has evaluated over 1,400 military personnel with TBI. Of those troops evacuated to Walter Reed Medical Center, 28 percent had traumatic brain injury. The DVBIC trains combat medics, surgeons, general medical officers and Reservists in the recognition and best practices of TBI care and provides continuity of care from the battlefield to rehab and back to active duty or civilian life. Continued congressional support is vital. Traumatic brain injury is a unique issue, an epidemic so vast it is almost overwhelming and so personal its effects defy definition. Passage of this resolution will confirm our commitment to awareness and education and prevention and research. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 99, to designate a National Brain Injury Awareness Month in support of our common goal, the eradication of traumatic brain injury as a debilitating, costly and deadly plague on humankind. I must say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened over the past 5 or 6 years gives us a tremendous amount of hope in developing that part of the brain which has not been injured to compensate for that part which has been injured. We are truly living in great times.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, a recent General Accounting Office investigation in 2004, which I am holding in my hand, concluded that gasoline refineries have intentionally limited their capacity to keep gasoline prices high and their profits up. You did not write this. I did not write this. This is the General Accounting Office. For the consumers, these higher energy costs are a disaster for their pocketbooks and further stagnates our economy. Now there is a difference here between what your side approaching the problem will do and what our side will do. Question, who is going in the right direction? We have heard that a lot lately. Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said that we are a 21st- century superpower with a third-world transmission grid. Remember that debate a few years ago on utilities and electricity and who got blamed for it? And then we finally discovered that the industry itself was fooling the market and manipulating the market, and those characters are on trial right now. A 21st-century superpower with a third-world refinery infrastructure, and that is what we have come to. This refinery legislation, which I will vote against, which is before us right now is an effort to solidify our dependence on fossil fuel. On one side of our mouth, we are saying we are addicted to oil. On the other side of our mouth, we are saying let us build more refineries, make it easier for more refineries to be built so that we can produce gasoline. You want to streamline the permitting because you want to produce more gasoline from fossil fuel. I must remind you that in a report presented by the Rocky Mountain Institute in 2004, it was very specific: America's energy future is a choice, not our fate. Oil dependence is a problem we need not have, and it is cheaper not to. When the United States last paid attention to the oil efficiency problem was between 1977 and 1985. Oil use fell 17 percent; gross product went up 27 percent. During those 8 years, oil imports fell 50 percent and imports from the Persian Gulf fell by 87 percent. That exercise of market muscle broke OPEC's pricing power for a decade. Look, the other side, in all due respect, you have made your bed. You have got to lie in it now. And you are trying to get out of it, but you are doing it in the wrong way. This bill does nothing to increase refinery capacity in the first place, and it certainly does not help in lowering gas prices. We have done a disservice to the American people, and we only confuse the issue. We are either addicted to oil or we are not. And if we are, let us go in a different direction. Please join us. Call it what you will: price-gouging, profiteering, or simple old fashioned greed. Oil companies have the greatest corporate profits in history, yet they were able to stiff taxpayers over $7 billion in royalties that they owe us for drilling on public lands. But the jig is finally up. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you believe collusion is the cause of the high gas prices or not. No matter how you define it, what we have witnessed in the past several months is the looting of the American public. And don't take my word for it--a recent report by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights found that corporate markups are primarily responsible for price spikes, not crude oil costs or the national switchover to ethanol, as the industry has claimed. In this crisis, we hear echoes of Enron--hotshot oilmen departing their companies with golden parachutes, while average Americans live on the edge, some so desperate they are intentionally breaking down on highways to receive a free tank of gas. President Bush and the leadership in Congress don't have dismal approval ratings merely because they don't have skilled public relations flaks. They have dismal approval ratings because the vast majority of Americans recognize that something has gone very wrong in this country. Despite the recent political posturing, the Administration has dedicated its time in office to protecting the oil industry from any restrictions or oversight at all--and that is what has led us to where we are today. We need to get serious about this issue. We cannot just clamor for change when gas prices are high, and return to a passive stupor if prices settle down again. Remember, this is not only about our pocketbooks. Americans have come to believe that we have fought one war too many in the Persian Gulf--at least partially to ensure a continuous supply of foreign oil. Now is the time for leadership to get us started down the path of real energy independence. Let us live up to our responsibility today--let's reign in the bloated oil companies and protect the public from economic catastrophe. Let us invest in far-sighted renewable energy and conservation programs, so that we will never again sacrifice our precious blood and treasure to slake this terrible thirst for Middle Eastern oil.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman, since he is referring to me?

Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PASCRELL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PASCRELL. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina stays on the floor. You know, I am dismayed because this is the first time in a long time that this branch has upped the President's ante. This budget, the scheme that you defend, might be the only budget proposal in the world which actually manages to be worse than the President's original budget. I want to congratulate you. And that is exactly why the American people have no confidence in your ability to govern any longer. This 5-year budget scheme will only exacerbate the current regressive tax policies which tax income at a higher rate than assets. You talk about productivity in the last 5 years? Yes, productivity has increased by 8 percent, and wages are flat, flat, flat. Income from work from average Americans can easily be taxed at twice the marginal rate as the income from wealth from millionaires. You sit there and you stand there and you defend those millionaire tax cuts. Donald Trump is taxed less on all of his investments than Barry the accountant is taxed on his middle income wages. I am a member of Homeland Security, Mr. Chairman, and let me tell you something, I just heard this budget defended in terms of port security when we know that CBO says that all three major programs are underfunded and the goods that are coming into this country are not screened or examined properly. We had a meeting on it yesterday in case you missed the news. The reckless tax policies of this budget will only continue to balloon our national debt, which currently stands at over $8 trillion. And they stand and defend this, these austere conservatives. This budget scheme will add an additional $2.3 trillion in debt over 5 years. And by the way, there is no scientific evidence, none whatsoever, that documents any essential relationship between the tax cuts you have defended to those making over $200,000 and the improvement in the economy. Nada, nothing, zero. And yet you keep on referring to this great economy. Why don't the American people feel this great economy? Why do just you feel this great economy? In total, extending the President's tax cuts for the wealthy will cost $196 billion over only 5 years and $2.5 trillion over 10 years, the end result of which is fiscal madness; that a millionaire gets a tax cut of over $150,000 a year while middle income taxpayers only get a few hundred dollars. We support those tax cuts to the middle income and to those who are the working poor. We support increasing the strength of the EITC, the Earned Income Tax Credit, which your President Ronald Reagan put together and this President has tried to zero out. You don't want to help people working. You don't want people to work. You want to harp about public assistance. We want to keep people at work. The Earned Income Tax Credit has not increased, and you should be ashamed of yourselves what you have done to the middle class and what you have done to the poor and burdened their children for generations to come. I thank the chairman for his courtesy.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday congressional Democrats unveiled our detailed agenda to fully secure our Nation. Since 9/11, we have worked to make America safer, and we have attempted to work in a nonpartisan way, the record will show. Immediately after 9/11, myself and some Democrats were given the assignment to structure ways of improving our intelligence, aiding our first responders, and securing our infrastructure. And really it is unconscionable that some Republicans, some, have said that this party had to wait till yesterday to provide an agenda. I don't know where they have been for the last 4 years. This is absolutely unacceptable. We pushed for a Homeland Security Department. We wanted a secretary to sit at the table and be part of the Cabinet. The independent 9/11 Commission gave President Bush failing grades on America's preparedness. Dirty bombs and other deadly materials are still able to enter the United States through unsecured ports and airports. The administration has failed to meet the basic needs. Democrats have a plan. We will implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We will improve border security; invest in mass transit security; fully man, train and equip first responders; and we will screen 100 percent of the containers before they come into this country. Mr. Speaker, we will make America safer.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, March 25, came and went, and not enough of us took notice of its significance. March 25, 1911, was the anniversary of the tragic Triangle Fire, an event that truly encapsulated the lengths to which industrial greed was allowed to operate at the expense of the American worker. When the fire had subsided, 146 of the 600 Triangle factory workers were dead in New York City. Many workers jumped to their deaths from eighth, ninth and tenth floors rather than face the searing flames. But the harsh reality of working in a sweatshop was their lives. The Triangle factory had never conducted a fire drill, had locked doors, poor sanitation, crowding, all symptoms that contributed to the high death toll. It would be easy to believe that the Triangle Fire was a tragedy of the past, but the horrifying truth is that tragedies like Triangle are occurring throughout the world: 188 workers were killed on May 10, 1993, in Thailand when the factory of a toy company went up in flames; 52 workers were killed on November 25 of 2000 in a fire at a garment factory near Dhaka, Bangladesh. This is what happens when we try to Wal-Mart America. Think of it the next time you buy something off their shelves.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Waxman, Mr. Dent, and Mr. Davis for their help in bringing this resolution honoring the life of Wellington Mara to the floor. This is not about sports, though. This is about a gentleman in sports who lived his life on and off the field as an outstanding American. With the retirement of Paul Tagliabue as the commissioner of the NFL, I hope this is not an era that is passing because this is an era which was an inspiration to all professional sports, and we will miss them all. I rise today in strong support of this resolution honoring Mr. Mara, a fellow Fordham University alumnus who passed away just a short time ago at the age of 89. He is survived by his wonderful wife, Ann, four sons, seven daughters, 41 grandchildren, and the family has been recently blessed with his first great grandchild. He was not always on the football field. To football fans of the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, Mara is synonymous with our beloved New York Giants, the team he owned for most of his life. Born in the city on August 14, 1916, Mara was introduced to professional football at an early age, as was just stated a few times. He would later recount a story from that inaugural season of overhearing head coach Robert Folwell telling his team to ``give them hell out there.'' It was at that moment that this 9-year-old young man realized how tough football is, and fell in love with the game forever. In 1930, Timothy Mara, Wellington's father, gave the team to his two sons. Jack was 22 years of age, and Wellington was 14. That is pretty remarkable. He became the youngest owner in the league. In the late 1930s, Wellington Mara attended Fordham University, my alma mater. That was when Fordham had a proud team, a team that went on to great heights: the seven blocks of granite, Vince Lombardi. He befriended Vince Lombardi. Upon graduation, Mara joined the New York Giants as a full-time member of the team. With his brother in charge of the business, Wellington soon took control of all player personnel decisions. That is why even though there have been many problems in the NFL, like many sports, there is something very different about the National Football League. It is a family operation and the more it becomes that, the more we avoid the problems and pitfalls we have seen in organized sports. He integrated the Giants at a time when much of the league remained all white. He drafted running back Frank Gifford and offensive tackle Roosevelt Brown and then traded for quarterback Y.A. Tittle, all future Hall of Famers. He was the architect of the dominant Giant teams of 1958-1963. No one surpassed him, paralleled perhaps by Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers. During World War II, Mara briefly left his beloved Giants and joined the Navy. He served in the Atlantic and the Pacific theaters. He earned the rank of lieutenant commander. He returned to the Giants following the war. In the early 1960s the Giants were the most valuable franchise in the league, and television was the next great revenue stream. You have already heard, Mr. Chairman, how we shared the revenue to make sure that the league survived. In the late 1970s, Mara further strengthened the team by hiring George Young as the general manager, who became the architect of the dominant Giant teams of the late 1980s. All told, in Mara's 81 years, 81 years with one football team, they appeared in 26 post seasons, won 16 division championships and six NFL titles. Those six championships represent the third most, as my friend from Pennsylvania pointed out. In 1972, Fordham University inducted Mara into the Athletic Hall of Fame, and in 2002, he was honored at the Fordham Founders Dinner, the university's highest honor. In 1997, Mara was introduced into the National Football League Hall of Fame, an honor he reluctantly accepted. He believed that since players and coaches made the game great, the Hall of Fame should be reserved for them and not for owners. Mara was so highly regarded by his fellow owners that just yesterday the National Football League renamed their official game ball ``The Duke,'' the nickname given to Mara as a child by the New York Giants players. I am proud to have authored House Resolution 517 honoring the life and work of Wellington Timothy Mara. I respectfully urge my colleagues join me and support the passage of this resolution of not only a great football player, great owner, but a darn great human being.