Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, I agree with what the chairman is saying, but many times we put the cart before the horse. We do not have a universal vulnerability and risk assessment, and perhaps we are spending money in the wrong places. This is a problem. A better method would be a bottom-up approach. Security decisions should be made by evaluating what each airport needs, what each airport needs to screen passengers and baggage effectively and efficiently. It would seem that should be our priority. The reason why I believe the threshold should be taken away and not suggesting another number to take its place is that you have a very difficult period in air travel coming up, Mr. Chairman. The summer travel season gets busier and busier. People are going to wonder why lines are getting longer and longer. I do not know if the TSA is prepared to act accordingly and quickly, to be very honest. Because of the provision that this amendment addresses, the TSA simply does not have the manpower to do the job. The federalization of airport passenger screeners has been a rocky road, but this cap has only added to the problems. It has hurt the ability of the TSA to manage the problem areas such as the mile-long lines at Atlanta's Hartfield Airport. The Congress has mandated 100 percent electronic screening of checked baggage at several airports this year; the electronic baggage mandate was not met due to a glaring lack of screeners.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I can agree with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on much of what he has said. Deployment and manpower must work hand in hand. So you have in some airports too few screeners. You have other airports, as the gentleman has described it, too many. However, when you look at the attrition rate, and I would ask the chairman to look at this please, there is so much of a turnover, that that is causing, as the numbers that I have studied, an insufficient amount of screeners many times at many airports. And that is why I support the DeFazio amendment.

Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his support of this amendment, for all the hard work he has put into bringing this bill to the floor, and likewise I want to publicly acknowledge the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the exemplary leadership they displayed on behalf of the firefighters and fire community all of these years, as well as for their tireless efforts in navigating the newly established SAFER program through Capitol Hill. Indeed, this amendment helps us fulfill our promise to the firefighters nationwide. The dangerous crisis of inadequate staffing in our Nation's fire departments must be confronted head on. This amendment does exactly that. While we all know the statistics, I think they are disturbing enough to warrant further discussion. Two-thirds of all fire departments throughout America operate with inadequate staffing, and we are talking about career and volunteer departments. In communities of at least 50,000 people, 38 percent of the firefighters are regularly part of a response that is not sufficient to safely initiate an interior attack on a structure fire. Twenty-one percent of rural departments are often unable to deliver the four firefighters needed to safely initiate an interior attack. This is not acceptable. The firefighters whose bravery and valor protect our Nation deserve all that we can present here. The consequences of insufficient personnel levels often lead to tragic heartbreaking results, Mr. Chairman, and it is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. This amendment, which appropriates $50 million to the SAFER program to provide grants to help hire, recruit, retain career and volunteer firefighters, is vital in this regard. Again I would like to thank the chairman and all the members of the Fire Caucus for the support shown towards this amendment, and I wish to thank firefighters for everything that they do day in and day out.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to affirm my support for the image of Alexander Hamilton to remain on the face of the $10 bill. Paterson, New Jersey, a city characterized by its Great Falls, is a great city that was transformed by Hamilton to serve as one of America's first industrial centers. I have lived there all my life. I still live there. I would like to share some of the knowledge that I have obtained about Alexander Hamilton. He arrived in America as a poor immigrant from the Caribbean island of Nevis. He attended school in New York and became involved in the American Revolution, was a great general in the battles of Trenton, Princeton, and Monmouth, and indeed at the battle of Yorktown, which was the turning point of the Revolutionary War. For those who read history, George Washington turned to him. He was his trusted aide. Hamilton wrote 51 of the Federalist Papers. In 1789, Hamilton served in George Washington's administration, and was the first Secretary of the Treasury. His innovative mind afforded him the opportunity to use his new position to provide Americans with financial machinery, including banks. Ronald Reagan, our dearly beloved former President, was correct when he called Alexander Hamilton ``a man of enormous intellectual capacity and courage.'' Mr. Speaker, I challenge those proponents who want to change the image on the $10 bill not to a duel, but for a little sanity here on the floor of the House.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on June 14, 2004 and June 15, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: ``aye'' on rollcall vote 232, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 233, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 234, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 235, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 236, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 237, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 238, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 239, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 240, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 241, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 242.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Charlie, you have served your country and you have served this wonderful House. At a time when we have lost something in terms of ritual and ceremony, you have always brought us back to reality. Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be very proud of you. Our laws and our rules are based upon what he wrote. We were brought together 8 years ago when I came into this House by a mutual friend. It was the right move. The first person I met on this floor was Charlie Johnson. And I know you have wished well your successor. I know he will do well. I know John will do very well. This is a great institution, Charlie, and we will never forget how you served your country.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, a quote: ``I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. There is no timetable, there is no legitimate definition of victory, there is no contingency plan for mission creep, there is no clear funding program, there is no agenda to bolster our overextended military, there is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake.'' Who said that? Not a Democrat, but the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), said that on March 28 of 1999. I say, end calling those people who ask questions unpatriotic. Read your own history. Read your own legacy. This is a disgrace, what you did in 1999, and then you accuse us when we ask a question. Read your own literature.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in very strong support of H.R. 3939. This bill is to redesignate a postal facility in Fair Lawn, New Jersey in honor of Mary Ann Collura, a wonderful, wonderful woman who I knew personally, a brave officer who was shot down in the line of duty while protecting her hometown and coming to the assistance of another police officer from another town. She was in every sense of the word a first responder all the time, every day. I want to congratulate my neighboring Congressman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), on moving this forward. Mary Ann Collura defied the odds. She lived her dream by becoming Fair Lawn's first female law enforcement officer. She set her mind to doing it, and she did it. Officer Collura was a credit to her community, partly because she broke the mold by becoming that first female police officer, and partly because she served an impressive 18 years. But her greatest quality was her attachment and proven dedication to the community of Fair Lawn. She grew up there. She knew that community, and she loved it, and they loved her. No citizen can ask for more from their community police officers. This was a woman whose service was not restricted by the hours that she worked. When Mary Ann Collura was in Fair Lawn, on duty or not on duty, the public could depend on her vigilance. Many in my town of Patterson knew all about how she cared. We even called her ``Ma.'' Some of my favorite stories about Mary Ann's heroism revolve around her willingness to face fires. Though she was not a firefighter, Mary Ann had that firefighter instinct, was never hesitant to enter a burning building in order to protect her community. She once saved an elderly woman that was trapped in a burning house following a cooking accident. On April 17, 2003, the day Mary Ann was killed, she was assisting an officer from Clifton, New Jersey, police officer Steven Farrell. Once the apprehended suspect left the district and reached Fair Lawn, the suspect abandoned his car and started to run by foot. Officer Farrell and Officer Collura attempted to pursue and arrest the suspect. Four shots were fired, both officers were shot, but it was Officer Collura who suffered fatal wounds. Mary Ann Collura's story is humbling. I will never forget the help that she lent to Officer Farrell and the Clifton Police Department. Officer Collura made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure the safety of her loving community, and it is for this that we honor her. Naming a post office after Officer Collura is only a small token of our deep appreciation. It is my hope that the redesignation will provide that her name and inspiring story will always be remembered. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this fitting tribute to Officer Collura. As the story that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) shared with me earlier this afternoon, someday in the future, that little child will be walking past this Post Office with his parents and will ask, what is that name all about, and the parents will know and will tell the story of Mary Ann Collura. God bless her and her family, and God bless this Congress.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Connecticut has spoken somewhat of the truth, but the anecdotal stories that have been presented on the floor are only an indication of all of the things that are happening throughout the United States, and if we really care about shifting the burden of the alternative minimum tax right now up the scale rather than trying to burden the middle class, then we should do this and be honest with the American people and tell us what the effects are of all the taxes, because we are giving with one hand and we are taking back with the other hand. Today presents us with yet another cynical ploy of gimmicks and illusions masquerading as long-term tax policy. Indeed, despite the widespread acknowledgment of the urgency for preventing large swaths of the middle class from being sucked into the alternative minimum tax over the next decade, neither the administration nor the leaders in the House or the Senate are willing to propose permanent relief. Why is that? Is it because some of my friends do not want to acknowledge the overall cost of the AMT? Is it because some of my friends want to make our tragic budget situation seem less grim? Was the decision to provide AMT relief for only 1 year designed to understate the cost of other tax cuts enacted, as well as various pending tax cut proposals, including those to make 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent? I think we all know the answers to the questions. We should. It is unfortunate. For over 3 years, this body has employed deceptive budget stratagems to force through politically infused tax cuts that threaten our Nation's long-term fiscal health, and so it continues. We should all vote for the Rangel substitute. We should all say enough burden on the middle class. This bill is reported to cost a relatively modest $17 million, but if we extend it as expected, its actual long-term costs are much higher. Why do we not tell the American public what it will cost, since we want to stretch out the permanent tax cuts for another 10 years? Why do we not tell them what it is going to cost? We do not want to do that because folks are going to ring back and say, oh, my God, that is a lot of money. Indeed, by proposing a 1-year fix to a perpetual problem, H.R. 4227 purposely obscures not just the long-term costs but also the other tax cuts recently enacted.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, page 23 of the Times today, the headline says, ``Agency Sees Withholding of Medicare Data From Congress As Illegal.'' That is pretty serious business. So we have finally secret documents. We have backroom deals. We have intimidation and misinformation. We have threats. We have exclusion, possible bribery, propaganda, lying. I am not referring to the KGB, I am not referring to the Chinese authorities, I am not referring to Napoleon's France, a medieval court, or Imperial Rome. No, there are elements of government scandal right here in the Medicare issue. All of these things describe a significant role in the narrow passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill. Members may wonder here who, in the United States of America, the freest country in the world, would employ such tactics to pass a controversial Medicare law; the Bush administration, that is who. The White House position of win at any cost eventually did lead to the new law, but what was the cost? The cost has been the credibility and reputation not only of the administration but that of the Congress, the integrity of this institution and the entire law-making process. The American people must ask themselves, is this how my government actually works? Everyone knew a Medicare prescription drug benefit was going to be expensive. To the end, the Bush administration assured Congress their plan would cost $400 billion. However, it has since been discovered that the White House knew 6 months before the vote that their bill had a price tag of $140 billion more, a slight error of $140 billion. Further, it has been reported that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, their administrator, remember this name, Tom Scully, he since has gone and found himself a lobbying job. Well, old Tom threatened to fire the chief actuary who was responsible for calculating the cost of the bill. The actuary's name was Richard Foster. If he had made this information available to congressional Democrats, he was going to be fired. At the time, Mr. Scully was negotiating with health care interests that had large financial stakes in the Medicare bill. Not only about the bill though, Mr. Scully. That is not to say Mr. Scully was in this alone. Last month, Mr. Scully told members of the Committee on Ways and Means that he had shared the information with Doug Badger, President Bush's health policy adviser, who is right in the White House, and James Capretta, associate director of the Office of Management and Budget, his analysis that the Medicare legislation would exceed its target goal. Not only was this underhanded, not only was it deceitful, but according to the Congressional Research Service, this gag order was against the law, and they made this public just yesterday. There has been a violation of the law, and this House has done nothing, nor has the other House, nor have the folks down the street. When you break the law, something should happen. According to the report, Congress' ``right to receive truthful information from Federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable.'' That is what it says. The issuance by an officer or employee in a department or agency of the Federal Government of a gag order on subordinate employees to expressly prevent and prohibit those employees from communicating directly with Members of Congress or the committees of Congress would appear to violate a specific and express prohibition of Federal law. McGrain v. Dougherty, a 1927 Supreme Court decision, states very clearly, as it does in other Supreme Court decisions, legislative bodies cannot legislate wisely or effectively, in the absence of information regarding conditions which the legislation is intended to effect or change. That decision by the Supreme Court goes back to 1927. Thus, ``Political gamesmanship must yield to the clear public interest of providing the people's elected representatives in the Congress with accurate and truthful information.'' Mr. Speaker, they have broken the law. I come to this floor always with bipartisan hands open. My legislation will show that. The gloves are off. Mr. Speaker, you have been lied to; we have been lied to. The question is, what will we do about it? The question is, do not the American people deserve more, and should the people demand more from us, regardless of which side we are on? We did not know all of the facts, and that bill would not have passed if we did know all of the facts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 134, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). I think they should be commended for the great job they have done given the absurdly arbitrary constraints they were forced to work under. They have done a terrific job. I mean that sincerely. After decades of investments to meet an expanding Nation and a growing population, the gentleman from New Jersey, who 12 years ago, 13 years ago started the whole process of TEA 21, Congressman Bob Roe from the eighth district, is very happy with the work, I am sure, that we have done over the last several months. I supported TEA LU because it was the right thing to do. This administration has threatened a veto. We shall see what we shall see. In terms of family-wage job creation, in terms of reducing congestion, in terms of remaining competitive with other nations, I believe we are missing a great opportunity to make a difference in our economic future. As the process moves forward, we must band together and fight for a better bill. I believe we will. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention, the chairman's attention, one of what I consider the very important provisions that will be included in the manager's amendment: the Department of Transportation should give priority to those public transit projects which add to our system of national defense. Historically, we built our highway system for national defense. We made many needed changes to our aviation system to improve its ability to withstand threats to national security. 9/11 highlighted for those of us living with families in the tri-state area, for instance, how dependent we are on our Nation's transportation system, particularly in a time of crisis. According to the report of the National Academies on ``Making the Nation Safer, the Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism,'' the ability to quickly recover and reconstitute transportation systems and services is crucial for limiting the cascading effects of terrorist attacks. We cannot overstate the importance of mass transportation and mass transit to moving people safely at critical times and places. I want to thank the manager for addressing the essence of the national security amendment I offered in committee. We are authorizing a study in this bill to look at the value of public transportation systems, the value placed on national security in project planning. It will also examine the ability of such systems to accommodate the evacuation from critical locations and in times of emergency. The information we learn should assist metropolitan areas in the development of the regional emergency response plans that coordinate highway and public transportation systems. I am hopeful the results will ensure that transit agencies and the TSA are looking at response plans in terms of a comprehensive vulnerability assessment.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend Mr. LoBiondo. What Mr. LoBiondo has put forward is a common sense measure that is long overdue. Our home state of New Jersey has recently enacted John's Law, which allows police agencies to impound the vehicles of drunken drivers. John's Law is named after Navy Ensign John Elliott. John was driving from Annapolis to his home in Atlantic County, New Jersey for his mother's birthday. En route, his car was struck by a drunken driver. Both Elliott and the other driver were killed. Three hours earlier, the other driver had been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. He was released into the custody of a friend, who drove him back to his car and allowed him to get behind the wheel. This tragedy brought attention to a loophole in State law which has since been corrected. The LoBiondo amendment would not mandate any action by the states. Rather, we hope it will encourage them to impound vehicles of DWI drivers as another important tool in the arsenal of alcohol-impaired countermeasures. If someone is arrested for drunk driving, it is logical that they not be allowed to get right back behind the wheel of their car, endangering other drivers. Police and public safety groups in New Jersey have praised this policy and I hope that other states will do the right thing by enacting similar laws that will save lives. On a personal level, I want to recognize the efforts of Bill Elliott, John's father, who has not rested in his work to ensure that such a tragedy would never be repeated. Passage of the LoBiondo amendment will help Bill in his quest for better public policy. We can all hope for a day when what happened to the Elliott family will never happen to other families. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and I thank my friend for bringing this laudable policy before the House.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate not only the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) from my own side, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). They have done a great job in homeland security. We can be fiscally responsible and still protect the country. That is possible if we are smart, if we put our house in order, if we understand what our priorities are. I want everybody in these Chambers to go home this weekend, regardless of where they sit, and go to your fire chief and go to your police chief, and you explain how you cut their budget and you expect them to protect the people in their cities and their towns and in the rural areas. How dare you pat them on the back and then pull the rug right out from under them? The most successful program, 285 cosponsors, was the FIRE Act. They cut it one-third. They say that this is fiscally responsible. The most successful part of the public safety equation, the COPS program, that put more cops on the streets in the cities, in the small and large towns of this great Nation, brought the crime rate down. How dare they cut that program? They zeroed it out. The most important problem with fire departments is interoperability, one department cannot communicate with another department. They have got zero in the budget. Yet they stand and tell the American people and tell their firefighters and they tell their police officers and they tell the people in their towns that they are protecting them. It does not jive. It does not jive. And those are the numbers, Mr. Chairman. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. So I want you to go home this weekend and I want you to go to your local police department and I want you to go to your local fire department, I want you to go to your EMTs; and you explain what you are trying to do in this budget.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Mr. Hyde and Mr. DeLay, the authors of House Resolution 557, for crafting legislation that truly exemplifies naked political strategy. This vapid proposal of phony patriotism does nothing to address the urgent concerns that are permeating the world stage. Instead of seeking real solutions to the problems our troops are confronting; instead of taking the time to exercise judicious oversight to remedy the hardships that are being faced--we are instead spending a significant amount of our time indulging ourselves with legislation that ultimately does not help anyone. And we are doing this today as Baghdad burns. How typical. 550 American service men and women have been killed in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Our Nation's reputation has been damaged to such an extent that former allies now have populations consumed with anti-American fervor. Instead of affirming that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy--which we all know--shouldn't we be spending our time trying to decipher why the central arguments for a pre-emptive war appear to have been based on inaccurate intelligence? Shouldn't we be examining reports regarding how Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi fed misinformation about Weapons of Mass Destruction to the United States government and investigate why the Pentagon is still paying him $340,000 a month? Instead of proclaiming that the world is safer shouldn't we be analyzing the terrorist attacks in Spain that occurred last week? And while each and every single Member of Congress is awed and thankful for the bravery and valor of our men and women in the Armed Services, shouldn't we be discussing what we can do to help alleviate the daily deaths and bloodshed that they face? And shouldn't we, at some stage, focus our attention on Afghanistan as well? Wouldn't real action by Congress honor our military more than this? Wouldn't real action be more patriotic? Surely the leadership in the House of Representatives can focus on more important work than a celebratory resolution?

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an epidemic plaguing our Nation--violence against women. Too often we hear appalling statistics highlighting this fact; particularly regarding cases of domestic violence. Nearly one-third of American women report being physically or sexually assaulted by a husband or boyfriend during their lifetime. The violence is not limited to adult women: One in five high school girls reports being abused by a dating partner. In 2002 in my home State of New Jersey there were 79,844 domestic violence offenses reported by the police. Women were the victims in over 77 percent, or 61,715, of all these domestic violence offenses. In New Jersey, one act of domestic violence occurs every 6 minutes and 35 seconds. In Passaic County, New Jersey there were 4,892 reported cases of domestic violence. The numbers are shocking. The crimes: heinous--3 Homicides, 6 Criminal Sexual Contacts, 2,825 Assaults, 280 Criminal Mischief cases, 469 Terroristic Threats, 48 Burglaries, 8 Kidnappings, 23 Criminal Trespass cases, 6 Criminal Restraint cases, 1,183 Harassment cases, 3 False Imprisonments, 20 Stalking cases, and 18 Sexual Assaults. Women were the victims in at least 3,767 of these cases. We have a responsibility to reverse these unacceptable statistics. The women of Passaic County, of New Jersey and the entire Nation, deserve better. No woman should live in fear of domestic violence. In addition to the terror, domestic violence is a serious health care issue that affects thousands of women and their children. The health- related cost of domestic violence against women exceeds $5.8 billion each year. Health care providers are on the front lines of the battle as they often identify domestic violence and provide victims with care and support. That is why I support the Domestic Violence Screening, Treatment and Prevention Act, which would provide research on the health impact and prevention of family violence; training for health care professionals regarding identification and treatment for families experiencing family violence; and health care coverage for domestic violence identification and treatment. There is great need for both women and men to join together to speak out and stop the violence. Stop the violence against women. As a Congress, as a Nation, we must work to protect the rights of women and ensure that they have the support and services necessary.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the gentleman from California's (Mr. Honda) resolution and thank the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing it to the floor. At sometime or another, we have all heard the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller. We know he was commenting on an unspeakable time when throughout Europe the Nazis were rounding up those they did not want in their model society. But do his words ring true for the United States as well? He said, ``First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.'' Under the Roosevelt-signed Executive Order 9066, American citizens of Japanese descent and Japanese residents of the United States were prohibited from living, working, or traveling on the west coast of the United States. It sounds almost foreign to us in America. EO 9066 ultimately led to the detention of 120,000 Japanese Americans and residents, most of whom did not see freedom until the closing days of World War II. That executive order also resulted in restrictions upon the civil liberties of Italian Americans and German Americans residing in the United States during World War II, including government-imposed curfews, prohibition on items considered to be contraband by military authorities, and seizures of personal property. In the Korematsu case that challenged Japanese internment camps, even our United States Supreme Court failed our right to freedom, despite those words ``Equal Justice Under Law'' engraved on the facade. Thankfully, over the past 62 years, this order has been revoked and the Federal Government has tried to make amends. We owe a debt of gratitude to our Greatest Generation in protecting our freedom and democracy abroad; however, we cannot forget that in some respects democracy failed us at home in 1942. The freedom we fought for was not shared by many Americans during that time. Today's resolution reaffirms the importance of the National Day of Remembrance on February 19 to educate the public about the internment. But let this resolution also remind us to never repeat the mistakes of the past. We must stand up for freedom for all Americans, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, or religion. It is vital now not only because it is right and the human thing to do, but for self-interest as well.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, and I want to also congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). I think this is an important resolution, and let us get back to the focus of what the resolution says. The Drug Enforcement Agency offers countless examples of heroic action and achievement. I am honored to offer my whole-hearted support and thanks to the men and women of this extraordinarily important Federal agency. Our Nation is constantly under threat from the scourge of illegal drugs, and with every strata of our social structure victimized in some way by the hazards of narcotics, the work formed by the DEA is absolutely vital. It is many times a thankless, grueling work performed by public servants who oftentimes put themselves in harm's way for the public's good. Throughout its history the Drug Enforcement Agency employees have given their lives in defense of their Nation. Many other employees have been wounded or injured in the line of duty. My mind flashes back to the late 1980s when an agent from North Jersey, Everett Hatcher, was assassinated in Staten Island in a horrendous, heinous crime defending his country addressing the terror. Talk about terror, let us talk about the terror of drugs. Every American owes these men and women a debt of extreme thanks, especially in light of the success DEA has accomplished. Between 1986 and 2002 alone, DEA agents seized over 10,000 kilograms of heroin, 900 kilograms of cocaine, 4.6 million kilograms of marijuana, 113 million dosage units of hallucinogens, and 1.5 billion dosage units of methamphetamines, and made over 443,000 arrests of drug traffickers. Of course, where there is no market, there is no sale, I say to the gentleman from Texas. We know that. The war on drugs starts in our homes. The war on drugs starts in our own medicine cabinets and our own liquor cabinets. There is no denying that. It does not start in the offices of my Federal agency. Law enforcement is only part of the answer. There is not a person in this Chamber who does not agree with that, but that is a given. Solutions are worthy for study of debate, and I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for putting this on the floor. Perhaps this is not the time, but when is the time? I appreciate that. Foreign policy does impact illicit drug use. We know it is coming out of Afghanistan, a lawless country. When the American people find out what is going on in Afghanistan, they are not going to be very happy, are they? We appreciate that. But this is not the time for the debate so much on policy or whether medical marijuana is something that we can consider as a Nation. This is a time that we focus on an agency who has done what we have asked them to do. They have done what we have asked them to do, and they have put themselves in harm's way. We have heard the word ``terror'' used many times. We have heard it used in State of the Union addresses by many Presidents, but there is no greater terror than the terror of illicit drug use and sales in this country or any other country. It saps our energy and it saps our will, but it must begin in our homes. I salute the DEA. I wish I could say, Mr. Speaker, the same for many of our homes.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, on February 4, 2004, I was not able to be in attendance during rollcall votes 15 through 18. I have deep concerns about H.R. 3030 which would permit organizations that receive public funds to discriminate in hiring based on religion. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' for rollcall vote 15, ``yes'' for rollcall vote 16, ``yes'' for rollcall vote 17, and ``yes'' for rollcall vote 18.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the life and work of an exceptional individual who I have long been proud to call my friend, Fire Chief Louis Imparato. On Tuesday, November 25, 2003, members of the City of Passaic (NJ) Fire Department joined together with the F.M.B.A. to celebrate Chief Imparato's retirement. During his tenure as Fire Chief, Lou Imparato used his position of leadership to serve as a powerful voice for the fire services both at home and in Washington, DC. It is therefore only fitting that Chief Imparato be recognized in this, the permanent record of the greatest freely elected body on earth. Over the past 35 years, Lou Imparato has tirelessly served the men, women, and children of the City of Passaic. Appointed to the fire department on January 8, 1968, Lou rapidly advanced up the chain of command until 1988, when he was named Deputy Chief. Three short years later, Lou became Passaic's Fire Chief--a position that he has held with distinction for the past twelve years. Mr. Speaker, perhaps Chief Lou's greatest achievement and lasting legacy was his work in helping me to draft the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act. Early in my career in Congress, Lou came to me at one of our many meetings addressing public safety needs and asked why the Federal government spent nearly zero dollars supporting our Nation's 32,000 career, volunteer, and combination fire departments. I did not have a good answer for him, so we began to investigate what could be done. Together, we drafted the FIRE Act--the first ever comprehensive Federal commitment to local fire departments. I introduced the legislation in Congress and, after a massive lobbying effort from fire departments across the country, it passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, creating the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. In its first 3 years of existence, the program has distributed over $1.2 billion directly to fire departments across the country from equipment, training, and other fire prevention activities. Chief Lou's own department in Passaic has already received close to $200,000 through the program. The passage of the FIRE Act, which will help fire departments across the country better serve their communities for years to come, has been one of my greatest achievements while in Congress. I trust that Chief Imparato feels the same way about this piece of history-making legislation because we accomplished it together. Fire departments across the Nation will long owe Lou an immense debt of gratitude for his inspired work. Committed to enhancing the work environment for firefighters throughout the State of New Jersey as well as on the national level, Lou served for 3 years as the President of the Local F.M.B.A., and for 10 years as the Local F.M.B.A. State Delegate. His great dedication and personal valor has been widely noted by the people he has served and by his peers--most notably when the New Jersey State F.M.B.A. honored him by asking him to serve as the Chairman of their Valor Awards Dinner. As you can see, every aspect of Chief Imparato's life's work epitomizes the noble spirit of selfless service that we all strive to achieve. The sense of excellence and initiative that has driven Lou's life work has made him living proof that those who dedicate themselves to helping others are among the most valued and loved members of the community. Mr. Speaker, the job of a United States Congressman involves so much that is rewarding, yet nothing compares to recognizing the efforts of public servants like Lou Imparato. I ask that you join our colleagues, the men and women of the City of Passaic, fire departments across the country, and me in recognizing the invaluable service of Chief Louis Imparato.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for H.R. 2673 allows disastrous overtime regulations to go through, bows to pressure on FCC media ownership regulations, contains inadequate funding for the manufacturing extension partnership, and includes a flawed public school vouchers program. I have opposed all of these provisions in past votes. While I have strong concerns about these and other provisions contained in and left out of this omnibus appropriations bill, had I been in attendance, I would have cast an ``aye'' vote on rollcall No. 676 in support of the many important programs this bill funds. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 677, the motion to table the Democratic Leader's Privileged Resolution.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the epitome of hypocrisy from the gentleman from California when he tried to interrupt the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and he would not let the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) into the room and the likes of the leadership. If this is not hypocrisy, what is? The movie ``Thelma and Louise,'' watch it. Louise turns to Thelma and says ``You get what you settle for.'' And how right she was. This prescription drug bill is the worst example of accepting what we are given. The administration is telling seniors that they should settle. They have convinced that the AARP that they are getting half a loaf, which is, of course, better than no bread at all. But, seniors, beware. They are not getting a slice even, they are not getting a half a loaf. These are the crumbs off the table. Our seniors will be settling for crumbs while the special interests are getting fat, and are they happy this week. Today, the leaders on the other side are here to try to pass a bill that provides a weak prescription drug benefit, that fails to lower drug costs because the bill prohibits the government to try to help negotiate down the cost of the drugs. They specifically put that into the legislation. And it privatizes Medicare. It changes Medicare as we know it, pushing millions of seniors into HMOs. And this is fiscally irresponsible. Do the Members know what HMOs have done in New Jersey? They have shoved 79,000 people out of those HMOs since 1999. That is what awaits our seniors. You cannot ignore that. Democrats have led the charge for years to add a prescription drug benefit, but we are not going to settle. We will compromise. We will discuss, but at least invite us to the table to compromise. This is America, not the Soviet Union.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1964, the Highlands Conservation Act. I want to congratulate the chairmen and ranking members for getting this to the floor, but I want to pay particular attention, and I know he does not like this but I will do it anyway, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). This has been a continuation, Mr. Speaker, of his work in the New Jersey State Legislature, not to balance anything, but to secure and preserve lands not only in New Jersey, but to set a model throughout the United States, and I think he has done that, and he has done it in a most professional way. I am proud to work with my colleagues across the aisle for years to preserve and protect this magnificent sweep of the Appalachian ridges, stretching for 1.5 million acres across New Jersey and New York. The Highlands are an essential source of drinking water, we have heard that already, clean air, and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities for nearly 25 million people located right in the backyard of our Nation's most densely populated region. The irony is staring us right in the face. The Highlands region has been in grave danger throughout the last decade. The region lost 5,200 acres a year to intensive development of strip malls and office campuses. Development also threatens the water supply for millions of residents in New Jersey and endangers critical wildlife. In land right next to my district, millions of residents enjoy the drinking water and the recreational resources of the Ramapo Mountains, the Wyanokie Highlands and the Pequannock Watershed. This bill will provide millions of dollars in land preservation assistance to protect this core of wilderness in our region. The Highlands Conservation Act should be a model for future land preservation efforts. We have debated land preservation on this very floor, and yes, we need to have a sensible approach to it and respect, as the gentleman from California pointed out, property rights. This legislation encourages a strong partnership between the Federal, State and local communities, and the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague in the State legislature, this has been the center of his work on preservation, and it is fitting, it is fitting on this floor that we salute his efforts, particularly at a time when things can get downright contentious here. The bipartisan efforts we have made to create innovative legislation that preserves critical land while respecting the rights of property owners should set a standard for this House. Advocates for this bill worked tirelessly with environmentalists and private industry to create a worthy compromise that does a service to the legislative process. So preservation of the Highlands will benefit all Americans. Indeed, the Highlands is not just a New Jersey resource. As in any other parts in this country, it is a national treasure.