Bill Pascrell

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am in strong support of H.R. 2841, sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Madam Speaker, what a great feeling to start out in the judge's chambers as a law clerk, and be able to come to the floor of the House of Representatives to introduce legislation that would be a fitting response, a fitting response to years of service and dedication. Judge Watson served on the United States Court of International Trade. It was a lifetime appointment by President Lyndon Johnson. He was a former New York State Senator and a civil court judge. His career spanned 36 years, and he set a record of 70 appearances serving as a visiting judge in districts around this great Nation. On several occasions, he was the first African American judge to hold court in parts of the deep South, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Compassion and evenhandedness are the best mirror when one holds it up to his decisions and written documents which he placed into the record. In World War II, yes, he served as an infantryman with the legendary black 92nd Buffalo Soldiers Division. What a legacy they left this great democracy. He was seriously wounded in combat in Italy and received the Purple Heart, the Battle Star, the Combat Infantry Badge and a U.S. Army commendation. He attended New York University and Brooklyn Law School. Upon graduation, he established a private practice with retired Judge Bruce Wright; Lisle Carter, former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; and Jacob Smith. This is a very special dedication today. In March 1966, President Johnson named Judge Watson to the United States Customs Court, which was later renamed the Court of International Trade. During his year on the International Court, Judge Watson helped develop a modern court system, rewrote many of the court's rules, and introduced computers into the court. He was noted for a judicial style that was very fair and very balanced. His personal ability to settle many civil cases out of court helped avoid costly expenses and the unpredictability of an often-long trial. He was a lifelong resident of Harlem, a sought-after public speaker, and an insightful adviser to all local politicians. His family is well known and very active in civic affairs. His cousins include Bruce Llewellyn, chairman of Coca-Cola; Secretary of State Colin Powell; and Dorothy Llewellyn Cropper, a New York Supreme Court Justice. His life was full of success, friendship, his devoted family and his loving wife. It is fitting and proper to honor the distinguished Judge Watson with this designation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the passengers want it overwhelmingly, the pilots want it unanimously, the Senate wants it unanimously. What happened to us? We must know something they do not know. Where are we on this issue, anyway? Let us take a look at the Record. Airport fast food restaurants are paying higher than those folks that have been hired to screen. What are we going to get? We are going to get what we pay for. It is no wonder that the number of people that are turning over in every airport is astronomical. In Atlanta, the airport in Atlanta, Georgia, over 400 percent turnover in a 2-year period of time. You get what you pay for. You are simply painting an old system to make it look differently. You are camouflaging it and you are putting my family at risk and I do not like it. Americans do not like it. They have made it very, very clear. This is a national security issue. We better stand up for our own families.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ten days after the tragic events of September 11, we were here on this House floor approving $15 billion for the airline industry. Most of us supported the package because it was necessary to keep the airlines and their employees afloat to, as we said on that very moment when we passed the legislation, to stabilize the industry. Unfortunately, the attacks on America and their aftermath have weakened aviation traffic, have had a negative effect on the airlines overall and on their financial performance. Even with that funding, the industry is seeing tremendous losses. So stabilization was the plan, but it means very little if people are not going to fly. And the reason why they are not flying is that they do not have confidence in their safety. They do not have confidence in the system that exists which permitted what happened. To get people flying again, we need to restore public confidence in aviation, and I think that is very critical. Congress needs to act yesterday. The Democratic plan contains many elements which can give the American people confidence in our ability to secure travel throughout this great Nation. Security screening is at the foundation of fixing the gaping holes in aviation security. In America, people agree with our view that this responsibility is inherently governmental. There is nothing new with our plan. People such as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have been advocating this for many years, long before September 11. In June 2000, the GAO told Congress that ``Aviation security screeners are the key line of defense against the introduction of dangerous items into the aviation system. All passengers and anyone else who seeks to enter secure areas at the Nation's airports must pass through screening checkpoints and be cleared by screeners.'' This is what the GAO said in June of 2000. Of course our key line of defense employees are currently paid $6 an hour. Below that are the airport fast food restaurants. There are no benefits. They are treated like a redundant item. They are treated with no recognition whatsoever. They get very little training. I asked at an aviation security hearing just a few weeks ago an airport association representative who was before us if police records are checked of the individuals that are hired. He paused, looked around, and then answered ``On certain crimes.'' On certain crimes. Airports and the airlines are responsible right now. They contract this work out. What does this mean, on certain crimes. Why not all crimes? Why not give folks good training? Why not pay them a decent salary? Why not give them benefits? We are in the 21st century. Well, the basic outfit that hires most of these people or many of them, Argenbright, they have been placed on a 36-month probation in order to pay a $1 million fine, $350,000 in restitution, $200,000 in investigatory costs for failure to conduct background checks on employees staffing security checkpoints. This is unacceptable, and yet there are Members in this House who want to continue the same system. Currently the turnover rate of screeners is 126 percent. How can a Member stand on this floor to protect this system? At some airports it is as high as 400 percent in turnover, and the very people that the GAO says are the very basis of security at the airports. We need to pay what is needed for highly qualified employees. The Atlanta Airport from 1998 to 1999, 275 percent turnover. Boston Logan, 207 percent turnover. Houston, 237 percent turnover. 416 percent at the St. Louis Airport. This is unacceptable. People's lives are at stake, and yet Members are defending the very system that was rejected by the GAO over a year ago. Congress has Capitol police officers screening baggage entering the Capitol and its office buildings. To enter this building, we did not contract out our security. We did not go to a private vendor. We went to the police that guard us in these buildings every day. The American public demands the same high standards and qualified individuals. Some of our friends from across the aisle will tell us to look to the European model. All of a sudden they are interested in the European model. It is true that they do use private contractors for screening baggage. Besides the differences in size and scope, Europe also ensures every worker gets a living wage. They do not want to talk about that, something my friends, many of which on the other side of the aisle do not advocate, a living wage. In the 21st century we debate this? European governments do not only require security regulations, they require the living salaries and benefits packages to keep screeners in their jobs so there are not those kinds of turnovers that exist in the United States of America. European wage regulations, socialized health care, labor contracts and tax structures do not translate to the United States of America. In the United States we must take the profit motive away from this task as the bottom line will not suffice. The private sector had their chance, and they were not effective. They blew it. Who is Argenbright Holdings, Incorporated? Who are they? How did they get to the point that they control the security in our airports and folks going onto the line and the baggage that goes onto those planes. At this very moment throughout the United States not every piece of baggage is even being checked that goes on that airline. They say well, Congressman, you are not helping people to be confident. No, we tell the truth to people and that is what makes them feel confident when they know there is a change. We cannot allow the political zealots of opposing any increase in the Federal workforce as an excuse to dictate our security policy. I urge my colleagues, this issue is too important, Mr. Speaker, to play politics with people's lives. Lives have been lost, and lives are at stake. I very strongly believe that we need to change the system and we need to federalize it and we need to have control over it. That should have been done yesterday.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) I am reminded when we discuss homeland security and the great task that is before us all some words by Walt Whitman when he was at this House, when he was at this very House during the Civil War. He wrote, ``One is not without impression after all amid these Members of Congress of both Houses, that if the flat routine of their duties should ever be broken in upon by some great emergency involving real danger, in calling for first class personal qualities, those qualities would be found generally forthcoming and for men not now credited with them.'' I think those words are fitting and I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), because the task is upon us. I cannot emphasize enough to the Americans that are watching and listening, I cannot emphasize enough how important that we need to bring what we are talking about to the local level; and I want my colleagues to know and I report to them that yesterday I convened a meeting which we only had 2 days to put together of police chiefs in my district, of fire chiefs in my district, of hospital administrators in my district, of those who have dealt with infectious diseases, of the emergency coordinators in two counties that I represent in New Jersey, the State police who have done such a fantastic job in coordinating things in our State of New Jersey. That group that I have described, if we can hold them for more than a half an hour together that is pretty good. I am lucky if I can hold my family together for 5 minutes. We were there for 2 hours; and I say to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), this should be a real focus of our work, to get these folks who are so knowledgeable, who understand what training means, who understand preparedness, who know what communications will mean in times of tragedy, who know what counseling is all about, we need to be speaking, getting off our chest what is on it, how critical this is. For 2 hours. I am collecting materials that I will bring to this floor and bring to the legislation so that we will put our legislation and make it better after introducing it. We are still coming to terms; and I think you would agree with me with September 11, it is not something that simply fades into the night. What was carried out, this assault on thousands of innocent people who were enjoying the freedom of America, the perpetrators showed us the absolute depths which humankind can sink. But in this immediate aftermath, we have all witnessed something else. We have also seen amid the carnage and amongst the destruction the amazing heights of benevolence, of decency, courage that America offers. We witnessed America's first responders. I commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for understanding that we have been trying to talk sense into the folks who come here today about that our first responders do not need a wave and a pat on the back so much, but they need the resources. They need the training. They need the equipment. They need the apparatus. When I look at what happened in New York State and New York City, the numbers of human beings taken, of brave men and women who rushed into those buildings, 343 firefighters, numerous police officers, members of the Port Authority Security Team, and then 92 vehicles destroyed worth close to $50 million. This is nothing that we can simply offer our condolences about. We have a responsibility, do you not agree?

Mr. PASCRELL. Absolutely. If we do not have that coordination or that education, then we have panic. There is enough fear in this country. Walt Whitman hit on it 135 years ago. We must rise to the occasion. And he looked around in this very House and saw, as he was attending to folks during that Civil War, because he was a nurse, he knew that maybe a Congressman once in a while had his head down, but when the call came, he knew that they would respond and respond accordingly. He had that faith over 135 years ago in this Congress. We have that faith now. We need to reduce the panic. We need to reduce the fear. And nothing will do that better than knowledge. Nothing will do that better than all levels of government and all levels of the community being involved in this plan. And I just want to leave by thanking the gentleman again for bringing us together on this issue.

Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I do. Mayors are there 24-7. And mayors and councilmen and committee people cannot put this aside, cannot put this as an addendum. This must be a crucial part of every municipality's operation. And there are places to find out this information. We are going to help. We are going to do our part in a bipartisan way in the Congress of the United States, but there is not one community which should shrink from the responsibilities that they have within themselves. Every one of us, as individuals and as communities, must develop plans. We are going to help them do that. The emergency teams and their counties in districts throughout America are going to help them do that. We are going to provide the resources to do this. This is something that has not been on the front line, and we are going to put it on the front line. I want to commend the gentleman again. Being a mayor, of course, as the gentleman knows, the mayor is the father, the sociologist, the parent. You are everything when you are a mayor, be it a small town or a large town. This is what makes America so great, that small towns and large towns work together, particularly in times of crisis. And I can assure the gentleman that there is no greater responsibility that we have on this floor than to communicate back to the mayors of the many towns we have in our districts that they better have a plan, they better be able to deal with their hospitals, with their firefighters, with their first responders and EMTs and their police officers. They better be able to deal with the State police in their areas, and the county police and sheriff departments in their areas. If they do not have a plan, what happens if communication goes out? What is the backup? What is the second line of defense? We understand that many of the things we talk about in biochemical warfare will mean that first responders, who will be the first on the scene and not knowing what even they are attacking, are put in real life jeopardy. We cannot allow that to happen, and we must do this yesterday. So there is no time. I want to assure the gentleman he will have my total cooperation, and I know across the line here we will have the cooperation of all our colleagues.

Mr. PASCRELL. That is exactly what I have found, and I cannot emphasize it enough. One of the things that came across in our meeting yesterday morning, in this event for a counter-terrorism response, training and equipment are very critical. However, this is not going to make sense on a local level unless mayors and councilmen and committeemen understand that we are under the severest of alerts.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Brady) bill, H.R. 2666, The Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act. I support this bill because it provides well-needed assistance to a critical, critical element of our workforce. Often neglected on this floor, a workforce that is often neglected by society as well. Many who work in the trade sector, from construction to plumbing to carpentry, go out every day and perform jobs that are absolutely essential to our Nation and our economy. Yet there are seemingly few incentives offered to young people who may wish to pursue such a career. We certainly provide accolades to the young student who studies the liberal arts. Indeed, the young man, the young lady who reads Ellison or Dickens is often touted and rightfully provided with loans or grants to help with his or her studies. But what about the student whose skills and interests lie with an area of vocation? They are just as valuable to America, just as intelligent. They need our support. I applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) for this bill. I certainly know of many people in my own hometown of Patterson, New Jersey, who would benefit from this initiative. Providing grants from the Small Business Administration to provide technical assistance to high schools and vocational and technical schools to promote small business ownership in their curriculum, I believe, is a great idea. Many who work in the trade sector enter these professions with the goal of one day starting their own business. So this program offers a perfect initiative, a perfect incentive to enter the trade sector by giving students greater options and providing training as a business owner. This legislation will help get young future trade workers thinking about what it actually takes to run and own a business. This is a great, well-needed initiative; and I urge my colleagues' support. I might add in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that while I commend the sponsor of this bill, I also commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for establishing an environment within the Committee on Small Business to respond to all of America, not just a particular segment. They have provided such an environment, and I commend them for that. And I also commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, because I am voting ``yes'' for the 1.1 million workers still employed. If we do not do this tonight, that 1.1 million workers is going to be reduced accordingly. We cannot let them down. We will be back next week to do our job for those who are going to be laid off or have been laid off. With that, we will make another great step for America tonight. This can be a good vote; let us make it a positive vote. Let us walk out of this Chamber together. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, but urge my colleagues to remember that this is just a part of what we must do. It is clear that without some short-term assistance, our aviation industry will not survive the impact of last week's disastrous attacks on our country. And as a critical part of our nation's economy, we must act and act quickly. I'm voting for the workers still working. The $5 billion in direct aid is extremely important to keep the airlines afloat, and importantly, this is NOT a blank check. We cannot and will not bail out the airlines for $3 billion in losses they would have sustained without the tragic events of September 11th. The safeguards are here to insure that. Even more critical in this bill is the $10 billion dollars in loan guarantees, so airlines such as Continental--so critical to my region-- can access much needed capital and establish lines of credit. We are not only talking about the thousands of Continental jobs in New Jersey. Keeping Continental solvent will ensure the economy of New Jersey remains stable and is able to function. Pharmaceuticals, Port Newark, small businesses such as the limousine industry--these businesses count on the airlines to do their daily business. However, this package only took 10 days to come to the floor, and my major worry is that we are only finding a remedy to half of the problem. This bill does nothing to address security measures, assistance for laid off employees, and health benefits for families. I expect that we will be as vigilant on these critical issues as we were on this aid package. In 10 days, if not sooner, I want to be back here on this Floor considering a bill that will make my constituents feel safe in the air. Congress must take action. As I am hearing from my constituents, the security precautions must be in place before we can rebuild public confidence in the system. We are talking about using air marshals on domestic flights, installing secure cockpit doors, and even federalization of airport security screening run by the Justice Department. Economic stability must go hand in hand with security. I thank the leadership of the Transportation Committee for their hard work on this important measure. We need to ensure we are back on the floor soon to deal with security measures dealing with all airports, both large and small. We need to ensure we are back on the floor soon to provide assistance to the tens of thousands of workers out of a job, and tens of thousands of families without a source of income. Only then can we ensure that the airlines will be on their way back to stability.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, in what may very well be remembered as our Nation's most deplorable tragedy, our American family has stood firm. Amid the carnage and the destruction, amongst the pain and the anguish, our public safety officers performed their duties the way no fictional hero in Hollywood could dare imagine. Our police officers and firefighters, EMTs, along with countless other Americans in support roles are always there for us. Let us make sure that we, as their family, are there for them. Fire officials have said that over 300 firefighters are currently missing or dead. Dozens of police officers and other emergency workers are still unaccounted for. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has said it has lost so many employees. To my buddies in the New York fire department and to my friends in the New York police department, we share in your grief. God only knows what else we will hear in the days ahead. God only knows how many children will arrive home only to discover that their brave mother or father has perished while serving their country. Let us make sure that these families are served by us, not only with our undying admiration and appreciation but also with our tangible support. I implore my colleagues to support the gentleman from New York's bill. Payment to the families of public safety officers lost in the line of duty, our first defenders, should be mandatory. Now is not the time for long and time-consuming paperwork. Now is not the time for these families in their time of crisis and need to worry about their finances. Let us do right by our American family. Let us ensure that the Public Safety Officer Program operates effectively and efficiently. On behalf of all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to all of those who have served on this most solemn of tragedies. We are with you. We are with America, our family.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. Our American family has faced an assault on its way of life. Our freedom has come under attack. We are still coming to terms with the vision of our own brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, being victimized by despicable acts perpetrated by the evil and the cowardly. What happened yesterday was an unspeakable act of war on the very foundation of what makes us American. It was a craven assault on thousands of innocent people who are enjoying the freedom we hold so dear and the perpetrators so despise. It was a day of incomprehensible terror and grief, conceived and carried out by the very worst of mankind. Indeed, our American family has witnessed evil at times throughout its history. From the world wars to the Holocaust to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, we have always responded with action that exemplifies the very best of what we stand for. And it continues. Yesterday, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the complete compassion of strangers standing in lines 800 deep to give their own blood, the government wholly unified as one voice behind a Commander in Chief. We have shown the world that it is impossible to break our will in America. Our country will move on, our mission still intact. We will march forward with all conviction to fight for freedom. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, make no mistake about how resolved we are. We are resolute in our stance that those hateful warmongers who perpetrated these atrocities will be hunted as predators, the very predators that they are. They will be punished in a way that is unmistakable in the defense of our country and all we hold dear. Justice, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), must prevail, even though the heavens may crumble. God bless America. God bless our families.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 2269.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by a delayed flight and was unable to be present last night for floor votes. If had been present, I would have voted in the affirmative on H.R. 2291 and H. Con. Res. 233.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you to remind everyone here why we must pass the patients Bill of Rights today. It is because we must protect all Americans from the fate that befell Mr. Robert Frank Leone of Glen Ridge, N.J.--a constituent of mine. Every year, Mr. Leone was denied a chest x-ray by his HMO despite his request. When he eventually displayed symptoms of illness, his Doctor acquiesced and his cancer was diagnosed. Mr. Leone had non-small cell lung cancer that spread to his brain. His wife Victoria was told that he had only 2 months to live. After successful treatment with radiation, Mr. Leone and his wife had to beg his doctors for a referral for physical therapy. As a result of physical therapy, Mr. Leone regained much of his strength and quality of life. But his HMO cut his physical therapy sessions as soon as he started to feel better. They said it was no longer necessary. They said it was ``preventative.'' As a result of losing his physical therapy, Mr. Leone's health began fading. Soon he could no longer walk without assistance. Despite pleas form his wife, his HMO refused to restore Mr. Leon's physical therapy benefit. Instead, they suggested he join a health club. And that his wife Victoria should become his physical therapist! But Victoria is legally disabled! Mr. Leone became depressed and was hospitalized and died in the hospital March 30, 1999. I call him an HMO casualty. If his doctor had given him a chest x-ray when he requested it, instead of denying the benefit to save money--his cancer would have been diagnosed before it had spread to his brain. If the HMO had not limited Mr. Leone's access to physical therapy, he would have continued his improvement and would probably have not sunk into depression. If an appeals process had been in effect, Mr. Leone and his wife could have appealed both of these denials of care. Simply put, Mr. Leone died because the HMO was not liable for its actions. And because the HMO was not liable they could deny him care to save money and not be held accountable. Today on the floor we are voting on H.R. 2563 to protect patients just like Mr. Leone. But then there is this Norwood amendment. Well, you don't have to be Columbo to recognize that the Norwood amendment is here to take the teeth out of this crucial legislation. The Norwood amendment creates several roadblocks that would prevent patients form receiving benefits that already exist. Additionally, the Norwood amendment supercedes state laws and forces state courts to apply federal tort law. In fact, this amendment creates a federal cause of action for negligence where none exited before! I am particularly interested in safeguarding strong state laws that protect patients because my state of New Jersey just recently instituted a strong patients' bill of rights that would be preempted by the Norwood amendment! New Jersey's new patients' rights' law is much broader in scope than even the Ganske bill we are discussing here today. It covers traditional HMOs, as well as health insurance plans that are not covered by ERISA. How can I go home and tell my constituents that the strong patients' bill of rights recently made into law in New Jersey will never have the opportunity to benefit our residents? And that is not the only problem presented in this amendment. The Norwood amendment creates a presumption in favor of the HMO that the patient must overcome in order to win in court. This flies in the face of due process, a premise upon which our country is founded. It offends me to the core that this amendment not only restricts access to state law by patients but then adds an additional hurdle to their burden of proof once in court. If the Norwood amendment had been law when Mrs. Leone was taking care of her husband, these additional obstacles would have made this heartbreaking experience even more painful. She would have had no access to her own state's laws, no fair due process, and a limited amount of damages to seek. I shake my head whenever I think of how we could have saved Mr. Leone's life if we had only passed the Ganske bill 5 years ago. Let's not let any more Americans die at the hands of corporations whose sole concern is the bottom line not the patients' health. I urge all of you in joining me to vote in favor of H.R. 2563 and against the Norwood amendment. Do it for Mr. Leone and all for the future patients who we could save with this important vote.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) left off. The Clean Water Act provides very specific mandates for municipalities. I was a mayor, mayor of the third largest city in the State of New Jersey. There is no way that the Patersons of this country, smaller, larger, can respond to this multibillion dollar need within our communities. Our clean water is threatened, is threatened if we do not begin to address, and we have, this problem. I am positive that the chairman and the ranking member are sensitive to these needs. But being sensitive to the needs, we need to take it to the next level. We need to be in every mayor's office, in every council chambers throughout America when these issues are coming up. Crumbling systems exist throughout America. We need to respond. The cost is great. If we do not do it, the cost will be even greater. One segment of the President's proposed budget I was particularly pleased with, which was where the President expressed his support for the newly authorized sewer overflow control grants. H.R. 828, which passed the Congress, authorized $750 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We are trying to give cities and towns across America the resources they need to clean up their sewer systems and comply with the Clean Water Act. I am hopeful that we can work with the committee to ensure that full funding is included in the final bill to address this issue, which is important in every district and in every State in this Nation. We must follow through on our commitment to local governments to assist in their wet-weather infrastructure challenges, and I support this critical down payment. I recognize the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Weldon amendment to increase funding for the Firefighters Assistance Grant Program. There are a million firefighters in America, one million, and 32,000 fire departments. The number of applications for the first year is just overwhelming. This is a replica of the COPS program, which proved to be so successful. And I want to congratulate folks from both sides of the aisle. The amount of applications is an indication, Mr. Chairman, of how serious the need is in our Nation's fire departments. I totally support this amendment. We are all going to be hearing from the fire departments in our own districts, because there is only so much money to go around for so many applications.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the great poet Langston Hughes asked, ``What happens to a dream deferred?'' Well, in the case of the dream of fair and equal treatment at the polls, the dream deferred is a dream denied. Last year's presidential election was a civics lesson for all of us. Unfortunately, not only did we learn that every vote counts, we learned that not every vote is counted. For example, in Atlanta's Fulton County which uses punch card voting machines similar to those that gained notoriety in Florida, one of every 16 ballots for President was invalidated. In Harris County, Texas, which includes the city of Houston, 14,000 votes were not counted because the voter's selections simply did not register. In many Chicago precincts that have high African American populations, one in every six ballots was thrown out. By not addressing this blatant inequality, we are letting down the thousands of Americans that take the time to vote each year and those votes are not counted because the voting machines in these districts are old, broken and inaccurate. Our goal should be simply to fix the system, to help in every way we can. Yes, justice is difficult, Mr. Chairman, but as Sir James Mansfield said, ``Let justice be done though the heavens fall.'' And Ferdinand I, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, said, ``Let justice be done though the world may perish.'' That should be our primary motivation, to bring justice to the system.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I support the amendment of the gentleman from California. I think it is a great amendment. I am astonished and disgusted by the way our country has been treated by the other member countries of the United Nations. In 1964, the United States played a key role in establishing the U.N. International Narcotics Board. This board plays a crucial role in monitoring compliance with U.N. drug conventions on substance abuse and illegal trafficking. This May we lost our seat. We were voted off the very board we helped to establish. We were voted off by the 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Council. Only 29 of these member countries thought the United States should maintain its rightful place on this important board. Instead, our former seat will be held by the Netherlands. I have been told by those in the international community that this is just international politics as usual. I disagree. That is because anyone who reads the newspapers knows that Holland is to the drug Ecstacy what Colombia is to cocaine. Let us put our cards on the table. Eighty percent of the Ecstacy that makes its way to the United States is produced in the Netherlands, which is taking our place on the board that we created, or at least helped to create. In fact, the United States government is considering adding Holland to the short list of decertified countries that are considered drug- producing or transit countries, joining the ranks of Afghanistan and Burma. These are the truths about Ecstacy. This summer, more than 750,000 Ecstacy tablets are being consumed each week in the New York-New Jersey area. The Star- Ledger in New Jersey just had a big article about it. The vast majority of these tablets come from, guess, Holland. Newark International Airport, which borders my district in northern New Jersey, is the number one port of entry for this drug. Customs inspectors seize over 1 million Ecstacy pills and tablets smuggled into Newark International Airport. That is why it is personal to me as a parent and a grandparent from New Jersey. Those are our kids out there in clubs being introduced to this drug, and a country that is considered by our government to be the principal source of Ecstacy worldwide is not doing enough to stop it from coming to our shores. Now this very same country sits on the international board that we helped create to put an end to illegal drug trafficking. This is not a harmless drug. Long-term use causes severe brain damage. Even occasional use can result in heart rate and blood pressure problems as well as liver damage. The general perceptions of drugs coming out of this jungle or that mountain are washed away, our general perceptions. It is only what we know so far. God only knows what other studies will conclude in the years ahead about this recreational drug. Holland, with its government's lax attitude towards illegal drugs, does little to stop the manufacture and the export of Ecstacy. That should not be a surprise, coming from the country that has needle parks and legal red light districts. Nevertheless, Holland will now sit on the International Narcotics Control Board in our former seat. In this vote, the politics is personal. Please join me in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) to send a strong message to the U.N. and all of its member countries.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by a delayed flight and was unable to be present last night for floor votes. If I had been present, I would have voted in the affirmative on H.R. 2137, H.R. 1892, and S. 468.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong advocate of the Patients' Bill of Rights and am proud to be part of cosponsorship of the Ganske-Norwood-Dingell bill, which is the bill that we will be debating this week, and no other bill. There are protections within the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Patients' Bill of Rights creates an external appeals process that, once exhausted, allows the patient to pursue claims against the HMO in State or Federal court, depending on the cause of their harm. What is getting those opposed to patient protection all hot under the collar? Because opponents do not want hard-working Americans to have access to their State courts when HMOs deny them proper health care. This hypocrisy escapes no one. No one is paying attention to the fact that the great defenders of ``States' rights'' in this Chamber are the ones opposed to allowing Americans access to State courts. And why is it? Because they are afraid. They are afraid to let juries and State courts make decisions about what an HMO owes a patient who has been harmed as a result of the HMO's heartless, bottom-line-driven cost-cutting.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, on page 40 of H.R. 7 is the very crux of why we believe that this is a particularly pernicious, pernicious, amendment. A young lady comes walking along, and suppose her purse falls and something pops out of the purse. Lo and behold, it is birth control pills. Under this piece of legislation, if that particular religion does not accept forms of prevention, that woman could be fired on the spot because they do not accept it. You tell me where it is she is protected in this legislation? In the early days of the Bush administration, the Office of Faith- Based Initiatives was created with the great idea that religious community-based organizations are the best source of social services. I support the Rangel-Conyers-Frank-Nadler-Scott substitute. I was the mayor of Paterson before I came to the Congress, a city whose residents rely on exactly the social programs this legislation is designated to help. Believe me, my city counted on these social services, nonprofit organizations, many of them religiously affiliated, to supplement the city, State and Federal programs that already exist. But as a former mayor, as a former State legislator, I have grave reservations about the number of provisions in the Community Solutions Act which would supersede State and local civil rights laws and, in essence, allow religious institutions to discriminate, despite receiving Federal dollars. The Rangel substitute corrects every inequity and every discriminatory possibility. It recognizes the unique contributions of religious organizations to the community. Unlike the base bill, this amendment not only creates a new program, but it also pays for the program.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we need to expect more from ourselves first of all, not the Chinese government. I do not need the unions to tell me what to do on this issue, I do not need the churches, the synagogues, I do not need environmental groups, because this is what I carry with me, the Constitution of the United States, since I raised my hand. This is what this is all about, article 1, Section 8. It gives to the Congress of the United States the power to deal in trade. What we are doing, this is the last vote we are ever going to have on this issue. Think about that, Members, we are not going to be able to change anything. This is the last vote that we are going to have on trade with China. We, who have been voted by the public not the trade representatives of the United States, who did not stand for election, I stood for election, the Members stood for election, we stood for election, we have an obligation to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Constitution. To China, I say I thank them for returning a New Jersey citizen they detained for 5 months without cause. I thank them. The opponents of this resolution will call this unfortunate. For this noble act, not only do they deserve the Olympics in 2008, but please take a continuation of the most-favored-nation status. Has China done anything to warrant our continuation of most-favored- nation status? No. The Chinese government has abused its citizens, tortured its prisoners, held Americans hostage, and is doing its part to destroy the Earth's environment. We must not reward these heinous actions by giving them American jobs, exporting them one after the other. I plead with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to take a small step, a temporary step, and revoke MFN that the Chinese want and do not deserve.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, very clear, we are not adding one dime to a $39 million-plus appropriation, not one dime. What we are doing is adjusting close to $17 million of that $39 billion in three programs that have already been funded a 100 percent increase. What are we doing here? The SBA has had bipartisan support helping small businesses throughout America. We forget that small business accounts for 99.7 percent of America's employers and employs are 52 percent of the private work force. Small companies account for 47 percent of the Nation's sales. Indeed, over the last decade, America has experienced a period of growth unprecedented in our history. But the economic boom is slowing down, financial losses for many companies are mounting, and job cuts are affecting every industry in America. The current CJS appropriations bill has called for a $129.7 million cut to the Small Business Administration. At a time when we can least afford to do that for the Nation's small businesses, we are doing that. And we come up with the excuses that we cannot find the money here, we cannot find the money there, and we cannot wreck the President's budget. We have already done that. We have done that in a bipartisan way as well. Not one dime, Mr. Chairman, is being added to this appropriation, simply taking from specific programs that have already been budgeted a 100 percent increase. I do not know. That is crazy, it sounds to me. That does not sound like good budgeting. Not at all. These cuts affect the very guts of small business. The New Markets Venture Capital Companies, the BusinessLINC, the HUBZone program, the Small Business Investment Company Program, and these are the programs that serve a lot of low-income areas, areas that need our help. I think we can agree that slashing funding for these key SBA programs pushes aside the collective futures of women-owned and minority-owned small businesses while at the same time assuring that other small businesses lose access to vital capital resources offered by the agency. I want to salute the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). This change that they have offered is on target, is real, and is realistic. To begin with, the 7(a) loan program has a history of success in ensuring that capital is available when small businesses need it. Since 1992, the 7(a) program has helped with over $76 billion in loans to entrepreneurs. Last year alone, the 7(a) program provided for 43,000 loans throughout the United States of America into practically every district in this country. The current CJS bill calls for the 7(a) program to be slashed from $114 million to $77 million for 2002. This would result in approximately 20,000 fewer loans. Twenty thousand. How can we tell the American small businessperson that help is not on the way in this business-friendly administration? This amendment would begin by restoring $10 million to the 7(a) program, bringing the fiscal year 2002 funding level up to $87 million in the appropriations, still well below the 2001 appropriation. Likewise, the Velazquez-Kelly amendment would add $2 million for the BusinessLINC program. The offsets for these funding increases will come from three of the biggest agencies in the Federal Government. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Velazquez-Kelly amendment budget-neutral. Now, how many amendments do we see on this floor that can say that? Budget-neutral. So let us stand for the American worker for a change and help restore the fuel that drives the American economy.

Mr. PASCRELL

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, do we want to build bigger jails, or do we want to build a better economy? No one is saying on this floor that we do not need to build more Federal prisons. No one is saying that. But this administration is asking us to listen to them on the issue of trade. The gentleman from Virginia has spoken on this floor many times about displaced workers, about human rights; and I have followed the gentleman's point and been in support. If one listens to those who want to trade and open up the floodgates, because nothing is free, this trade is a cure that will increase employment, which will increase productivity and end human rights abuses. It will promote democracy, we hear, democracy, and do just about everything one wants. These are all unproved theories. It seems to me we could take some money from that large pool of building prisons. There is no debate about the need, Mr. Chairman, but the question is, what about our own workers? The TAA has been a responsible agency. The gentleman has supported it, and we have all supported it, to help those people who have been displaced as we have exported our jobs all over the world, to countries that do not respect us and do not respect human rights. Yet we stand here on the brink of another debate on trade, a few of those dollars, a few of those dollars, to TAA.