Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the conditions that we have been hearing about on the care of our veterans at Walter Reed Outpatient Care.

Walter Reed is the first stop for many of our brave men and women returning from Iraq. These soldiers risked their lives defending this great Nation. They have lost friends in combat, and they have seen countless comrades lose limbs and suffer horrible wounds. They expect no reward in return for their bravery.

Unfortunately, the treatment they have received when entering the outpatient care is substandard. Conditions at Walter Reed Building 18, even though they are being improved today, should have never gotten to that condition.

We have all read reports on the matter; so I will not go into all of the details.

Mr. Speaker, if these conditions existed in the public, the authorities would have quickly been notified. However, the mismanagement of care does not end with Building 18. Many of our veterans are lost in the system once they are transferred to the outpatient care. Case files are being lost. Head trauma victims are not receiving the level of managed care they require. Non-English-speaking families are left to navigate through the red tape that exists at Walter Reed and, I am sure, many other veterans' hospitals.

The management at Walter Reed is directly responsible for these conditions, and I know those are changing now. But, again, we must make sure this does not happen again.

Congress has the ability to improve the situation for our new veterans. We are all aware of the benefits of health information technology. Health IT allows patients to move throughout the health care system in an easy manner. If Health IT was implemented at Walter Reed, our veterans would be able to move from inpatient to outpatient care without the fear that their records would be lost. The benefits our veterans would receive if health IT is implemented far outreach the cost of the system.

Many of our Iraqi veterans are coming home with head injuries. Roadside bombs and IEDs are responsible for this increase. These veterans require constant care and supervision. Many of them have lost cognitive abilities. In some of the worst cases, veterans are barely aware of their surroundings.

Let me say this: I know a lot about head injuries. Going back 13 years ago, my son was shot in the head, received traumatic head injuries, and he was left partially paralyzed. We were lucky. His mom was a nurse. She knew how to go through the system. He was also lucky that I had training in physical therapy. People understand, he was only 26 at that time, as many of our soldiers that are injured. They don't need just 3 hours of physical therapy a day; they need 4 in the morning, 4 in the afternoon, and then they need their families around them to take care of them in the evening time. It is hard. It is difficult work. But I know our young men and women are able to do this. The families need to be trained on how to work with their children that have head trauma.

But, again, it is up to us here in Congress, and I know there are hearings, but we must come up with answers on giving the treatment to these veterans with head injuries and to all our veterans that go through Walter Reed.

You cannot expect someone to go onto the campus and think that they are going to remember that they have an appointment the next day. You can't expect them to understand even sometimes where they are at that particular moment.

This has been treatment that we know how to give, and why we haven't given it to them I do not understand.

I know that Walter Reed is one of the best hospitals in the Nation, as long as you are in the hospital. But when you come out, that is where we are losing our veterans through the cracks. It is unacceptable, and we in Congress have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen.

During the Vietnam War, our military came home, and, unfortunately, we did not honor them the way they should have been honored. I thought we had learned our lesson.

The brave young men and women representing this country have done a wonderful job, and for us to even let down any kind of health care treatment for them is a black mark on this Congress and certainly on us, the United States of America.

I know the President has put a commission in place. I have been around here long enough to know, enough commissions. We need action. We can do it. That is what we are very good at, getting down to the bottom of it and putting in action. We can't have these veterans wait any longer.

Let me say this: Every day, Members of Congress get on the floor and say what a wonderful job our men and women are doing. Every day we honor them. And yet all of us have let them down. That is not acceptable. I hope that we will do better in the future. The future has to be now. The time has to be now. We cannot wait 2 to 3 to 4 months for a commission report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63. Despite the brave efforts of our troops, the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Our troops have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Unfortunately, they are caught in the middle of sectarian violence.

From the onset of the conflict, there has been mismanagement and mishandling from this administration. The administration was not prepared for the violence following the removal of Saddam Hussein.

In addition, the previous Congress did not do its job. The 110th Congress held the first oversight hearing since the invasion in 2003. That is 4 years without any congressional oversight.

I have heard so many speeches here saying that we support the troops. I think everyone, every single Member, supports the troops. Yet all those years that we were hearing from the families and from our soldiers themselves, saying they did not have the equipment, they did not have certainly the equipment to keep them safe, where were we? Where were we as Members in making sure that our military had the best equipment?

Since January, we have had 52 oversight hearings on Iraq. It turns out that nearly $12 billion from the American taxpayers have not been accounted for. That is $12 billion that could have been spent on our equipment to protect our troops. Our troops deserve better.

The President explained his new plan for Iraq last month. Again, I hear that we must stand by the President. Well, I was one that stood by the President. I voted with the President. I voted for every appropriation for the President, and now he is doing the same thing. It is not working. It has not worked. It is time for a new plan.

He called for an increase of 20,000 more troops in Iraq and, unfortunately, I am afraid that this is a little bit too late. We needed hundreds of thousands of troops in the beginning. That is when the generals asked for those troops and they were denied.

The truth of the matter is we did this war on the cheap. We did not do it right in the beginning, and now we are all paying the consequences.

Throughout the conflict our troop levels have changed. We have sent more troops in when our generals called for them. Then they were made smaller. To no fault of our troops, the extra numbers did not calm the situation. I do not believe that putting more of our brave men and women in harm's way is the solution to this conflict.

President Bush emphasized his intentions of placing more authority and responsibility on the Iraqi Government. Well, it is about time. We have spent a lot of money to train the police officers, to train their military, and yet they are not standing up for their own country.

Prime Minister Maliki has not proven that he can stop the violence that is going on in his country. That should not mean that our troops should be there. Our troops are trained for a war, not to settle political differences in that country. He has failed to bring equal representations of the Sunnis and the Shiites into the Iraqi Government. This shortfall has fueled sectarian violence, putting our troops in greater harm.

Poor planning by civilian leaders within the administration has placed our brave men and women in harm's way. Our troops have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They have served our country bravely and honorably, and we all know that. Many of these troops have served their full tours of duty in Iraq, and they have left behind family and friends to defend this great Nation.

More than 3,000 of our men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice, and not one of them, in my opinion, has died in vain because they were doing their duty. We sent them there, and they have lived up to that, and thousands more have suffered debilitating injuries.

It is time to shift the burden of this conflict to the Iraqis themselves. We have a responsibility in Congress to make sure that our troops are not put unnecessarily in harm's way.

President Bush has made his decisions without consulting enough experts and retired generals. Where was all the information that we needed years ago as far as bringing the experts, knowing what the culture was in the Middle East? That is something that we still are not addressing here.

Decisions have not been clearly thought out and our troops have paid the price. And after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that a phased redeployment of our troops is the best option.

No one is really talking about Afghanistan either. When we started, we were winning in Afghanistan. When we took those troops out of Afghanistan, we started seeing the insurgents coming in. We can put our troops along the borders. We can stop the insurgents coming into Iraq while the Iraqi Government tries to solve their own problems.

We can go back into Afghanistan and make sure that we shore up that country so more insurgents and military equipment are not coming from that country.

We must show the American people and our allies, by the way, who are leaving, they are not supporting us, it is not just Democrats and a lot of our Republican colleagues that feel that we should get out. Our strategy has been wrong, it is time to work together, and I am hoping after all these debates, when we come back from our break, we can actually go to our committees and come up with a way to solve these problems, not only for America, but before the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the negative impact of President Bush's proposed budget on New York State. New York is consistently faced with a funding imbalance. We receive far less funding than we pay out in taxes. This imbalance has held back projects in key areas. Key programs have been constantly underfunded, and this year's proposed budget again makes the wrong choices for New York's families. Gang violence is a growing problem on Long Island. Our police departments and community groups are doing all they can with this small budget.

Unfortunately, these budgets will be further reduced if the President has his way. His budget request attempts to eliminate two of New York's local crime fighting tools: the Community Oriented Policing Service, or the COPS Program, and the Justice Assistance Grants Program. These two programs allow law enforcement agencies to hire police officers and support crime prevention.

It is a lot cheaper to prevent crime than it is to send someone to prison. Police departments rely on this money to purchase new technology and equipment, to educate their members on how to best combat issues such as gun violence.

In the year 2006, New York received more than $27 million in COPS and JAG funding. If this money is not available, our law enforcement will not have the tools they need to keep our families and communities safe. But it is not just our communities that are put at risk by the President's budget.

College assistance programs to help New York students will be slashed if the President has his way. The education of our Nation's students is one of the most important issues facing us today. I have traveled to China and India and have seen the attention those countries are giving to education for their students.

We need to do a better job at funding our educational programs to give our students the tools they need to compete in a global economy. However, under the President's budget, key programs such as work study and supplemental educational opportunity grants will be frozen.

Tuition in New York State schools have increased over 20 percent over the last few years. These new cuts in student aid will put college further out of reach of so many of the New York students. This is the wrong message to be sending to our students who work hard in high school and dream of going to college. We can do a better job, but we need adequate funding to truly help our students achieve their dreams.

As you know, our health care system needs attention also. Over 40 million

Americans are without health insurance. In New York 2.5 million are uninsured. In his State of the Union address, President Bush vaguely outlined a proposal to deal with this very issue. I applaud the President for bringing this issue to the forefront of the debate.

However, I do not agree with the President's plan. I am afraid his proposal will raise health care costs for New York's working class, while doing very little to help the 2.5 million uninsured. The money President Bush requested for his plan can be better used to lower premiums and truly make health care affordable for all Americans.

Since the start of the 110th Congress the House has done the people's work. We have raised the minimum wage, cut student loan interest rates, and helped Medicare beneficiaries. We have changed the focus of our Nation to help all Americans.

The President's budget request misses the mark and will harm already underfunded programs. We in Congress must devote more attention and funding to our Nation's education and health care. These issues have been long underfunded for too long.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to refocus our priorities and fully fund our educational and health care programs. I know in the next 3 days we are going to be debating Iraq, which I think is probably one of the most important issues facing this Nation.

But even with that, we as Democrats will continue doing the work of the American people and finally getting some work done that is going to help all Americans. That is what we as Democrats will do. That is what we pledged and we will follow through with that.

Mr. Speaker, for the last several weeks you have heard me talk about gun violence in this country, and I happen to think there are solutions where we can reduce gun violence.

I would like to talk about firearm tracing data. Firearm tracing data gives law enforcement agencies the ability to retrieve useful data on guns used in crimes. Tracing data will let our police departments locate the gun dealers who sell guns used in crimes. Without this tracing data, local law enforcement will not be able to pursue civil action on suppliers that have been implicated in crimes without asking the ATF's permission first.

It is important that we use tracing data to single out the bad gun owners. One percent of gun owners sell 50 percent of the guns used in crime in this country. That is a staggering number. We can crack down on that 1 percent. We can make our streets and cities safer. The collection of tracing data does not prevent anyone from purchasing a gun. It simply gives law enforcement the tools that they need to solve crimes.

As you can see by this chart, 91 percent of Americans believe that tracing data should be used in some form to help crimes, 91 percent. Why aren't we doing a better job on helping our police officers do their job?

Last week, New York Mayor Bloomberg teamed up with Boston Mayor Menino on this very issue. Together they have formed a bipartisan coalition of more than 120 mayors from across the country. The group has many mayors from the urban as well as the rural areas. These mayors understand the need for tracing data. They understand that Congress has done little to help gun violence and stop gun violence in this country.

They are tired of sitting back as their cities lose more and more citizens to gun violence. By the way, they are also tired of seeing the health care costs on those victims that do survive. This is something that we should be dealing with. It is a health care crisis in this country.

Last week, they held their annual conference here in Washington. They spoke with Members from both sides of the aisle. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. It is not a pro-gun or anti-gun issue. It is a pro-law enforcement issue with common sense, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

We must do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of those that don't deserve to have a gun. That is why I introduced the NICS Improvement Act. This bill will simply strengthen the States. Right now when the NICS system doesn't have the information in it, how can it basically report out who should not be able to buy a gun?

My NICS bill will be giving the States the money to bring their computers up to speed, so that way when someone is adjudicated in court, whether it is on a felony or on domestic violence, someone who should not be able to get a gun shouldn't be able to get approved through the approved NICS system. This is common sense.

Again, this is a pro-safety issue. It doesn't affect anyone who wants to buy a gun, but it makes this country safer from gun violence.

I know it is a very political issue. Everyone is always saying that you are trying to take away my gun. I have never done that. What I am trying to do is save lives; and I am trying to save, certainly, people from being harmed. Our mayors across this great country understand that.

We can do a better job. Congress needs to start listening to the American people. These statistics show that gun owners, by the way, approve overwhelmingly of being able to trace these guns. We should be able to do it. We can do a better job. Americans should have a safer country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated and spirited community leader from the 4th Congressional District, Director of the Uniondale Public Library Susan K. Kern. Susan K. Kern began her library career 40 years ago in her hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts after receiving her Master's degree in Library Science from Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts.

Susan spent time working in public libraries in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey before relocating to Long Island, New York in 1981.

In 1986, Susan became the Director of Uniondale Public Library. She remained in that position for over 20 years. During her tenure at the Uniondale Public Library Susan was a major factor in several projects and programs that are still in existence today. She was responsible for installing the library's first elevator in 1987, coordinating the removal of dangerous asbestos in 1992 to keep the community safe and healthy.

The major project of her Uniondale Public Library career has been the Building Expansion and Renovation project. Beginning in 2003, this renovation took nearly 3 years to complete, ending with a Grand Reopening Celebration on January 8, 2006. This project has doubled the size of the library and has enabled the facility to offer more services and materials for the community.

In addition to the great projects Susan has completed, she is also responsible for many programs for the community. Susan has initiated many art exhibits, classes for both children and adults, and countless cultural programs for community members of all ages.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in recognizing the outstanding guidance provided by Susan K. Kern, and the remarkable accomplishments she has made along the way. Together with her family and friends, I applaud Susan for her dedication and service to the community. I wish her continued success, and am honored to have her as a member of my district.

Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman on the Education Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am watching and listening to this debate, and we certainly have had this debate going back into the committee last year. Many of us have said this is only the beginning of what we are going to be doing for our students.

When you travel around the world and you look at those students that are going to school and you see what those nations are doing to make sure that their students are prepared for the global economy, I have always thought, what are we doing here? What are we doing here in the United States?

I heard that some people say they can go to college without taking out a loan. Well, I wish a lot of my students back home, my constituents' children, could do that. Almost all the students that I know that are going to school have a job and go to school, because that is their dream.

Then I hear that this is not going to do anything for our students that are in school. I sit on the Financial Services Committee also, and we know the burden that our young people are facing when they finish college because of the interest rates. We are trying to address that. As I said, this is the first of the things that we will be doing to make sure that our students have the opportunity to go to college, to keep the costs down and help them on every single level.

This actually fits, in my opinion, with Leave No Child Behind, which we will be addressing in the committee this year also. We want our students to be well prepared so they are able to go to college, and it fits together, and we are going to make sure that we have a good plan for Leave No Child Behind. I am looking forward to working on that.

College education is expensive, and yet we know that our students need to go to college to compete in the global economy that we are facing. This Nation has not stood up to help our students, and we need to do a better job of it. This is the beginning of that.

I hope all my colleagues will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the House begins its work in the 110th Congress, we must address the issue of gun violence. Congress has a responsibility to make sure violent criminals cannot legally purchase guns. I am not proposing any new laws or a ban on buying guns. Instead, we must help our States enforce current laws that prevent criminals from buying guns.

The NICS system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is the database used to check potential firearm buyers for any criminal records. In large, NICS has been a very good success. Since 1994 more than 700,000 individuals were denied a gun for failing their background check. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information in its database.

Mr. Speaker, 25 States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS system. In these States, many felons won't turn up on the NICS system and would be able to purchase a gun with no questions asked.

In 13 States, domestic violence and restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system. Common sense would dictate that you don't sell a gun to somebody that has a restraining order. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle. His own mother had a restraining order against him as a result of his violent background. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but he simply fell through the cracks. Four days later, Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, opened fire and killed two innocent people. Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him from buying the gun failed.

We must fix the NICS system. That is why I introduced H.R. 297, the NICS Improvement Act. This legislation would provide grants to States to update the NICS system. States would be able to update their NICS database to include felons, domestic abusers and other violent criminals. We need the NICS Improvement Act to become law, and we need to pass more bills like it.

These ideas impose no new restrictions on gun owners, but give the government the tools to ensure existing laws are effective and enforceable. In fact, the NICS Improvement Act already passed the House in the 107th Congress by voice vote. Last Congress, a Judiciary subcommittee passed the measure. Unfortunately it did not get to the full committee.

This is commonsense gun legislation that we can all agree on. This bill will save lives while not infringing on anybody's second amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I call on Congress to act quickly on H.R. 247. If we can prevent tragedies like this happening throughout the country, we could save lives and enforce the laws already on the books.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring one other subject up. This country is facing a shortage of blood. I would encourage all people in this country to give blood. It is easy, it is painless, and it can save someone's life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman of education for bringing this important matter to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I know Congress isn't used to having straight, clean bills. We can do this. Ten years I have been in Congress, and 10 years we have been trying to get the minimum wage raised. We talk about small business. There is not one person on the Democratic side that doesn't support small businesses, but we also support those people that are trying to make a living wage.

By estimates, there are 623,000 single women raising families trying to make a living. I go to the grocery store. I fill up my gas tank. We are very privileged here to make a very nice salary. Yet we are denying those that need our help the most to give them some sort of life. $7.25. Who the heck can live on that, even if you work 60 hours a week? And, by the way, these people that are working these jobs on minimum wage usually have two jobs, sometimes three.

It is time that we do this. It is the moral and right thing.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, unfortunately, violence has struck our schools again. Unfortunately, this has been an increasing trend. In the past several years, we have seen countless incidents across the Nation.

School violence is not limited to urban areas. Acts of bullying and other violent crimes occur in schools across the Nation on a daily basis. We must do something to stop this growing trend.

Our current reporting system on school violence is severely flawed. Under current law, school violence stats are collected through surveys and self-reported data. This data is not the most current data available and does not provide an accurate view of the situation.

The FBI has developed a system of reporting that is both comprehensive and up to date. This system is referred to as the NI-BERS System. It collects the data, details of crime incidents, and is a much greater tool to prevent school violence. Accurate data is valuable to addressing this issue. It allows our school administrators to see the true impact of school safety programs and it provides the basis for need-based school funding.

In response to these issues, I have introduced the Safe Schools Against Violence in Education Act. My bill, referred to as the SAFE Act, moves reporting data from surveys to real crime stats in the NI- BERS System. This move will allow schools to accurately address school safety issues.

It will also ensure that funding is allotted to the schools that need it the most. Our schools do not have the resources that they need to combat school violence. President Bush has constantly cut funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. These cuts have left our already-overburdened schools without the money needed to stop school violence.

The SAFE Act will restore funding for our schools through a need- based grant program. Schools that do not have a safe climate will receive grants from the Department of Education. That money will be used to update school safety programs to curb the needless acts of violence and make our schools safer for our children. If we are serious about school safety, we must not only implement new reporting measures but must fully fund our schools.

The SAFE Act is endorsed by the National Parent and Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the National School Safety and Security Services.

Congress has sat and watched as schools across the country have attempted to deal with school violence with insufficient data and little to no funding. We tried to correct this in Leave No Child Behind. So as we reauthorize Leave No Child Behind this year, I am hoping we will be able to implement a better program. We have an opportunity to change the way we handle school violence in this country and truly make our schools safe.

We see and hear every day about the violence, when our children are in school and do not feel safe, and I have talked to so many teenagers and middle school students that say that many times they do not feel safe in school. We can do something, but we need a better way of reporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Stewart Manor School for having received the prestigious Blue Ribbon School award. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes schools that make significant progress in closing the achievement gap or whose students achieve at very high levels. Stewart Manor School has high expectations. It ranks in the top 10 percent in the State of New York in math and English scores. Stewart Manor School has proven it has outstanding instruction, teacher training and student achievement.

The future of this country depends on the hopes and dreams of its children, and our community and our Nation are enhanced by the contributions of high achieving students like those at Stewart Manor School.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and admiration I offer my thanks and recognition to Stewart Manor School.

Mr. Speaker, you know, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, we are all working people, working with the staffs on the Republican side and the Democratic side. Here we are. There is a change. None of us know whether we are going to be reelected in 2 years. That is a risk that we all take.

But for the staff who have worked so hard for all of us on all of our issues, we certainly should be looking at this as positive legislation.

I have worked so many times with my Republican colleagues with their staff members and we have worked certainly well together on so many issues, but that is not the point. The point is these are people that have devoted their lives to public service. We don't even pay them enough. Any one of them can go into the private sector and earn a heck of a lot more money.

So here we are at the end of a session, 11:00, almost 12:00 at night, and we are going to deny severance pay to those who have served this country so well.

I urge my colleagues, no matter what our differences are, these people have done great service to this Nation and they certainly deserve severance pay.

I hope that this Congress and certainly the Members here will put themselves in a position of what their staff might be 2 years from now. These are people that are devoted to each and every one of us. They have served each and every one of us. They have served this Nation. I hope we can pass this resolution and give them a severance pay.

Mr. Speaker, last month the people voiced their opinion of the 109th Congress. Their message was loud and clear. It is time for common sense, and I hope we can follow the people's lead and pass some commonsense legislation coming this January.

I am particularly interested in commonsense legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on anyone's second amendment right. When it comes to commonsense gun laws, the Congress has a dismal record.

Thus far this Congress has given corrupt and incomplete gun dealers immunity from negligent lawsuits. This Congress has made it a crime for two police departments to share information from ATF's ballistics database. This Congress has tied the hands of law enforcement during times of disaster and has made it possible for guns to be brought into hurricane shelters.

But next year I am hoping for a fresh start when it comes to commonsense gun laws. Last spring our Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security approved H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. That is a bill that I had introduced a number of years ago. This is a bill that would improve the effectiveness of the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database used to check firearms buyers for any criminal record or other disqualifying criteria. Overall, the NICS has been a great success. Since 1994 more than 1.2 million individuals have been turned down because of a failed background check. NICS also provides the vast majority of honest gun sellers with peace of mind in knowing that they are selling their products to citizens who will use them safely and legally.

However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that is put into it. And, unfortunately, many States do not have the resources necessary to enter all of their disqualifying criteria into the NICS system. This is thanks, in part, to the many unfunded mandates this Congress has imposed upon the States. The end result is that felons and others who are

not permitted by existing law to buy guns are passing background checks and buying guns through legitimate means. In fact, 28 States have automated less than 75 percent of their criminal history records. In 15 States domestic violence restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system.

Mr. Speaker, each year we see thousands and thousands of people dying because of gun violence. We see so many more being wounded because of gun violence. We have a chance to enforce the laws that are on the books, but we need to help the States get the money to computerize the information that they have. We can save lives, number one. We can cut down on health care costs. And all that can be done by passing the NICS Act.

The bill was passed a couple years ago. Unfortunately, the Senate ran out of time. In January we here in Congress will be working 5 days a week; and I am hoping with that we will have the time to pass the laws that this country expects us to do, bread-and-butter issues to make us safe, to help the economy. We can do this. And I am hoping that the Judiciary Committee will bring up the NICS bill, pass it this year, and get it over to to Senate so that we can pass it there and have the President sign it.

The people spoke on November 7 and we here in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, will be working together. We have very large issues in front of us, but let us not forget about the small issues also, those quality-of-life issues for our constituents. Let us show America that we can do better. This Congress, this next Congress, will do better, and we will do a better job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the incorporation of Mineola, NY, my hometown.

I've lived in Mineola for over 50 years and I am proud to be a part of its centennial celebration.

The Village of Mineola was originally part of the land claimed by Henry Hudson for the Dutch East India Tea Company in 1609 and was settled by farmers in 1637. On June 12, 1858, the area was first called ``Mineola,'' derived from the Algonquin word

``Meniolagamika'' which means ``a friendly or pleasant village.''

Mineola has been the proud home of Nassau County's government since 1900, when New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt laid the comer stone of the county courthouse on the comers of Old Country Road and Franklin Avenue.

Since its incorporation, Mineola has been a center of culture and commerce for people from all of Long Island throughout its history. Today, Mineola is home to more than 20,000 residents, a thriving local economy and a strong sense of history and community.

Mineola has changed since my family arrived, but progress hasn't changed the spirit of its people. The fact that so many who grew up in Mineola end up raising their own children there is a testament to what a special place my hometown is.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the entire House join me in congratulating the Village of Mineola on its first 100 years of incorporation. Happy Birthday, Mineola.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Higher Education extension.

I am pleased to see that it includes bipartisan language that provides student loan forgiveness to the spouses of first responders lost or disabled in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

This year marks the fifth anniversary of 9/11. I first introduced this bill in October, 2001; and I am pleased to see that we have worked together to finally pass this provision. This is long overdue and will provide welcome financial relief to families most affected by 9/11.

Many of the heroes of 9/11 left behind families who had to contend with the loss of a loved one and tremendous financial obligations.

The victims who died or were disabled on 9/11 had their loans forgiven, but that is not the case for their spouses. Anyone who loses a spouse faces severe financial challenges. This bill will help those who relied on their spouse's income to pay off students loans. This bill also works with parents who took out loans for their children's education.

Mr. Speaker, I really would like to say thank you to Ranking Member Miller and his staff for the work they have done, as well as Chairman McKeon and his staff for the hard work they have done. I truly appreciate working with them and look forward to next year when we work together to pass the higher education bill. I also thank Mr. Kildee for helping me out on this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Again, working on the Education Committee, we have a lot of challenges. We always face a lot of challenges. But in the end I think we will hopefully work together again when we come back in January and pass some good legislation. I think everybody cares about the children of this Nation, and together we will make it even better.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, in my 10 years in Congress I have never seen a bill with a more misleading name than this legislation. Instead of modernizing or reforming the ATF, it makes it tougher for ATF to crack down on illegal guns. I know the vast majority of gun sellers are honest, and we know that. But why does Congress feel the need to protect the small minority who sell guns illegally?

This legislation ties the hands of the ATF in its dealings with 1 percent, you have heard that figure before, 1 percent. Why aren't we going after that 1 percent? I know the mayor of New York has been trying to go after that 1 percent, because in New York that is where the illegal guns are coming from, this 1 percent, and they are killing our police officers, they are killing our citizens. And you wonder why some of us get so up in arms about this.

We should be giving the ATF the tools to crack down on these illegal guns. The bill relaxes recordkeeping requirements by no longer requiring dealers to properly maintain the records. Not maintaining the records. Again, it was said by my colleague that we should be enforcing the laws on the books. All of us agree on that, and there is not one of us that is trying to take away the right of someone to own a gun. But, again, the NRA comes down here, and we hear on how many people have signed on to this bill. Actually, more than that will be there because they are petrified of the NRA. Why? Because the NRA will organize their members and basically just go after that Member if they dare to vote against them.

But even if the ATF is able to revoke a corrupt unlicensed dealer, this bill gives the dealer 60 days to sell off the remaining inventory. How crazy is that? You know, we hear constantly that we are after DWI drivers all the time. And if a tavern is proven to be selling constantly to underage drivers, they lose their license. They don't have any time to sell off all their liquor. I mean, let's have a little common sense here. I mean, we seem to be going backwards constantly in going forward in trying to protect our police officers and certainly our front liners out there.

Proponents of this bill will tell you that it is to protect honest gun sellers who are unfairly targeted by the ATF. I don't know why the gun dealers aren't standing up and saying let's go after these unscrupulous gun dealers. They are the ones who are giving them the bad name. The current law already protects honest dealers.

In fact, while the ATF regularly uncovers illegal acts of gun dealers, it is very rare that it is able to revoke their license. In fact, and the last we have is from 2003, the ATF found violations at more than 1,800 gun dealers in 2003. The ATF found an average of 80 violations. That is not an overlook, 80 violations, that is someone that is committing a crime at these gun dealers, but only issued license revocation notifications at 54.

The ATF is doing its job. It is looking at who the bad guys are and going after them. It is clear that only the worst violators lose their licenses. Every gun dealer who acknowledges selling a gun to a criminal reflects poorly on the entire gun industry. It is in the best interests of the gun industry that dishonest and negligent sellers are forced to shut their doors. This is a misguided piece of legislation that allows a small minority of corrupt gun sellers to continue to sell guns to criminals without penalties.

You know, we are starting to see crime go up continuously in our small communities, in our cities. We are seeing guns flooding our streets; we see gangs being able to buy guns illegally. Where are they coming from? Where are they coming from? Our police departments are seeing statistics going up constantly, and especially from 2005 to 2006. We have seen more police officers die in the line of duty killed by illegal guns. Why aren't we doing something to crack down on the illegal guns? That is what this country should be doing; that is what this Congress should be doing, and not certainly backing down to the NRA because we have an election coming up. This is juice for all their members. It is crazy.

You know, this debate on gun violence certainly since I have been here has gone backwards and backwards and backwards. We talk about how many people have died every year because of gun violence. A lot of that is accidental deaths, a lot of those are certainly guns that people have in their homes.

No one even talks about the survivors, how it is costing this health care system over $1 billion a year because of gun violence. We can do a better job. We should be doing a better job.