Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when the legislation was passed, it was passed with the help of 70 bipartisan Senators. With that, we had many strong certainly gun rights Senators voting for the amendment. We talk about gun safety. We talk about trying to certainly save and prevent as many injuries as possible. We talk about, you know, having it mandatory when you buy a gun. But we are not asking mandatory that the person use the gun lock.

The whole idea was, hopefully, educational-wise, as we do with so many other products, we will have that gun owner use it. Many gun owners use storage locks. And that is great. We are trying to reach out to more.

I have nurses around the country that actually go to gun stores and hand out gun locks like this. They are not expensive. They are $5 to $7. We have seen safety issues certainly at the forefront, helmets for kids when they ride their bicycles. That has saved a lot of head injuries.

When we look at the health care issues on gun violence, unfortunately, especially to children, we see a lot of money in the health care system being used. It is just one other step to hopefully bring down certainly medical care costs in this country, but also more importantly than ever before, certainly work with children to save their lives.

In this past week, we had an incident in New Jersey. A 12-year-old unfortunately got hold of a family gun. Playing with it with his friend, he shot and killed his friend. It was an accident. It was an accident that certainly could have been prevented.

I happen to think that when the Senators on the other side voted, and by the way, this House also voted for the bill, to pass it with the gun safety locks mandatory in that legislation, it is one more thing. Is it a perfect answer? No. We do not have perfect answers.

Since I have been here, I have been trying to convince people that I am not out to take anybody's right to own a gun. But I also talk to an awful lot of gun owners. And they understand the responsibility that they have. Now, if someone buys a gun and it is mandatory to have a gun lock with that gun, they can choose to use it or not to use it. I hope that if they choose not to use it, they would at least give it to someone that would.

As I said, my nurses, they do not have large budgets. But because they work in the emergency rooms and because they are the ones on the front line when these young kids come in, we have done, in my opinion, a very good job on bringing down the number of deaths with children, especially those under 18.

To take away something that this Congress and certainly the other body felt was important enough to put into legislation is something that I think that we should be fighting for. I hope that my colleagues will oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are trying to change the debate again. Again, it is about gun safety. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, with that being said, you have to remember, we are not forcing anyone to use the lock. We are trying to educate them to save lives. It is a commonsense law. Hopefully, everybody will oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, due to travel restrictions I was unable to vote on H.R. 4843, the Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006. If I were here I would have voted in favor of the legislation.

A cost of living adjustment is the least we can do for our veterans. They, and their families, sacrifice a lot to protect our freedoms and rights. Our nation has a responsibility to take care of our veterans.

Surviving spouses of veterans whose deaths were service-connected and their children will benefit from the increase. We must remember when a soldier dies it is our responsibility to take care of their family. It is our duty.

I am hopeful that this is the first of other increases for our veterans. We would all like to see more funding for healthcare and other programs but unfortunately the House leadership doesn't place the emphasis on funding as strongly as I do.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the Rule, because it prevents an amendment offered by Representatives Obey, Hoyer and Mollohan to phase in over two years an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.

Madam Speaker, millions of hard working Americans are barely earning enough to support their families on the wages they are being paid. Some of these people are single mothers, and some are working several jobs just to make ends meet.

Madam Speaker, the proposal to raise the minimum wage is a modest one and it is phased in over time.

Department of Labor figures show that the minimum wage was at its most valuable in 1968, and since then its value has fluctuated, but it has never been lower than it is now.

In January 2006, it would have needed to be increased to $9.05 to equal the purchasing power of the statutory minimum wage in 1968.

There has been no raise in the minimum wage in almost ten years, and minimum wage increases over the years have not kept up with increased prices.

I have always, and will continue always to support a reasonable increase in the minimum wage, and since the Rule sought to prohibit an amendment to do this, I oppose this Rule.

Mr. Speaker, today, Tuesday, June 27, I was delayed in my arrival for the week's legislative work, but had I been here I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 890, rollcall 319, approving the Rule for

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4973 is necessary but not sufficient.

It is necessary because the hurricanes and flooding in 2004 and 2005 have shown that the present flood insurance programs must be reformed.

It is not sufficient because those same hurricanes, especially Hurricane Katrina, convinced me that flood insurance alone will not protect the millions of Americans who now live in harm's way along our Nation's coasts and rivers.

I had the privilege of visiting the Gulf Coast earlier this year. I saw the devastating impact of wind and water on homes, on businesses, and on lives. I also heard the horror stories from people who were told that the damage to their lives was caused by water and not wind. In these cases, neither flood insurance nor homeowner's insurance protected them. Others indicated that officials told them they didn't need flood insurance because they were not in a danger zone.

It is time for Congress to go beyond the traditional approach of distinguishing between flood and wind damage. We have to develop a comprehensive natural disaster program that will protect homes from hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural disasters that one day will affect 49 of our 50 states.

Insurance companies know that a disaster can occur. Some companies already are refusing to insure homes on Long Island and in other communities where a ``big one'' is overdue. The hurricane of 1938--the so-called Long Island Express--killed 600 to 700 people, destroyed 75,000 buildings and caused $300 million in damage. At that time, Long Island was the home to 600,000 people. Today, 2.8 million live there. A category 4 hurricane could cause $100 billion in insured damage alone.

Earlier this year, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) and I asked the Financial Services Committee to conduct hearings as soon as possible on the disaster insurance bills before the Committee. Our letter stated that ``We believe that Congress needs to pass a strong reinsurance program. Natural disasters can occur in any region at any time. Since the insurance industry appears unable or unwilling to provide protection for our constituents, then it is time for Congress to act swiftly and positively.''

The initial response indicated that we should wait until after the GAO completes its study of natural disaster insurance needs later this year. Fortunately, the real facts of Katrina, a number of extensive newspaper investigations, and the airing of several ``what if' programs on cable TV are opening eyes even here. The Housing Subcommittee is holding its second hearing tomorrow (June 28) on natural disaster insurance needs. This one will focus on ``The Housing Market and Natural Catastrophes.''

I am convinced that this country needs an insurance program that will cover all natural disaster risks. If properly crafted, this program, will reduce the amount of emergency funds that Congress will have to provide after the next emergency, whether it occurs in the Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, Southeast, or Gulf Coast regions.

I want to encourage the administration, all financial services companies, state and local officials, and this body to work together and to develop a comprehensive and responsible natural disaster insurance program. The policy should be priced according to the risks of that state; it should cover all major natural disasters. It must be mandatory and cover both homes and businesses. States need to update and enforce building codes and to require mitigation both before and after a natural disaster. Finally, the federal program would be a backup for private reinsurance. These are the goals that I will pursue.

The House should pass HR 4973 today. Then, we must turn our attention to the larger disaster insurance issue. The American people cannot afford to add another $20 billion or $50 billion or $100 billion natural disaster relief program to the deficit, not when a fiscally sound alternative may be within reach. Tomorrow may be too late.

Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to speak out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a little while about retirement security. More and more when I am home on the weekends, I am having more of my seniors coming up to me and talking about their nervousness about the talk about changing Social Security next year in 2007. They are also concerned about Medicare because a lot of them are starting to reach that doughnut hole that is in the Medicare part D part.

A lot of people are concerned. They have worked hard all of their lives, and they are basically saying why are you guys down in Congress doing this. We have worked hard, we have put our money into Social Security and Medicare. And I try to reassure them.

Last year, Democrats from across the country, the congressional Democrats, came out to the districts and talked to people about why they needed to get out and have their voices heard.

We believe in Social Security. I know certainly some of my friends who are on Social Security now, they need that money every single month. A lot of them are widowed, and the pension that they thought they were getting is not there any more. So Social Security is giving them that little safety issue.

I think we have to bring back again why we have Social Security. It was basically to make sure that people would not go into poverty. It was not meant to be a retirement fund. It was never to be a retirement fund. It was supposed to be insurance to give you a little bump to make sure that you could pay the rent and heating.

I can say we as Democrats are going to fight to make sure that we do protect Social Security. I think it is important that people remember people with disabilities also get Social Security. Or those who, unfortunately, have lost their husbands at an early age and have children, they will be getting Social Security and their children will be getting Social Security.

I know that going back just about 13 years ago when my husband died, I couldn't imagine how was I going to make it. Well, we did make it and I was lucky that my son was able to recover and that we didn't have to ask for Social Security. But I know a lot of my friends had to because they had young children. This is what it is, a safety net. It is a safety net for all Americans.

So I can say that I certainly pledge for all Democrats that we will protect Social Security. I think people have to understand the scare about taking away Social Security. We are good for Social Security for many, many years down the road. And we are probably going to have to tinker with it as time goes by to make sure that the next generation and the generation after that has Social Security.

There are many that say let's have savings accounts. I am all for savings accounts. I think Americans don't save enough. Those that are old enough and

have parents coming through the Depression learned at an early age, even if you put $1 a week away, or $2, it is something you have for the future.

I happen to believe in saving. Even here in Congress, I try to put away money so when I retire one day, I will have the comfort of knowing I will be able to pay my monthly bills, and I think that is what most senior citizens want to know.

But when we talk about and when you look at the stock market, certainly in the last couple of weeks, it has been up and down like a roller coaster. We all remember in early 2000 when people lost 35 percent of their holdings in the stock market, and many are just starting to recover now. We can't take that kind of chance with Social Security. Social Security is supposed to be something that is safe that the government is going to back. That is something that is extremely important for many of us.

Certainly I know my mom and dad when they retired, and this is going back even 15 years ago, they needed that Social Security. That was the only thing they had to live on. Certainly their children helped them out, but it gave them dignity to be able to pay their own bills, and there are many parents that feel that way. They don't want to be a burden on their children.

I have pledged that in 2007 when we all come back and this debate on Social Security starts again, I pledge that the Democrats will be fighting to save Social Security.

But also pensions. We have seen so many of our people around this country losing their pensions. I know that some corporations say they can't afford it any more. They want to go into a 401(k). Well, I think a 401(k) is fine, but what is happening to us as Americans? What happened to the companies that basically backed us? If you were loyal to your company, you had benefits.

I am going to continue talking about this in the next couple of weeks because I think it is important that Americans know about it.

Mr. Speaker, with so many things going on here in the House, I think it is important to remind people a year ago Democrats, all Democrats from this House, went across the country to talk about why we needed to make sure that Social Security stayed the way it was. We are hearing rumors already that in January of 2007 that they are again going to try to attack Social Security.

May I remind the American people how important Social Security is, not only to our seniors who need it to keep them out of poverty, but also to our widows who are taking care of children, for people with disability.

Social Security is the one plan that has worked since it was conceived here in Congress. Democrats will protect it. I will fight for it. The American people have answered a year ago. We want Social Security.

With everything that is going on here in the House, just remember, Democrats are keeping their eye on everything.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard many of my colleagues talk about the debate tomorrow on Iraq and the war that we are facing. We also have a war going on in this country that unfortunately is very quiet, and that is the shooting and killing of people throughout this country.

Most people don't realize how many people die on a yearly basis because each newspaper reports it but we don't hear all that information nationwide. There are answers on how we can get there to stop this kind of killing.

Last month the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security approved my bill, H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act.

This is a bill that would increase the effectiveness of the existing national instant criminal background check system, the database used to check potential firearms buyers for any criminal record or any other disqualifying criteria. Hopefully, the whole committee will take up this important piece of legislation soon so it can pass both Houses before the 109th Congress adjourns.

Overall, NICS has been a very good success. Since 1994 more than 1.2 million individuals have been denied a gun because of a failed background check. NICS also provides the vast majority of honest gun sellers with peace of mind in knowing 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 it contains.

And, unfortunately, many States do not have the resources necessary to enter all of their disqualifying criteria into the NICS system. 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, which are a disqualifying offense, are not accessible through the NICS system.

These and other loopholes, of course, have cost people their lives, including two of my constituents. On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle from a legitimate gun dealer in New York. He had a history of mental health problems, and his own mother had a restraining order against him as the result of his violent background. Mental adjudication and a restraining order are both NICS disqualifying issues. Yet Peter Troy's NICS background check turned up no red flags. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but like so many others, he simply slipped through the cracks in the NICS system because of lack information.

Four days later Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, my district, and killed two of my constituents.

Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him from doing so simply failed. It is only a matter of time before the system's failings provoke larger tragedies. We must improve the NICS system and allow it to do what it was designed to do.

The responsibility for the accuracy and the effectiveness of the NICS system ultimately belongs to the States. However, many States' budgets are already overburdened. This legislation would provide grants to States and update the NICS system. States would be able to update their NICS database to include felons, domestic abusers, and others not legally qualified to buy a gun. The bill's goal is to have 50 States enter at least 90 percent of their disqualifying information into NICS. States that do not comply or fall short of these goals will be penalized with a 5 percent reduction of their Federal Department of Justice grant allocations.

Also, the bill would provide grants for State courts to promptly enter information into the NICS system. For example, when someone is served with a restraining order stemming from domestic violence, an inefficient NICS system allows him or her to leave the courthouse and head right to the gun store. My bill would make sure all relevant court records are entered into the NICS before a crime of passion can be committed.

It is important to keep in mind that this bill does not infringe on anyone's second amendment rights, which I support. It creates no new gun laws. It simply enforces the laws that are on the books. If H.R. 1415 becomes law, law-abiding citizens who want to buy a gun legally will not experience any delay at the point of purchase.

And this bill proposes no new burdens on gun sellers. In fact, I introduced this bill in 2002 and it was passed here in the House.

I am hoping that we can pass this bill rapidly. We have the opportunity to stop this small war in this country, and we can save lives, which is the most important thing.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would eliminate funding for the IFI.

The violence in Ireland has devastated families and too many men, women and children have lost their lives.

The road to peace has been a long one with many bumps in that road.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are making progress.

By all indications we are on the verge of peace, which is nice for a change.

Now is not the time to cut this important funding, as it has been critical in the peace efforts and it is still needed particularly in places like Belfast.

Cutting U.S. funding now would send a message that the IFI is not internationally supported.

It is important that the people in Ireland who are working toward peace know that they have the support of the United States in these efforts.

I understand that my colleague will offer and withdraw this amendment.

Having said that, I strongly oppose this amendment and will oppose any future similar efforts.

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to an amendment offered by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite to H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. The proposed amendment would effectively cut $10.8 million in funding for the International Fund for Ireland from the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for FY 2007.

The Fund was created by the Irish and British governments 20 years ago to foster economic and social advancement and to encourage dialogue, contact, and reconciliation between unionists and nationalists throughout Ireland. The Fund appropriates its money to address the root causes of deprivation in the most vulnerable regions by using shared economic concerns as a platform for regeneration and cross-community activity.

If the Fund was dissolved, its pioneering work with children and youth throughout the North and border counties would end just as there is progress towards the implementation of the Good Friday Accords. A termination of U.S. funding would undermine the perception of the IFI as an internationally supported body and may impede its ability to secure funding elsewhere.

The IFI has been integral in the progress towards peace and prosperity throughout Ireland, acting in good faith to employ successful measures to alleviate areas of disadvantage. It is with our help that the IFI can continue to achieve these praiseworthy goals in the future.

I hope my colleagues join me in opposition to this amendment so that together, we can move towards peace and prosperity for all of Ireland.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a moment about a radio station in Iraq called Radio Al Mahaba, which is giving Iraqi women a taste of freedom of speech. It is the first and only station for women in the entire Middle East and the only politically and religious independent radio station in Iraq.

This station started in April 2005 using a $350,000 grant from the United Nations Development Fund for Women. As we know, under Saddam Hussein, women lost not only vast employment opportunities, but also educational opportunities. The illiteracy rate of Iraqi women rose to a high of 75 percent, according to UNICEF estimates.

The recent changes in the social and political structure of Iraq have also been difficult on Iraqi women. The radio station was created in order to empower and educate women. When they started, they were broadcasting throughout Iraq, including in isolated areas discussing issues important to women, and also discussing the goals of freedom and democracy.

Unfortunately, insurgent attacks knocked out their main transmitter. In spite of that and a shoestring budget, the people who worked at the station continued on broadcasting in Baghdad. Last week their remaining transmitter, which was rented, failed.

However, with the help of the Iraqi Civil Society Program implemented by America's Development Foundation and funded by the U.S. Agency For International Development, it looks as though they may be able to rent another transmitter and get back on the air soon.

Of course, a more permanent solution is needed. They need a transmitter so they can again broadcast throughout Iraq and have a goal of reaching places like Iran. Iraqi women are fortunate to have this radio station, and it plays an important role toward achieving a free and democratic Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for her willingness to engage us in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend a dynamic educator, Hilari Cohen, from my home State of New York. For the past 7 years, Ms. Cohen has served on the Jericho Board of Education, and is the longest serving school board president in the district's history.

During Mrs. Cohen's tenure on the Board of Education, Jericho has achieved a great deal. Here are just some of the things she has accomplished: expanded the middle/high school complex, introduced an elementary school world language exploratory program, introduced a middle school intramural program, instituted anti-bullying and character education programs, implemented a Social Emotional Literacy program, created an Industry Advisory Board, began a Public Access Defibrillation program, which includes the training of all coaches and administrators in first aid and Automatic External Defibrillation, expanded guidance, psychologist and social worker positions on all grade levels, developed a District wide Safety Team, named among the 100 Best Communities in America for Music Education, implemented paperless communication between the school and home, and improved the Regent's Diploma rate from 80% in 1999 to 100% in 2005.

She has been honored by the Council of Administrators and Supervisors for her outstanding leadership and contributions to the Jericho School District. Her colleagues have said her role as the Board President over the past 7 years has been pivotal to success of the district. Ms. Cohen has worked tirelessly and selflessly to ensure that students get an educational program beyond compare. She truly believes in success for every student.

I am proud to honor this distinguished and accomplished educator, Ms. Hilari Cohen.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor mentor Charmaine Robin, and her mentee, Chris John Garcia, who have received as Spotlight Awards from MENTOR. This mentoring pair was nominated by Baldwin School District, in my district in Baldwin, New York. They were selected from nearly two hundred nominations from across the country. For more than a decade, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership has been working to expand the world of quality mentoring. The idea is that with the help and guidance of an adult mentor, each child can discover how to unlock and achieve his or her potential. The mentoring program provides an answer to the many students who feel that no one cares about them and that they are cut off from our economic system.

Prior to being matched with Charmaine, Chris was not participating in activities in schools, and was not making future goals for himself. With the help and advice of his mentor Charmaine, Chris became involved in many school activities, such as Future Business Leaders of America and Varsity Track, and has challenged himself with honors and advanced placement courses. Chris plans to pursue a career in Physical Therapy.

MENTOR determined Charmaine and Chris are a truly an outstanding match and that they demonstrate the positive impact mentoring can have on a young person's life. I agree, and I could not be more thrilled to commend Charmaine and Chris for receiving the Spotlight Award, and for their achievements.

Permission to speak out of turn.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Centers for Disease Control released a report on the economic burden of injuries in the United States. The results were astonishing.

Every year injuries cost our economy $406 billion in health care, lost wages and lost productivity. The report goes as far as to list specifics on many different injuries; however, there is no listing on the costs of gun violence.

The public might ask how could the CDC avoid gun violence when listing the causes of serious injury in this country? The answer is simple: Congress won't let them.

That is right. Congress, in 1996, following the lead of their benefactors in the gun industry, refused to allow the CDC to report on the economic impact of gun violence. Independent studies show the cost to be nearly $100 million a year, but we can never be for sure because our government is prohibited from researching this public health issue.

In fact, the report on the CDC's Web page has a section dedicated to fireworks injuries, but no space dedicated specifically to firearms injuries or deaths. So the CDC can release information on a cause of injury that kills an average of four people per year, but not on the cause of thousands that are killed by gun violence every year.

However, the CDC cannot completely avoid the topic in its report. The report lists the top 10 causes of death among certain age groups, and, of course, homicide is prevalent, and of homicides of Americans more than 44 years of age, more than 10,000 were attributed to gun violence in 2003. In 1 year there were at least 10,000 people murdered with guns, and Congress won't allow the CDC to study how much these murders cost our economy.

Again, this defies common sense. The CDC isn't allowed to reveal how many Americans survive shootings, like my son did, each year, which adds an additional billions in cost to our economy as well. Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, and Congress is trying to stop us from learning the true impact of this public health crisis. This is a case of our government controlling the flow of information to protect the special interest group. What are they afraid of?

Is the congressional leadership afraid that if people know how much gun violence costs our economy, they would call for commonsense gun legislation? If people knew this information, would congressional leadership be forced to pass laws to keep military assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists? Would they be forced to stop passing legislation that protects the 1 percent of gun dealers who are responsible for selling 50 percent of the guns used in crimes?

Mr. Speaker, the American people have the right to know this information, and let the record show that the release of this information will have no affect on the right of law-abiding citizens to be able to own a gun. But the release of this information might help pass commonsense legislation that will make sure criminals and terrorists cannot legally buy guns, or allow for law enforcement agencies to share information of ballistic evidence.

Mr. Speaker, let's give the CDC the go-ahead to study this issue. The release of this information will make our Nation a safer, better place, and won't place a burden on the right of law-abiding American citizens to exercise their second amendment rights.

This past week it has been 5 years since Columbine. In the last 48 hours, we have seen many schools come under attack. They were prevented because our police got the information. We should allow also the CDC to be able to study why our young people are going to violence to commit and murder, 14, 17, 20 of their friends in school.

Mr. Speaker, gun violence is a health care crisis in this Nation, and until this Congress wakes up, until this country wakes up to be able to do something to reduce gun violence in this country, there are better ways that we could spend the money, certainly helping Medicare, certainly helping the poor get the health care that they need, looking at wellness centers instead of waiting too late until people are sick.

We can do something about this, but the American people need to know the facts and figures. It is only right that we do that.

Mr. Speaker, women live longer and have more health problems associated with aging. They also tend to have less retirement income, which affects their ability to deal with rising health and energy costs. As a result of these factors, the cuts proposed by this budget will affect women especially hard.

This budget would cut Federal healthcare programs aimed at those who need them the most. The burden for covering those who would otherwise be uninsured would be pushed to State and local governments who simply do not have the resources to provide adequate healthcare coverage.

The proposed budget cuts Medicaid spending by $17.2 billion over the next 5 years, through shifting costs to beneficiaries and to State governments as well as cutting payments to healthcare providers.

This budget will force those who rely on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to accept cuts in benefits or require State and local governments to raise taxes to pay for these new responsibilities.

Medicaid is the vehicle for seniors to pay for long-term care and I fear that these proposed cuts will force many nursing homes and other facilities out of business because of their reliance on Medicaid reimbursements.

Long Island has already seen hospitals close their doors because of cuts in Medicaid reimbursements. We cannot afford to have nursing homes suffer the same fate.

The budget also proposes cutting the Medicaid reimbursements for generic drugs by $1.3 billion, school-based services by $3.6 billion, and funding for the disabled by $1.2 billion.

I am committed to fighting these cuts. This budget places the burden for the Federal Government's fiscal irresponsibility on our children, seniors, and the disabled. I will work with my colleagues to restore funding to these critical healthcare programs.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for bringing this important legislation and resolution to the floor and I thank my colleagues that have been working on this for years.

I have been in Congress for 10 years now and during that 10 years we have been working on peace in Ireland. Many of us that are Irish call it ``the troubles'' which have continued over these years. And every time there seemed to have been a little bit of sunlight and we actually thought that peace would finally come to Northern Ireland, and we certainly fought and worked for that. But the Good Friday Agreement is certainly an important piece of legislation and it gave the goal and certainly the hope to the people of Ireland, and I think that is probably the most important thing.

There have been many bumps in the road over the years with the Good Friday Agreement, but it was the people of Northern Ireland, it was the people that basically said, let's go forward. So each time that we saw, as I call it, a bump in the road or a stop sign, it was the people of Ireland that said let's go forward. I happen to think we are at the crossroads now. And I happen to think that with all the people here in Congress especially, I support the things that have been said from my colleagues that we are honestly going to see hopefully peace come.

Ireland economically has done very well and we will continue to support them to do that. But I have to say when the IRA agreed to give up its weapons last February, I think that was certainly the biggest step that we could have asked. The people remain cautious in Ireland, but I do believe the IRA is showing good faith.

In February the Independent Monitoring Commission released a report. The report found that security forces believe that the IRA held on to weapons and is still intelligence gathering. In spite of that, the IMC stated that the IRA seemed to be moving in the right direction.

It is important that the people in Ireland who are working towards peace know that they have the support of the United States in these efforts. I encourage the Irish people to continue their work in the peace process, and I am proud to support this legislation.

We here in Congress carry a great deal of weight. The people of Ireland do trust us. They appreciate us being with them during the good times and the bad times. I would like to say thank you to my colleague, Mr. Walsh, for all the great work in bringing us over to Ireland to meet with all political groups so we can try to see peace in our lifetime.

The Policing Commission has always been a stumbling stone, and yet when we have gone there and we have met and we have seen young Irish Catholic men and women joining the police force and the same on the Protestant side and learning how to be together, there is great hope in the future for all of us. But Northern Ireland and Ireland is going to win in the end, and the United States, I am happy to say, had a lot to do with that.