Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to take the time of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, every week I stand here and talk about commonsense approaches to reducing gun violence in this country. And yet this body sees fit to chip away at existing gun laws. So tonight I want to talk about the effects of gun violence in terms that everybody in this body can understand, dollars and cents.

Throughout America, our States are experiencing extraordinary budget problems, forcing them to cut spending on many important initiatives. A great deal of these budget woes are caused by skyrocketing health care costs, and the continued cuts to Medicaid aren't going to help the situation.

Of course, Congress will not allow funding for the Centers for Disease Control to study the true economic cost of gun violence, so we have to use data from independent sources.

Independent sources have shown gun violence costs our economy over $100 billion every year. In fact, each gun death costs our economy $2.8 million. Gun violence increases law enforcement spending. Gun violence costs the economy billions in lost productivity. And while Congress won't let us learn the exact amount, gun violence costs our health care system more than $2 billion every single year.

Since gun violence plagues so many low-income communities, victims are often uninsured. And who picks up the tab for uninsured victims of gun violence? American taxpayers, that's who. So even if you don't think about gun violence as an important issue, you are paying for it.

It is obvious something must be done, and it is also obvious that this body has no plans to intervene in this public health crisis. So it is up to our local communities and neighborhoods.

Across the country people are fed up, but they are trying to make a difference in their own area. I have been to many events that have had politicians, school officials, law enforcement officers and others telling young people about the dangers of guns. But not once has anybody turned the microphone around and asked the kids what do they think.

So many young people live on the front lines of the gun violence epidemic. The rhetoric on both sides of this issue must stop, and we must start to learn to listen.

This isn't about the second amendment; this isn't about kids dying. Many of the people who disagree with my views on the gun issue will say, Guns don't kill people; people do.

But what that doesn't mean is we can't take steps to make sure guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people. This isn't about taking away guns from law-abiding citizens who hunt or shoot skeet, nor is it about depriving law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families. In fact, we can save so many lives without affecting a single lawful gun owner in this country.

This is about keeping guns away from felons and gang members. This is about making sure our police departments have the tools they need to track down illegal guns. This isn't about running honest gun dealers out of business. It is about cracking down on the 1 percent of corrupt gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns used in crimes.

Gun rights advocates have as much stake in this as anybody else. Many see gun violence as an inner-city problem. But let's not forget that gang violence and drug crime also started out as an inner-city problem. We acted too late, and now gangs and drugs are commonplace in suburbs and rural communities.

So as we head home for the spring recess, I ask my colleagues to do something we don't do very often or very well: listen. It is time to listen to the people being affected by gun violence. Listen to our young people in under-served communities. Listen to our police departments who are losing officers to illegal guns every week. And listen to the families who have lost loved ones due to gun violence.

The answers to this epidemic of gun violence do not reside in this Chamber or on K Street, but in the hearts and minds of the people that we represent. It is time that they are heard.

The vast majority of legal gun owners understand the need to stop gun violence. We must all work together, regardless of our interpretation of the second amendment, or whether we live in an urban, suburban, or rural area.

Let us make a commitment to replace our rhetoric with action. Let us make our communities a better and safer place for all young people of all backgrounds.

Together, we can stop this public health care crisis and save lives. I came to Congress to save lives. I will not give up on this fight. We can reduce gun violence in this country. We just have to find common ground on how we are going to do that.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I too would like to thank the chairman for his comments and support. We are fortunate to have a Project GRAD program in my district on Long Island. It is making a critical difference in the lives of many of the students. I appreciate all the help. I hope we can eventually get funding for these programs.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 5005, the Firearms Corrections and Improvement Act. But I don't want to let the name of this legislation fool you. This bill only serves to improve the chances of somebody getting away with a gun crime.

This bill proposes changes that will undermine Federal law and endanger public safety. These are not mere technical corrections, but a blatant attempt to restrict use of the ATF's National Trace Center's database. Previously, the NRA's friends in Congress have inserted language into appropriation bills to restrict access to some important ballistic information.

H.R. 5005 will make restriction access the law. The ATF's gun tracing program helps local police solve gun crimes by analyzing the unique marks made on bullets and cartridges and cases when guns are fired. The images of these markings can be compared with other images in more than 200 Federal, State and local law enforcement laboratories.

But H.R. 5005 would make it a crime for police departments to share information from the database of other departments. Say a police department in my district on Long Island obtains ballistic information from the ATF and a similar shooting occurs in New York City, the Long Island department wouldn't be able to share that information.

In fact, the officer who did share this information could be arrested. That is absolutely insane. Instead of cracking down on criminals using guns, this bill treats police officers like criminals.

Since 9/11, responders in New York and throughout the Nation have gone to great lengths to increase interoperability and information sharing, and now H.R. 5005 comes along and makes information sharing between police departments a crime. Again, some Members of this body put their allegiance to the NRA above common sense.

The tracing program provides law enforcement agencies with valuable information about gun trafficking that can prevent crimes from happening. Tracing helps the public identify gun dealers and traffickers who are supplying illegal guns in our communities, but this legislation would prevent the use of trace data as evidence in any State or Federal court or any non-ATF administrative proceedings.

This bill cuts local law enforcement out of the loop. Without this tracing data local law enforcement officers will not be able to pursue civil action on suppliers that have been implicated in crimes without the ATF's involvement. We all know the ATF doesn't get the resources to get involved in every civil issue regarding gun crimes, but H.R. 5005 does not stop at limiting access to tracing the database. The legislation also makes it more difficult for local police to receive reports of multiple gun purchases. Law enforcement can use these reports to discover whether straw purchasers or gun traffickers are replenishing their inventory. But if this bill becomes law, police will no longer be able to access this information.

The bill also prevents the ATF from maintaining a database of firearm purchase information. This provision would hurt investigations by local law enforcement to determine the point of sale origin of firearms that can help locate an assailant.

As New York City Mayor Bloomberg pointed out in his testimony yesterday, if police can crack down on taverns that serve under-aged drinkers, why can't they go after gun dealers who knowingly sell to criminals?

And since 1 percent of the gun dealers sell 57 percent of the guns used in crimes, this information is vital for police to conduct investigations and root out dishonest gun dealers. This bill is the latest in a long line of misguided legislation that puts protecting the gun industry before keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. No other industry in the country has this kind of protection.

The gun industry already has immunity from litigation resulting from its negligence over incompetence. The industry can now sell military assault weapons to the general public. But now this legislation would protect the 1 percent of dishonest gun dealers who are fueling gun violence throughout this country with their irresponsible business practices. This legislation does nothing to protect the second amendment rights. Nothing in this legislation makes it any easier to hunt or defend themselves using a firearm.

Simply put, H.R. 5005 does more to promote gun crimes than gun rights.

I hope yesterday's hearings showed the public what a bad bill H.R. 5005 really is. I would like to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his opposition to this

legislation, and I would like to enter this testimony from yesterday into the Record.

I will work with Mayor Bloomberg and others from both parties to prevent the bill from becoming law. I wish I had had the time to read the mayor's full testimony, but I will say that I will use the last sentence. ``On behalf of the members of the New York City Police Department, their families and all New Yorkers, I am urging you,'' and that is the Judiciary Committee, ``in the strongest possible terms to reject this God-awful piece of legislation.''

What we are doing here in Congress a little bit too often is taking away the rights of our police officers, taking away the rights of our criminal investigators to cut down on crimes. New York City has done an excellent job on cutting down on crime. We are actually one of the safest cities, and yet the guns that are coming from the outside of our city and being sold in our city that are totally illegal, we will be taking away that tool. That is wrong.

We as Americans should be protecting each other. Whether you live in a city, whether you live in a suburban area, whether you live in a suburban urban area, we have to do more. We need to change the rhetoric that is going on here. We need to protect people. And I will bring up over and over again what we can do to bring down gun crime in this country, certainly by saving people from dying but also reducing the health care costs that are in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the material I referred to previously is as follows:

The City of New York,

Office of the Mayor,

New York, NY, March 28, 2006.

Mayor Bloomberg Testifies Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on

Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before

you and give testimony on H.R. 5005--the misnamed Firearms

Corrections and Improvements Act. My name is Michael

Bloomberg, and I am the Mayor of the City of New York.

I want to be very clear that I am not here today to engage

in an ideological debate. H.R. 5005 has nothing to do with

the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but it has

everything to do with illegal guns and the dangers they pose

to our police officers and citizens.

That's why I am here--because the bill this Subcommittee is

considering would explicitly impinge on our ability to fight

illegal gun trafficking, and it would result in the shooting

deaths of innocent people.

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject it--

and I am submitting letters from mayors around the nation, as

well as from the former Chief of the ATF's Crime Gun Analysis

Branch, who join me in opposing this legislation.

Why do New Yorkers care about illegal gun sales in other

states? It's true that New York is the safest big city in

America, and I'm very proud that we have reduced major crime

by nearly 25 percent compared to 5 years ago.

But the harsh reality is that far too many people continue

to be killed with illegal guns--and nearly all of those guns

are purchased outside of New York State. Last year, illegal

guns were used to take the lives of more than 300 people in

our city.

To protect all New Yorkers, we must not only root out and

punish those who possess, use, and sell illegal weapons--and

we are doing that more effectively than ever--we must also do

everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of

those criminals in the first place. This requires us to look

beyond our borders, because 82 percent of the guns used in

crimes in New York City were purchased outside of New York

State.

H.R. 5005 would make it immeasurably harder to stop the

flow of illegal guns across our borders and into the hands of

criminals by offering extraordinary protections to gun

dealers who knowingly sell guns to criminals, and depriving

local governments and their law enforcement agencies of the

tools they need to hold dealers accountable.

Specifically, these obstacles would take the form of severe

restrictions on our use of ATF trace data, which is perhaps

the most effective tool we have in combating illegal gun

trafficking.

Without question, the vast majority of gun dealers are law-

abiding businesses--and we have no quarrel with them. Most

dealers follow the law and take every precaution to ensure

that their products do not fall into the hands of criminals.

But there is a very small group of bad apples--about 1

percent of all gun dealers--who account for almost 60 percent

of all crime guns nationwide. That's an astounding statistic.

Imagine if 60 percent of all crimes in a city were

committed on one block--would you pass a law that effectively

prevented the police department from using every tool at its

disposal to crack down on that block? Of course not! Yet H.R.

5005 would effectively prevent cities like ours from holding

the 1 percent of bad gun dealers fully accountable for their

actions. And that makes no sense.

When rogue gun dealers break the law, and their guns cause

injury or death to innocent people, they should be compelled

to answer for their conduct in a court of law--just as any

other lawbreaker would. And when they hold licenses issued by

state or local authorities, they should be called to account

in administrative proceedings to revoke their licenses.

This is what happens to businesses in other industries when

they act irresponsibly--think of a tavern that sells alcohol

to teenagers and, as a result, loses its license. Why should

an irresponsible firearms dealer--which poses a far greater

threat to the overall safety of our citizens--be given

special protections from state and local authorities?

In non-criminal proceedings to revoke a rogue gun dealer's

license, trace data is the single most powerful way to

demonstrate unmistakable patterns of illegal conduct. It's

pretty simple: Gun dealers with inordinately large numbers of

traces to crime guns are gun dealers that make it their

practice to sell to straw purchasers. Yet H.R. 5005 would

ensure that this devastating evidence never sees the light of

day. Studies show that when dealers are subject to

enforcement efforts, or even if they suspect enforcement

efforts, the number of crime guns later traced to those

dealers falls off sharply.

Yet by forbidding the use of trace data in civil and

administrative proceedings, H.R. 5005 would make it far more

difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers, and

far more difficult to bring administrative actions to revoke

their licenses.

And my question to you is--why? Why is this in the best

interest of the American people? Why is this in the best

interests of your constituents? Why would Congress protect

the irresponsible gun dealers who help criminals get guns?

Why is it good public policy to make cities fight the war

against gun violence with one hand tied behind their backs?

Is it to benefit special interest groups? Or the one-in-a-

million person who is prosecuted for a purchase that is

negligent but not criminal? Is it for these few ideologues

and extraordinarily unusual cases that you are willing to

facilitate the shooting deaths of thousands of innocent

Americans across this country every year?

I cannot believe so. Nor can I take those answers back to

the parents of the slain members of the New York City Police

Department, including the families of Detectives James

Nemorin and Rodney Andrews, who were murdered three years ago

this month during one of the hundreds of `buy and busts' that

the NYPD carries out every year to take illegal guns off our

streets.

Finally, of the other retrograde provisions in H.R. 5005,

the worst of all is the provision that would actually treat

police officers like criminals.

Under the terms of H.R. 5005, a detective who shares ATF

trace information with another state government for use in a

license revocation hearing against a rogue dealer would be

committing a federal felony--a crime punishable by up to five

years in prison. In other words, if an NYPD Detective talks

to a New Jersey State Trooper about a problem gun dealer

problem, that Detective could go to jail.

I would not expect that I would need to remind Congress of

the horrific consequences that this country, and particularly

New York City, suffered as a result of the federal

government's failure to share information among law

enforcement agencies, and to work together to ``connect the

dots'' in order to establish patterns of criminality and

threats of danger.

Yet incredibly, instead of demanding that our law

enforcement agencies share information, Congress is

considering making it a crime. As absurd as it sounds, this

bill would not only erect new barriers to information, it

could send police officers to prison in order to prevent them

from holding the worst gun dealers accountable for their

potentially dangerous actions. How in the world would you

explain that to the public?

Members of the Subcommittee, I have been to too many police

officers' funerals to believe this bill actually has a

prayer's chance in hell.

But if it does pass, the next time an officer is attacked

by an illegal gun--and I say `next time' because until

Congress gets serious about illegal guns, more police

officers and many more citizens will be murdered--there can

be no denying that all who vote for this bill will bear some

of the responsibility.

That may sound harsh to you, but I'm not going to sugarcoat

my words when discussing a bill that coddles criminals and

endangers police officers and citizens--not only in New York

City, but across this nation.

On behalf of the members of the NYPD, their families, and

all New Yorkers, I am urging you in the strongest possible

terms to reject this God-awful piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

Madam Speaker, I came here to Washington to do everything I could to reduce gun violence in this country; and unfortunately, the atmosphere that is here is preventing me from doing that.

There are many out there that say I am out there to try to take away the right of someone to own a gun, and yet I have never introduced any kind of legislation that would do any such thing.

What I am trying to do is save lives. What I am trying to do is certainly try to keep medical costs down. We have come to an agreement, many Members in this Chamber, on legislation I introduced a couple of years ago. The reason behind this legislation was because, unfortunately, there was another shooting in my district and two of my parishioners were killed. And the sad story is it could have been prevented.

Peter Troy, who is someone that had a very long mental health background, and he also had a restraining order from his mother against him because of his violent acts, was able to go into a store and legally buy a gun. He was able to do this because the State, my State of New York, did not put the information into the State system that was supposed to go into the NICS system.

This is happening every single day across this Nation. We looked into it and figured how can we change this. So we started looking at the different States. We saw that some States hardly had any records in the NICS system that had anything to do with domestic violence. We saw also that many States did not put anything in on those that were convicted of felonies. So we came up with legislation that we thought would help to reduce crime in this country.

We came up with legislation that we knew if we could keep guns out of illegal hands, those that should not be able to buy a gun, we could save lives. And if we could save lives, we are hoping also we could save injuries, and this way it is a win-win situation for everyone in our community.

I am hoping before the Memorial Day recess that I will be able to get my legislation back on to the floor for a vote. It did pass in 1997, and we had it on a voice vote because everybody agreed with it.

Now, I know our time down here is very short. We are going on another break this very week. For the 10 years that I have been here in Washington, we have never had a break in March. I wish we could be staying so we could continue to work to do the people's work.

I guess what I want to talk about is that we could have reasonable laws that could help people, save people's lives and make a difference in someone's life. We can do this without certainly infringing on anyone's second amendment rights.

The NICS bill that I am proposing would help our States bring their data up to speed. We all know that computers and the Internet are moving very rapidly, but a computer is only as good as the information in it. What I propose, and what had been accepted here in this House, would give the States the money so that when someone is convicted of a crime that would make them ineligible to be able to buy a gun, that would immediately go into the system. This is a win-win situation for everyone.

Back in my State of New York we are seeing more and more illegal guns coming into my city. It is probably happening in a lot of other States. It is only a small percentage of those bad people that are buying these illegal guns that we can stop.

Madam Speaker, there are so many things we could do to stop gun violence in this country, to make a difference. And I know it is not on the top of the list of everybody in this country. I know the majority of people are struggling to just get through their day, working, coming home, taking care of the family, doing everything that a family should be doing because they honestly feel that we as politicians are down here protecting them.

We talk about homeland security. We talk about possible terrorists in this country, and yet we make it so easy for those out there to buy guns.

Madam Speaker, I hope we can make a difference. I hope we can change the dialogue. I hope we can save lives. I hope we can prevent injuries.

Mr. Speaker, once again we are threatened budget cuts that affect our local law enforcement agencies' effectiveness. Not only is the COPS program facing cuts and the criminal background check system for firearm purchases underfunded, but now the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network program is also in jeopardy.

The NIBIN is used by forensic experts to analyze the unique marks made on bullets and cartridge cases when guns are fired. The images of these markings can be compared with other images in more than 200 Federal, State, and local law enforcement laboratories. By tracing and comparing these markings, police can track the history of a gun used in a crime. They can determine which crimes are related and make sure the appropriate law enforcement agencies are working together to find the criminals responsible for these crimes.

NIBIN makes law enforcement agencies more efficient by making sure that two agencies are not duplicating their work. In large part, NIBIN has been a success. Last year, the Los Angeles Police Department arrested a man for vandalism and possession of a firearm. The gun was tested and identified as being used in an attempted murder only a month before. If not for ballistics testing, this individual would have gone free and the attempted murder case would still be unsolved.

In my own State of New York, an individual was arrested for unlawful possession of a weapon. The gun was entered into the NIBIN database and was discovered to have been used in an unsolved assault with a deadly weapon incident that occurred in a different jurisdiction. Again, a violent criminal was taken off the streets because of ballistics testing. This is happening on a daily basis.

There are countless other success stories throughout our Nation; but, unfortunately, NIBIN's future is in doubt. Budget cuts are jeopardizing the future of this program. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administers NIBIN and may be forced to cut spending unless Congress acts. Cutting funding of this great program would be a tragedy resulting in more criminals getting away with horrendous acts of violence. ATF needs more, not less, funding for this particular program.

A Department of Justice report last year said the ATF needs to better promote and improve NIBIN. Many law enforcement agencies do not participate in NIBIN simply because they do not have the resources to enter the information into the database. The Justice Department report suggests purchasing equipment for high-crime areas and developing a plan for lower-incidence areas to share ballistics technology.

The report also states it is imperative that we deal with the backlog of ballistic evidence not yet entered into the database. A similar problem exists in the National Instant Background Check system, and I have introduced legislation to give States grants to make sure that data is entered.

We must also fund new ballistic technologies that can provide matches on portions or fragments of bullets found at crime scenes. Mr. Speaker, since 9/11 our law enforcement officers have accepted new responsibilities in the war on terror. But this current budget wants to cut programs that staff local police forces and provides them with bullet-proof vests. Let us work together to make their jobs easier, not more difficult. Let us fully fund the ATF's National Integrated Ballistic Information Network. This will catch repeated offenders before they commit another crime and make sure our law enforcement agencies are on the same page when it comes to investigating crimes that have been related.

A Visit to Areas Affected by Hurricane Katrina

Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment or two to talk about the trip that we had with Speaker Hastert and Leader Pelosi on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. With grateful thanks to Speaker Hastert, he took us down to Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, mainly to see the disaster areas 6 months later and what is happening in those States.

The American people, I know, tend to forget what is going on; but when you go to these States, they need our help desperately. I have been watching CNN and certainly have followed what is going on down there; but when you see it with your own eyes, it is more than anyone can ever imagine: to see whole trailer trucks just thrown into the wetlands due to force of this hurricane; to see the housing just collapsing on a daily basis; and to see our local government officials trying to make ends meets but without a budget because there are no businesses that provide a

tax base. There are no homes there. And the people certainly have to come back to bring back the communities.

In my opinion, it is up to the Federal Government. I know we are trying, but we have to do a little bit better. It is our moral responsibility to help these people. We never know when a disaster will happen in our own back yard, so I hope the American people do not forget the people of Hurricane Katrina. There is still much work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking on the 109th Congress and still we have done nothing to stop illegal guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

I am not proposing anything new about laws or a ban on certain weapons, but helping our States enforce the current law that prevents criminals from buying guns.

NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is the database used to check potential firearms buyers for any criminal record or history of mental illness. In large, NICS has been a success. Since 1994 more than 700,000 individuals were denied a gun for failing a background check. The background check goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and that would basically be what we are enforcing.

However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that the States provide. Twenty-five States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS system. That means that 40 percent of people are not in the system that should be denied guns. In these States many felons will not turn up on the NICS system and would be able to purchase guns with no questions asked.

In 13 States domestic violence restraining orders are not necessarily put into the NICS system. Common sense would dictate that you do not sell a gun to someone who has been served with a restraining order.

Thirty-three States have not automated or do not share mental health records that would disqualify certain individuals from purchasing a gun. Sadly, this particular loophole in the NICS system cost two of my constituents their lives.

On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle. He had a history of mental health problems, and his own mother had a restraining order against him as a result of his violence. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but like so many others, he simply slipped through the cracks in the NICS system. Four days later Peter Troy walked into our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, opened fire and killed Reverend Lawrence Penzes and Eileen Tosner.

Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him from doing so failed.

It is only a matter of time before the system's failings provide larger tragedies. We must fix the NICS system. While we lay the responsibility for the NICS system on the States, many of our States' budgets are already overburdened and will have even fewer resources if the President's budget passes as is intact, which is why I introduced H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act.

This legislation will provide grants to States to update the NICS system. States would be able to update their NICS database to include felons, people with certain mental and emotional disabilities, and domestic abusers. We need the NICS Improvement Act to become law, and we need more bills like this to pass. These are ideas that impose no new restrictions open gun owners, but give the government the tools to ensure existing laws are enforced. In fact, the NICS Improvement Act already passed this House in the 107th Congress by a voice vote. It came through the Judiciary Committee with no dissenting votes. The bill had the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. Unfortunately, the other body never acted upon the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call Congress to act quickly on H.R. 1415. We can prevent tragedies throughout this Nation. Certainly we hear the NRA talking all the time about enforcing the laws on the books. We can do this if we enforce the laws on the books. If we bring up the NICS system the way it is supposed to be, we can save lives.

One thing that people don't talk about, with the injuries and the deaths that we see in this Nation from daily gun violence, it is costing our medical system, our health care system over $2 billion a year. That is money that can certainly be better spent on other health care issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the House will see its way to take this important information, bring the NICS system up to where it should be, and let us save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Girl Scouts of Nassau County for their work to promote health and self-esteem, to build courage, confidence and character in girls and young women.

The Girl Scouts provide an extremely important service, always working to find new ways to address the key issues facing girls and young women. Recently, the Girl Scout Research Institute released a study which concluded that feeling acceptance and emotional health are critical toward achieving healthy habits. The study was quite timely, released just before National Eating Disorder Awareness Week, which is February 27 through March 3. The study brings everyday girls' voices to the forefront of discussions on health and self esteem issues.

The Girl Scouts of Nassau County offer a range of healthy living activities that address the girl as a whole rather than just the food she eats, her weight and her exercise habits. Dove, the beauty brand, made that point by running a Superbowl commercial. The commercial aimed to widen the definition of beauty and inspire healthy, positive self- images among women. The talents of the Girl Scouts of Nassau County Chorus were recruited, and

the young ladies provided the vocals for the commercial, singing the Cyndi Lauper song ``True Colors.''

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I commend and honor the following Girl Scouts of Nassau County and their adult leaders for their achievements and dedication to improving the self image and health of girls and young women. Natalie Aiken, Kara Arena, Alice Azzara, Catherine Azzara, Jennifer Azzara, Chantice Barr, Emily Berger, Gillian Berkowitz, Emme Bih, Stella Bowles, Nicolle Bowman, Antoinette Burke, Tracy Carrella, Kara Curtin, Lauren Dash, Meryl Dickstein, Vicky Eberle, Emma Hood, Alexis Jacobsen, Emily Jacobson, Enrica Maccarone, Julia Marsh, Mykela Martinez, Carlie Mendoza, Christina Mendoza Emily Mervosh, Carly Mignone, Allison Monastero, Marrianne Monastero, Michelle Monastero, Tatiana Montano, Rosalita Morante, Casey Murphy, Laurie Murray, Melanie Pavlidis, Rachel Ruggiero, Katy Schwartz, Samantha Simon, Erin Stark, Megan Stark, Kristen Talbot, Gina Vollaro, Samantha Watterson, Angelica Weber, Amelia Weck, Brenda Weck, Jr., Elizabeth Woods, Courtney Wright, Crystalyn Wynter, Laura Bissett-Carr, Marie Rauch, Donna Rivera-Downey, Melanie Trainor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Paul Lichtman, a science teacher from Uniondale High School. Teaching is one of the most honorable and important professions a person could choose. Dr. Lichtman is at the top of his profession, which his students have always known, and others realize as well. He has been honored by the New York State Assembly, the Nassau County Legislature, the Town of Hempstead Supervisor and the Town Board, and recently was named the Siemens Foundation's top mentor among those who helped 1,600 high school students enter its 2005 national competition. In typical Dr. Lichtman style, he has donated the $15,000 that comes with the award to purchase more equipment for the school's research room.

Dr. Lichtman earned his Pharm.D. in 1990, specializing in toxicology and worked for several years as a manufacturing pharmacist. He was a science research coordinator and teacher at Massapequa High School and Hillcrest High School prior to making his way to Uniondale.

Dr. Lichtman's program is one of only in three in the nation, other than in some magnet schools, where students do most of their research in a school lab rather than at a hospital or university. In just six short years, Dr. Lichtman has increased the number of research students from zero to over 80. His students, mostly minorities, have long credited Dr. Lichtman not just for his encouragement and mentoring in the classroom but also for teaching life lessons that can be used and applied throughout their lives.

The students develop a full research proposal by conducting a complete literature search and designing the methodology, which is then approved by Dr. Lichtman. Students implement the projects in the school's research lab, present their results at science competitions and propose and carry out further studies. The students' projects have resulted in practical applications that have been implemented, such as reduction of storm water runoff contaminants. Many of his students have been nominated for science awards and have placed in various science fairs and competitions, which is a testament to Dr. Lichtman.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Dr. Lichtman, and all of our teachers, for their wonderful work, and their contribution to our leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, in the last year the gun lobby has continued to defy common sense by pursuing a radical agenda in Congress and in State legislatures. Last year Congress passed legislation to give the gun industry unprecedented immunity from litigation and other legal action.

Thanks to this new law, dishonest and corrupt gun dealers will be held accountable for their negligence. Almost 2 years ago, Congress let the ban on assault weapons expire, and this year's budget cuts bullet- proof vest grants for police departments. Congress is allowing criminals to better arm themselves, and now the budget is taking away protection from our police officers.

But sadly, the gun lobby isn't done defying common sense with legislation. The NRA is currently lobbying for States to prohibit employers from banning guns on their private property. It does not matter if someone works in a school, day care center, bar, or even a facility that produces hazardous materials. The NRA wants to let them come to work with a loaded gun in their car.

In fact, the NRA is suing companies who ban guns in the workplace. Let us set the record straight here. I have no problem for a legal citizen to be able to purchase a gun. But allowing loaded guns in day care centers, parking lots, that does not make sense. Right outside of chemical plants, again, makes no sense. This is a recipe for disaster.

The NRA and its allies say that workers bringing guns to work and leaving them in their parked cars makes for a safer workplace, but they never explain how. Last month, an ex-employee of a post office in California opened fire at a mail processing plant, unfortunately killing six people.

Having loaded guns in cars outside the facility has not saved one life. In fact, I cannot think of a single workplace shooting that could have been prevented by loaded guns being kept in company parking lots. But I can think of numerous scenarios that would make a shooting more likely with guns on the premises.

What happens when a criminal learns that parked cars, often left unattended, contain loaded weapons? What is stopping them from breaking into cars and using those guns for crimes? Criminals break into parked cars to steal stereo speakers. They would not hesitate to take a loaded gun. What if an employee brings his or her gun into their place of work. A gun could be misfired or end up in the hands of someone else.

Worse yet, somebody who isn't legally allowed to own a firearm could gain access to a co-worker's gun. Studies show that guns are already the third greatest workplace safety hazard, behind vehicles and heavy machinery.

In fact, 17 people are killed by guns on the job each week. A study done by the University of North Carolina revealed that killings are five times more likely to occur at job sites where guns are allowed in workplaces than where they are prohibited. The NRA has targeted State legislatures for this ridiculous campaign.

The Florida legislature is considering making it a felony for employers to ban workers from having guns on the company property. Similar laws have passed in Alaska, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. I fear it is only a matter of time before they bring their cause before Congress.

Fortunately, the business community has rallied against the NRA on this matter, and for good reason. Businesses know that if they fire someone, who is to say that person is not going to go out into the car and get their gun and come in and try to do the mayhem against an employer. Are they going to have a safe room for someone that has been fired to go there? The liability costs are going to also be involved in private companies.

Also, layoffs and firings are a tough reality in today's economy. How will companies handle giving employees bad news when they may have loaded guns in their cars? Seems to me the latest initiative of the NRA creates a lot more problems than it solves.

Mr. Speaker, instead of being a rubber stamp for the NRA in 2006, let us focus on laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. It is time for common sense, not misguided extremism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the observance of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. AIDS doesn't discriminate. It affects every race, age and gender but HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death among African Americans ages 25-44. It has become a state of emergency.

In the United States, over 400,000 people were living with AIDS at the end of 2003 and African Americans accounted for half of these AIDS cases. The Center for Disease Control suggests that African Americans tend to be diagnosed later in life and at a more advanced stage. This explains why more blacks die sooner from AIDS related complications than any other group in the U.S.

African American women are hit the hardest. Rates of HIV/AIDS diagnosis in African American women are almost 20 times higher than white women and 5 times higher than those of Hispanic women. African American men are diagnosed at a rate of almost 7 times higher than those of white men.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the future is much brighter. Today, people under the age of 25 account for half of all new HIV infections each year. Within that group, African Americans account for 56 percent of new infections. No matter what age group one focuses in on, blacks are most impacted.

The President mentioned the AIDS epidemic in his State of the Union and the Federal Government must stay active in not just funding research initiatives but also in education and improving the lives of those in poverty. Nearly 1 in 4 African Americans lives in poverty. There is an association between higher AIDS cases and lower income. The socioeconomic problems associated with poverty, including limited access to high-quality health care and HIV prevention education, directly or indirectly increase HIV risk. If we can decrease poverty we can decrease the amount of African Americans with HIV/AIDS.

The Nation must take ownership and reinvigorate the response to the crisis within the African American communities and beyond. There must be a partnership between local community organizations with Federal and state agencies. Together we can combat and defeat this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that on November 3, 2005, Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High School, which is in my district, was honored with the Dispelling the Myth Award at the Education Trust National Conference.

Elmont Memorial is one of five schools recognized for ``dispelling the myth'' that poor and minority children cannot learn to high levels. At Elmont, 75 percent of the students are African American, 12 percent Latino, and 24 percent are low income. Most ninth-graders become seniors and almost every senior graduates, with a majority going on to attend 4-year colleges. In 2004, Elmont had the Nation's highest number of African-American students who received college credit on the Advanced Placement World History exam.

The success at Elmont Memorial is due in no small part to its staff. Former principal, Al Harper, who is now the superintendent of the Elmont Union Free School District, has said ``Because a child is poor doesn't mean he can't learn.'' With the high standards set at Elmont, Principal John Capozzi takes pains to ensure teachers are carefully selected, and teachers are forewarned about the intense expectation at the school. Teachers at Elmont Memorial are considered to be part of a larger enterprise with a lot of support and encouragement, not punishment. Elmont Memorial's staff takes a coherent approach to both instruction and the building of personal relationships among adults and students which has led to high achievement.

In addition to former Principal Harper, and Principal Capozzi, Elmont Memorial boasts many other superb staff members including: Alicia Calabrese, English chairperson; Karen Dunkley, social studies teacher; Russell Marino, math teacher; Baytoram Ramharack, social studies chairperson; Wendy Tague, English teacher; Chris Yee, art and technology chairperson. Elmont also has a hardworking, driven and determined student body. Many students are in the school building long after classes end, as part of clubs, sports, or getting help from teachers.

Elmont Memorial's success can be attributed to school system unity, a supportive school board and superintendent, teachers, administrative staff and the students themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and admiration I offer my congratulations to Elmont Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, because of a family matter, I missed several recent votes. I would like the Record to reflect how I would have voted on those votes. Rollcall No. 639--Yea; Rollcall No. 640-- Yea; Rollcall No. 641--Yea; Rollcall No. 642--Yea; Rollcall No. 643-- Yea; Rollcall No. 644--Nay; Rollcall No. 645--No; Rollcall No. 646-- Nay; Rollcall No. 647--Yea; Rollcall No. 648--Yea; Rollcall No. 649-- Yea; Rollcall No. 650--Yea; Rollcall No. 651--Yea; Rollcall No. 652-- Yea; Rollcall No. 653--No; Rollcall No. 654--Yea; Rollcall No. 655-- Yes; Rollcall No. 656--No; Rollcall No. 657--No; Rollcall No. 658--No; Rollcall No. 659--No; Rollcall No. 660--Yes; Rollcall No. 661--No; Rollcall No. 662--Yea; Rollcall No. 663--Nay; Rollcall No. 664--Yea.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor my friend and colleague, John Dingell.

Mr. Dingell has been a member of the House for 50 years. He is truly an institution within this institution.

Mr. Dingell has been a leader in passing legislation to improve people's lives. And he has an unmatched record of fighting corruption and waste in this body and throughout the government.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a good look at Mr. Dingell's record of accomplishment and cooperation.

Mr. Dingell has demonstrated how well this body can operate and how much we can achieve by setting aside partisan differences and working together to do what's right for the American people.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether you are on the same side of an issue or have an opposing view, Mr. Dingell will work with you to make our country a better place.

The ultimate tribute to the Dean of the House on his first 50 years of service would be to follow his lead and end the partisanship and politics of personal destruction that's going on now.

Our country needs members of Congress to lead, not constantly question the motivation of those who do not agree with them.

Mr. Dingell serves as the founding fathers intended us to serve.

I am proud to call Mr. Dingell a colleague. And I am honored to call him a friend. And I look forward to working with him in coming years to help make America stronger and better place.

Mr. Speaker, when I am here in Washington I hear the administration and the House majority brag about how great our economy is,

but when I go home to Long Island, I hear a different story.

My constituents know the state of our economy is nothing to brag about. Prices at the pump are still alarmingly high. Home heating costs are skyrocketing. Corporations have stopped paying into their employees' pension plans. Taxes on student loans have increased. Despite rising health care costs, Medicaid faces deep and painful cuts; and American companies are closing plants and cutting jobs. In fact, almost 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the administration took office.

The American people deserve better than lip service. The American people need an administration in Congress that will put their concerns first. We have seen over the last couple of years certainly the middle income families, which is the great portion of this great country, suffering. It is time that we look at them, help them and do a better job. America can do better.

Mr. Speaker, for months, I have been discussing how Congress can improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by passing H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. People who now are barred by current law from possessing a firearm can purchase guns because NICS data is incomplete. The attached article provides more information on why the 109th Congress must pass H.R. 1415.

I want to comment on patient privacy or the stigma of mental illness. The bill contains language directing the Attorney General to work with Federal, State, and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish protocols for protecting the privacy of information sharing.

My bill does not change current law. The 1968 gun act already bars guns to people ``adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to mental institutions.'' That is how the law now reads. H.R. 1415 does not change the law.

It is important to remember how the NICS process works. If a NICS search determines that a prospective buyer is barred from getting a gun, then NICS tells the gun dealer that the sale must be ``Denied.'' NICS does not tell the dealer why the purchase is denied. The stigma, if any exists, is that a prospective gun purchaser is denied the gun. Why he was denied does not come into the NICS process.

[From the Hartford Courant, Nov. 27, 2005]

Gaps In Records Allow Mentally Ill To Buy Guns

(By Mark Sherman)

Washington.--In Alabama, a man with a history of mental

illness killed two police officers with a rifle he bought on

Christmas Eve.

In suburban, New York, a schizophrenic walked into a church

during Mass and shot to death a priest and a parishioner.

In Texas, a woman taking anti-psychotic medication used a

shotgun to kill herself.

Not one of these names was in a database that licensed gun

dealers must check before making sales--even though federal

law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns.

Most states have privacy laws barring such information from

being shared with law enforcement. Legislation pending in

Congress that has bipartisan support seeks to get more of the

disqualifying records in the database.

In addition to mandating the sharing of mental health

records, the legislation would require that states improve

their computerized record-keeping for felony records and

domestic violence restraining orders and convictions, which

also are supposed to bar people from purchasing guns.

Similar measures, opposed by some advocates for the

mentally ill and gun-rights groups, did not pass Congress in

2002 and 2004.

The FBI, which maintains the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System, has not taken a position on the

bill, but the bureau is blunt about what adding names to its

database would do.

``The availability of this information will save lives,''

the FBI said in a recent report.

More than 53 million background checks for gun sales have

been conducted since 1998, when the NICS replaced a five-day

waiting period. More than 850,000 sales have been denied, the

FBI reported; in most of those cases, the applicant had a

criminal record.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.,

says millions of records are either missing or incomplete.

``The computer is only as good as the information you put in

it,'' McCarthy said.

In the Alabama case, police say Farron Barksdale ambushed

the officers as they arrived at the home of his mother in

Athens, Ala., on Jan. 2, 2004. Barksdale had been committed

involuntarily to mental hospitals on at least two occasions,

authorities said.

Facing the death penalty, he has pleaded not guilty and not

guilty by reason of mental disease and defect.

The shootings led Alabama lawmakers to share with the FBI

the names of people who have been committed involuntarily to

mental institutions. But just 20 other states provide NICS at

least some names of people with serious mental illness, a

disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.

Shyla Stewart had been hospita1ized five times in Texas,

twice by court order. Yet Stewart was able to buy the shotgun

that she later used to kill herself at a WalMart in 2003

because Texas considers mental health records confidential.

The same is true in New York, where Peter Troy was twice

admitted to mental hospitals but bought a .22-caliber rifle

that he used in the shootings inside a Long Island church in

March 2002. Troy is serving consecutive life terms for the

killings.

As a result of the church shootings, McCarthy and Sen.

Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced legislation that year to

close the gaps in the background check system. The bill would

have required the states to give the FBI their records and

provided $250 million in grants to cover their costs.

The bill passed the House without opposition but stalled in

the Senate. In 2004, the measure again had the support of

lawmakers who support gun rights, but it did not pass

Congress.

McCarthy, whose husband was among six people shot to death

on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, has introduced it

again this year, but it has not yet been taken up by a House

Judiciary subcommittee.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a National Rifle Association

board member, was a sponsor of the bill in the last Congress

and continues to support it, spokesman Dan Whiting said. The

NRA supports the concept, but it has not taken a position on

McCarthy's legislation, spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

Michael Faenza, president and Chief executive of the

National Mental Health Association, said forcing states to

share information on the mentally ill would violate patient

privacy and contribute to the stigma they face.

It's just not fair. On the one hand, we want there to be

very limited access to guns,'' Faenza said. ``But here you're

singling out people because of a medical condition and

denying them rights held by everyone else.''

The states that provide some or all mental health records

are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North

Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.