Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, Congress allowed the Federal ban on assault weapons to expire without a floor vote.

The ban was allowed to die despite the support of two-thirds of the American people and the support of nearly every police organization in the country.

And although he did nothing to help, President Bush even said he supported the ban.

But Congress refused to listen to common sense and allowed weapons such as AK-47s and TEC-9s to be available throughout the United States.

Since then, the NRA and its allies in Congress have pursued a radical agenda to weaken our gun laws.

In July, the other body passed legislation giving the gun industry unprecedented protections from negligence lawsuits.

This legislation will see that negligence goes unpunished. It will also give the industry no incentive to pursue safety innovations for their products.

Had these protections been in place for the auto industry 40 years ago, cars wouldn't have seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes.

The NRA says this law will prevent frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, but it is a problem that doesn't exist.

Over the past 10 years, over 10 million lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. Only 57 have involved the gun industry. And only 12 of those have been ruled frivolous by judges.

The current system works, frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry are not coming to trial.

Also, the NRA has begun a lobbying campaign to convince state legislatures to overturn workplace gun bans.

Whether it is at a daycare center, school, church, or hazardous materials plant, the NRA wants employees to come to work armed. Again, it defies common sense.

Guns are already the third greatest hazard in the workforce and 17 Americans die on the job because of guns each week.

Instead of dismissing irresponsible business practices and allowing guns in daycare centers, Congress should focus on legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

I have introduced legislation to improve the National Instant Background Check System or NICS. NICS is the database used to make sure potential gun buyers are legally permitted to own firearms.

But the system is only as good as the information States provide. Twenty-five States have entered less than sixty percent of their felony convictions into the NICS database.

In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not entered into NICS.

My bill would require States and Federal agencies to provide the FBI with all relevant records necessary to conduct effective background checks.

The bill establishes a nationwide grant program to allow State law enforcement agencies to update and transmit records for inclusion in

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to those affected by the tragic events of Hurricane Katrina. This disaster has presented challenges we could not imagine only a few weeks ago.

A major American city needs to be rebuilt and hundreds of thousands of Americans need to find new homes and jobs. While this is a massive undertaking, this does present a unique opportunity. I happen to think that we should always look for a silver lining in any tragedy that we come across.

We can build a better, stronger New Orleans without losing the character and charm that made the city so great and alive, a New Orleans that can serve as a model for other communities throughout the country. We can build a housing infrastructure that can help end the awful poverty cycle that entraps too many Americans.

The rebuilding of this greet city will provide jobs to people who desperately need them. However, the administration has already adopted policies that will hurt those that need our help the most. The administration has suspended the law requiring Federal contractors to pay employees prevailing wages.

By suspending the Davis-Bacon Act, the President is shortchanging newly unemployed Americans who are looking to rebuild their lives. Meanwhile, Government contractors can take advantage of cheap labor and drive up profits.

The prevailing wage for construction in the gulf region was among the lowest in the Nation before Katrina. Without Davis-Bacon enforcement, residents of the gulf region will be working for less than a living wage.

Paying working families less per hour saves taxpayers nothing. All the money earned from shortchanging workers goes into the profit margins of Government contractors.

The people who are affected by Katrina deserve the same competitive wage protections as every other American worker. These people are willing to work hard to rebuild their beloved cities and their lives, and it is an insult to pay them a substandard wage.

The rebuilding of our gulf coast has the potential to be the greatest economic development project of our time. We can create 21st century transportation, housing, communications and energy infrastructures for the region. Some might remember during the Depression when we had the WPA work program.

The people of New Orleans want to work. The people of New Orleans want to put their lives back together. Let us give them their pride. Let us at least give them a wage that they can live with.

The rebuilding of the gulf coast should create economic opportunities for its residents, not an opportunity to take advantage of people desperate to rebuild their lives.

Mr. Speaker, we have already put the interests of Government contractors before those of the people of Iraq. It would be a travesty to do the same for the people of New Orleans.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill.

Hurricane Katrina has devastated children, parents, teachers and schools from all over our country.

The school year has just started, and now thousands upon thousands of students have been displaced.

Those which are lucky enough to have been able to begin school in other locations are still dealing with the turmoil of being uprooted not only from their homes but also their community, friends, and classmates.

The instability of their situations must be incredibly difficult and painful to deal with.

Education is one of the most important things we can provide our students with, and it is so important to take care of our young people in this horrible time.

Yesterday we passed a bill which would provide a waiver for Pell Grants.

Today we are going to pass a bill which will waive other Title IV requirements to other programs such as TRIO, Academic Achievement Incentive Scholarship, Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS), Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP/SLEAP), High School Equivalency Program (HEP), College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), and the Robert Byrd Scholarship Program.

These are good first starts, but in the coming days we need to do even more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding educational leader, Carl Riccobono.

Today, The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers honor Mr. Riccobono with a 2005 Spotlight Award for Teaching Excellence.

The Creative Coalition is the leading nonprofit, nonpartisan, social and public advocacy organization of the arts and entertainment community. Founded in 1989 by prominent members of the creative community, The Creative Coalition is dedicated to educating and mobilizing its members on issues of public importance, primarily public education, the First Amendment, arts advocacy, and runaway production. Headquartered in New York City, The Creative Coalition also has offices in Washington, DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The Creative Coalition's partner in presenting this award, The American Federation of Teachers, represents 1.3 million teachers, paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel, higher education faculty and staff, healthcare workers, and state and local government employees.

Joining Mr. Riccobono in Washington, DC, to accept his award is one of his former students, actor and member of The Creative Coalition, Steve Buscemi. Mr. Buscemi was a student in Mr. Riccobono's fourth grade class at Shaw Avenue Elementary School, a public school in Valley Stream, New York, over 30 years ago. Mr. Riccobono profoundly influenced Mr. Buscemi as well as countless other students over the past three decades. He has shown a tremendous commitment to the field of teaching.

I join Mr. Riccobono's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him today on this achievement and wishing him well. I also recognize both The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers for their dedication in promoting public education. Public schools and the teachers in them play an essential role in the guidance of our children and shaping of our future. As such, I commend The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers for their support of public schools and for honoring the achievements of educators like Mr. Riccobono.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill because it will result in preempting State laws and in a reduction in health care. AHPs would be exempt from having to provide certain critical services, preempting State laws which require coverage.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation spends millions and millions of dollars on cancer treatments. We also spend millions of dollars just on research and development. This bill would take away a tool that is used to save lives.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and I offered an amendment to this legislation both in committee and again last night in the Committee on Rules. The amendment would have prohibited employers from joining AHPs if it would mean a reduction in coverage for breast and cervical cancer services. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted.

Almost every State has recognized the need to cut health care costs and still provide quality services to their citizens. The States know that without guaranteeing these services, patients will not receive the health care they need. Members have to remember the attorneys general fought in their States to make sure that women would have this care. Why did they fight for it? Because the insurance companies would not offer it.

According to the American Cancer Society, over 211,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in the United States in this year alone. In New York State, there will be 14,000 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed this year alone. Breast cancer is a potentially fatal, but very treatable, disease. However, early detection is the key to proper treatment. Mammogram screenings are essential for the early detection of breast cancer. Timely screening can prevent 15 to 30 percent of all deaths from breast cancer among women over 40 years old.

Currently, New York and 48 other States require insurance companies to cover mammogram screenings. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has stated that mammograms save women's lives. Former Secretary Tommy Thompson stated, ``The Federal Government makes a clear recommendation for women over 40 to have mammograms, get screened for breast cancer with mammograms every 1 to 2 years. The early detection of breast cancer can save lives.''

Preventive screening for cervical cancer is also vital for women's health. Over 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer will be diagnosed this year, and nearly 1,000 of those cases are residing in my home State of New York. Nearly 4,000 women will die in 2005 from cervical cancer.

Preserving the coverage of mammograms and cervical screenings will help save the lives of our wives, mothers and daughters, and also keep down the cost of health care in this country. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported similar measures while in their home States as legislators. They have shown commitment to their home State, and now it is time to show commitment to the Nation.

As a nurse, I know first hand the importance of early detection. I have seen the hardships cancer patients endure. Since I have been here, I have done outreach within my district to get women in for their cervical exams and women over 40 in to get their mammograms. This is very important, and we should not miss this opportunity to save lives. For this reason, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we worked on this on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we tried to put our thoughts into it. People have to understand, if the main bill is passed, health care for our small employers is not going to help the majority of those employees seeking coverage.

The recommittal goes back to what the States have already done, mainly because in the beginning the insurance companies would not give health care to women that needed to have a mammogram or to have a pap smear to make sure they do not have cervical cancer.

This House spends money constantly on cancer research, and here we are using a tool that we can prevent cancer and make sure that women are treated earlier. With this bill, the mainline bill is taking that away. I ask my colleagues, do not be fooled, stand up for your State. Stand up for the health care of your constituents. That is what our job is.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate a colleague of ours, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who is actually having her 100th 5-minute Special Order, and we are very proud of her, the country is very proud of her, on bringing issues that certainly affect her constituency and all of ours. So I congratulate her.

The leadership of Congress is constantly preaching about responsibility. Individuals should accept the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, this culture of responsibility does not extend to the gun industry and negligent gun sellers.

The other body is planning on taking on legislation to grant the gun industry unprecedented immunity from litigation and other legal action. Under this legislation, dealers and manufacturers of guns would receive immunity from any legal action. The gun industry would be unlike the sellers and makers of nearly every other consumer product. These industries must face the consequences of their negligence and misjudgment. In fact, manufacturers and sellers of toy guns are more liable for their products than the makers and sellers of assault weapons and handguns.

The NRA has named this issue as their number one legislative priority this year. They say this bill will end frivolous lawsuits, but not a single, not a single suit against the gun industry has ever been deemed frivolous by a court of law.

This legislation is not about protecting an honest gun dealer who legally sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime. This legislation protects cases of gross negligence which has led to the deaths of unsuspecting victims.

For example, the owner of the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store in Washington State was sued because he could not account for 239 guns in his inventory. One of those guns was the Bushmaster used in the D.C. sniper killings. The D.C. sniper killers were allowed to get their hands on a gun because of a gun seller's negligence. But this legislation would get the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store off the hook from any legal action.

Fortunately, a lawsuit was already filed against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster. Part of the settlement was Bushmaster agreeing to work with its dealer to promote safe sales practices to prevent continued instances of negligence. But the bill being taken up by the other body would have forced the immediate dismissal of the lawsuit against Bull's Eye.

The gun industry must be subjected to the same laws that govern every other American business, and courthouse doors must remain open to those injured or who have lost loved ones because of the gun industry's negligence. This bill would allow gun dealers to knowingly sell large quantities of guns to a single customer intending to traffic the guns to criminals without any legal repercussions.

Stripping away the threat of legal action would seriously jeopardize any opportunity to make guns safer. Without the threat of lawsuits, the gun industry would have no incentive to incorporate gun locks, safety triggers, and smart gun technology into their products. Imagine if this bill had been passed 40 years ago to cover the auto industry. Today cars would not have seatbelts, airbags, or antilock brakes.

Instead of giving the gun industry never-before-seen levels of protection, I support giving the industry Federal research and development money. This money will be used to develop reasonable safety measures for their products.

Congress has not been responding to the threat that gun violence poses on our safety and homeland security. So I will speak in a language the congressional leadership understands: dollars and cents.

It is unfortunate Congress will not allow the Centers for Disease Control to study the economic impact of gun violence, so we have to use data from independent sources.

Independent studies have shown gun violence costs our health care system over $100 billion a year, $100 billion a year. The $100 billion- a-year cost includes premiums paid for private health insurance and tax dollars used to pay for Medicaid.

These costs often are not reimbursed and cost the States vital health care money. Victims who survive and suffer years of rehabilitation costs run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The average cost of each firearm fatality, including medical care, police services, and lost productivity is almost $1 million per person.

Researchers found taxpayers finance 48 percent of health care costs resulting from gun violence through Medicaid and other government programs, which means the American taxpayers are footing the bill for the destruction gun violence causes.

Mr. Speaker, why are we spending time helping the gun dealers and manufacturers? We should be investigating technology that will make guns safer. Safer, smarter guns prevent lawsuits against the gun industry, but more importantly prevent the tragic, unnecessary loss of life that the gun industry's negligence provokes.

We should be giving them research and development money. We should be doing everything we can to prevent the injuries. People do not understand when gun violence hits home, it is a whole disaster to the family and to the community. We can do a better job. We should be doing a better job.

But protecting the gun industry, or certainly the gun dealers from not being able to be sued, is wrong. We should not be closing the courts for anyone.

Mr. Speaker, last week's tragic events in London reminded us that terrorists can strike anywhere, at any time. We must prepare to prevent any kind of scenario that will allow attacks. Terrorists have proven to be innovative in their methods to kill innocent people. We must work to shut down as many avenues of terror as possible or at least make it more difficult for them to carry out their acts.

But since 9/11, the U.S. has dedicated 90 percent of its domestic preparedness resources to preventing an attack involving commercial air travel. While safe air travel is important, we do not pay attention to other possible scenarios, and it is irresponsible of us to do that. It is time for all of us to be proactive instead of reactive in our homeland security strategy.

One area of homeland security that needs to be reviewed is our pre-9/ 11 gun laws. Mr. Speaker, we are at war, and our gun laws currently allow our enemies to arm themselves in our country.

At least 44 times in a 4-month period, people whom the FBI suspected of being members of terrorist groups tried to buy guns. In all but nine instances, the purchases were allowed to go through. Affiliation with a terrorist group does not appear on any Federal background check that would disqualify someone from buying a gun.

There certainly have been many more instances of suspected members of terrorist groups trying to buy guns since then, but since the Justice Department destroys background check records after only 24 hours, we will never know. So not only are we allowing suspected terrorists to arm themselves, we are destroying the records indicating how many guns they actually own. We are destroying critical intelligence in this war on terror.

The question my constituents ask me is, why are these people allowed to buy guns in the first place? It defies common sense. We saw what these terrorists are capable of doing just armed with only a box cutter purchased at a hardware store. Then why do we make it so easy for them to be able to buy guns at stores and at gun shows?

The very same people we spend 90 percent of our homeland security funds on to prevent boarding planes can walk into any gun store and purchase an Uzi, AK-47 or a 50 caliber rifle that can shoot down an airplane, whether it is taking off or landing. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Let me set the record straight: I am not trying to take away the right from anyone of being able to buy a gun. These are law-abiding citizens. They have a right to buy a gun. But we do need commonsense gun safety regulations to protect law-abiding gun owners while making it tougher for criminals and certainly terrorists to be able to obtain a gun.

That is why I introduced the No Fly, No Buy bill. Right now, if you are on a terrorist watch list and you cannot board a plane, you are allowed to go into any gun store or go to a gun show and be able to buy a gun. That is ludicrous.

What my bill would do, if you are on a terrorist no fly list, you would not be able to also buy a gun. I understand that mistakes can be made, and on those mistakes, the list that I have chosen that the FBI has, if you are innocent, you will be able to come off that list.

We have to start having a different dialogue on gun violence in this country. But certainly what we learned from London last week, and we do not know if we have terrorists in this country or not, they always wait until we are least suspecting them, we need to do what we can to make sure guns do not get into the wrong hands.

This is not going to take away anyone's right to own a gun, to go hunting, to protect their families. But we can do a better job, especially working in the times that we are working in today.

Mr. Speaker, since 1935, Social Security has helped millions of our American families. It has helped them enjoy a secure retirement, and it has never been a day late or a dollar short.

Now, the Members of this body and the administration are pushing a plan that will cut benefits for nearly every American under 35. The administration has said in the past that Social Security is a bunch of IOUs. Now we are hearing that we have a surplus, and we are going to take that surplus and finance private accounts.

Where is the common sense in this? Social Security needs a solid source of funding, not a plan that drains trillions of dollars away from our American families that need it. We must commit to improving, not dismantling, the Social Security programs.

We can and we must do better. And let no one forget that Social Security covers people with disabilities and those women and men who have become widows and widowers.

Mr. Speaker, many here in this Chamber, each and every one of us came to Congress to try and make a difference, and each one of us are trying to make that difference.

I came to Congress to try and reduce gun violence in this Nation. And many people have heard me talk about this for close to 8\1/2\ years now. What I want to talk about tonight are three pieces of legislation that I have and why I feel they are so important, especially in the climate that we have.

We are post-9/11 now, and I think what we need to do is start looking at our gun laws that are here today and how we can make this country safer, certainly being part of our homeland security.

One of the bills that I think is probably extremely important is the NICS Improvement Act. Unfortunately, I had a tragedy back in my district going back 3 years ago, where a person came into one of our local churches and ended up shooting the priest and a parishioner. On further investigation, we found out that New York State actually had a record where he should not have been able to buy a gun. But being that they did not give that information to the NICS system, and we all know that a computer is only as good as the system that has the information in it.

Now, with that we did legislation, it actually passed here in the House by a voice vote, and I think it is important that we get that going again and get that improved.

And another reason why, many of us are experiencing high volumes of gangs in our community. And it was only a few months ago that some gangs that were caught by our local police, who did a great job, traced the guns that these young people had, and they were bought legally in Alabama. And I say that, legally. But, again, if they had tried to buy them in New York, they would have been in the system. They were in the system and basically they would not have been able to buy the gun if the NICS system had the correct information in it.

Right now, 25 States have entered less than 60 percent of the convictions of why some people should not be able to buy guns. Thirteen States do not list domestic violence convictions and restraining orders. And unfortunately, that was one of the things with Mr. Troy, who did the shooting in the parish church. His mother actually had a restraining order on him.

Thirty-three States do not share mental health records. Now, I know there is an argument there that we are picking on people with mental health problems. That is not it. We are saying that people that come under adjudication under the system are denied the right to buy a gun. The privacy issue is kept in place. Mainly, if you are denied on a gun, all it does is come up rejected; it does not say for what area that you were rejected. And I think it is important that we get this bill up on the system. This way we will be able to certainly prevent people that should not be able to buy guns, by law under the 1968 Gun Control Act, which is only enforcing the law that is already on the books. We had terrific bipartisan support in the 107th Congress, and I think it is something that we should be doing to move around.

The gun show loophole. I know we had our battles here on the gun show loophole, but even information again for post, 9/11, the FBI has found that over 40 ``terrorists'' on the terrorist watch list have gone into gun shows and been able to buy AK-47s and other guns.

Now, it is common sense that those that go buy a gun, and 13 States have already passed legislation, it has not stopped anyone from buying a gun. It has not closed down any gun shows, because I know that many of our friends in the Midwest, this is a family weekend. They go out and spend a day there and that is fine. I do not have a problem with that. But I think the majority of people agree with me, if you are going to buy a gun, you need to go through a background check. I think that is the basic law that we could do.

The other thing that really perturbs me, and by the way this actually goes into my third bill, no fly, no buy list. Right now we have a list, a terrorist list, and they are not allowed to get onto a plane. And yet they can go into any gun store, they can go to any gun show and are able to buy a gun. I do not think that makes too much common sense. We should be stopping these people from being able to buy their guns.

Think about what happened here in D.C. a few years ago. One person, two people with a gun, certainly kept D.C. and the surrounding area petrified, and millions of dollars was lost.

Imagine these terrorists. You know, people, I think, are starting to become, feel too safe. We know that terrorists will strike when no one is paying attention. And as long as we pay attention to detail, we can stop these terrorists from doing bodily harm. No fly, no buy.

I understand that when you look at foreign countries, sometimes people are prosecuted. That would not be the same here in this country. We know that there are political reasons why they might be thrown in jail. We have a way of being able to adjudicate that.

And also, the list that I chose for this bill is on a list where people can actually go to it and get off the list. And I think that is important because we certainly do not want to deny anyone.

The three bills that I have introduced are not going to stop anyone from being able to buy a gun. Their second amendment rights are protected.

I made a promise when I came to Congress that I would reduce gun violence in this country. But I also am not here to try and take away the right of anyone to own a gun. That is a personal decision for many of us.

Some of us do not like guns. I used to do skeet shooting. It was not my sport. That is certainly up to me. Yet, I know there are many people around this Nation that like to go hunting. And we have always said, going back since 1994, they will be able to go hunting. We are not trying to take away the right to own the gun. But we must enforce the laws that are on the books and make this a safer country.

379. Sergeant Michael G. Owen

380. Lance Corporal Brian K. Schramm

381. Captain Christopher B. Johnson

382. Chief Warrant Officer William I. Brennan

383. Specialist Andrew C. Ehrlich

384. Sergeant Douglas E. Bascom

385. Lance Corporal Jonathan E. Gadsden

386. Sergeant Dennis J. Boles

387. Lance Corporal Richard Patrick Slocum

388. Corporal Brian Oliveira

389. Staff Sergeant Jerome Lemon

390. Private First Class Stephen P. Downing II

391. Specialist Segun Frederick Akintade

392. Sergeant First Class Michael Battles, Sr.

393. Sergeant Maurice Keith Fortune

394. Private First Class John Lukac

395. Sergeant Kelley L. Courtney

396. Private First Class Andrew G. Riedel

397. Lance Corporal John T. Byrd II

398. Corporal Christopher J. Lapka

399. Lance Corporal Travis A. Fox

400. Lance Corporal Michael P. Scarborough

401. Lance Corporal Jeremy D. Bow

402. First Lieutenant Matthew D. Lynch

403. Sergeant Charles Joseph Webb

404. Specialist Cody L. Wentz

405. Corporal Jeremiah A. Baro

406. Lance Corporal Jared P. Hubbard

407. Sergeant Carlos M. Camacho-Rivera

408. Private Justin R. Yoemans

409. Specialist Brian K. Baker

410. Lance Corporal Sean M. Langley

411. Specialist Quoc Binh Tran

412. Lance Corporal Thomas J. Zapp

413. Corporal Robert P. Warns II

414. Specialist Don Allen Clary

415. Staff Sergeant Clinton Lee Wisdom

416. Staff Sergeant David G. Ries

417. Lance Corporal Branden P. Ramey

418. Lance Corporal Shane K. O'Donnell

419. Corporal Nathaniel T. Hammond

420. Specialist Bryan L. Freeman

421. Corporal Joshua D. Palmer

422. Lance Corporal Jeffrey Lam

423. Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson

424. Sergeant David M. Caruso

425. Sergeant John Byron Trotter

426. Staff Sergeant Todd R. Cornell

427. Staff Sergeant Russell L. Slay

428. Lance Corporal Nathan R. Wood

429. Lance Corporal Nicholas D. Larson

430. Corporal William C. James

431. Lance Corporal Juan E. Segura

432. Sergeant Lonny D. Wells

433. Command Sergeant Major Steven W. Faulkenburg

434. Specialist Travis A. Babbitt

435. Master Sergeant Steven E. Auchman

436. Major Horst Gerhard ``Gary'' Moore

437. Lance Corporal Wesley J. Canning

438. Private First Class Dennis J. Miller, Jr.

439. Staff Sergeant Michael C. Ottolini

440. Corporal Romulo J. Jimenez II

441. Lance Corporal Aaron C. Pickering

442. Staff Sergeant Gene Ramirez

443. Lance Corporal Erick J. Hodges

444. First Lieutenant Dan T. Malcom, Jr.

445. Petty Officer Third Class Julian Woods

446. Lance Corporal Kyle W. Burns

447. Second Lieutenant James P. ``JP'' Blecksmith

448. Staff Sergeant Theodore S. ``Sam'' Holder II

449. Corporal Theodore A. Bowling

450. Specialist Thomas K. Doerflinger

451. Staff Sergeant Sean P. Huey

452. Corporal Peter J. Giannopoulos

453. Lance Corporal Justin D. Reppuhn

454. Lance Corporal Nicholas H. Anderson

455. Sergeant James C. ``J.C.'' Matteson

456. Lance Corporal Brian A. Medina

457. Lance Corporal David M. Branning

458. Sergeant Jonathan B. Shields

459. First Lieutenant Edward D. Iwan

460. Corporal Brian P. Prening

461. Corporal Nathan R. Anderson

462. Sergeant Morgan W. Strader

Mr. Speaker, Specialist Nathan W. Nakis.

1. Specialist Christopher J. Holland

2. Sergeant Glenn R. Allison

3. Private First Class Charles E. Bush Jr.

4. Private First Class Stuart W. Moore

5. First Lieutenant Edward M. Saltz

6. Major Christopher J. Splinter

7. Captain Christopher F. Soelzer

8. Sergeant Benjamin W. Biskie

9. Command Sergeant Major Eric F. Cooke

10. Sergeant Michael E. Yashinski

11. Staff Sergeant Thomas W. Christensen

12. Staff Sergeant Stephen C. Hattamer

13. Specialist Charles G. Haight

14. Specialist Michael G. Mihalakis

15. Staff Sergeant Michael J. Sutter

16. Captain Ernesto M. Blanco

17. Private Rey D. Cuervo

18. Sergeant Curt E. Jordan Jr.

19. Specialist Justin W. Pollard

20. Sergeant Dennis A. Corral

21. Specialist Solomon C. ``Kelly'' Bangayan

22. Captain Eric Thomas Paliwoda

23. Specialist Marc S. Seiden

24. Captain Kimberly N. Hampton

25. Specialist Luke P. Frist

26. Private First Class Jesse D. Mizener

27. Chief Warrant Officer Ian D. Manuel

28. Sergeant Jeffrey C. Walker

29. Chief Warrant Officer Aaron A. Weaver

30. Staff Sergeant Craig Davis

31. Specialist Michael A. Diraimondo

32. Specialist Nathaniel H. Johnson

33. Chief Warrant Officer Philip A. Johnson Jr.

34. Sergeant First Class Gregory B. Hicks

35. Specialist Christopher A. Golby

36. Staff Sergeant Ricky L. Crockett

37. Sergeant Keicia M. Hines

38. Staff Sergeant Roland L. Castro

39. Sergeant Edmond Lee Randle Jr.

40. Specialist Larry E. Polley Jr.

41. Private First Class Cody J. Orr

42. Master Sergeant Kelly L. Hornbeck

43. Private First Class James D. Parker

44. Specialist Gabriel T. Palacios

45. Chief Warrant Officer Brian D. Hazelgrove

46. Chief Warrant Officer Michael T. Blaise

47. Specialist Jason K. Chappell

48. Private First Class Ervin Dervishi

49. Staff Sergeant Kenneth W. Hendrickson

50. Sergeant Randy S. Rosenberg

51. Sergeant Keith L. Smette

52. Specialist William R. Sturges Jr.

53. Staff Sergeant Christopher Bunda

54. Chief Warrant Officer Patrick D. Dorff

55. First Lieutenant Adam G. Mooney

56. Sergeant Travis A. Moothart

57. Sergeant Cory R. Mracek

58. Sergeant First Class James T. Hoffman

59. Second Lieutenant Luke S. James

60. Staff Sergeant Lester O. Kinney II

61. Captain Matthew J. August

62. Staff Sergeant Sean G. Landrus

63. Private First Class Luis A. Moreno

64. Private First Class Holly J. McGeogh

65. Sergeant Eliu A. Miersandoval

66. Corporal Juan C. Cabral Banuelos

67. Private First Class Armando Soriano

68. Second Lieutenant Seth J. Dvorin

69. Specialist Joshua L. Knowles

70. Staff Sergeant Richard P. Ramey

71. Sergeant Thomas D. Robbins

72. Sergeant Elijah Tai Wah Wong

73. Master Sergeant Jude C. Mariano

74. Private First Class William C. Ramirez

75. Sergeant Patrick S. Tainsh

76. Specialist Eric U. Ramirez

77. Private Bryan N. Spry

78. Specialist Christopher M. Taylor

79. Private First Class Nichole M. Frye

80. Specialist Michael M. Merila

81. Specialist Roger G. Ling

82. Second Lieutenant Jeffrey C. Graham

83. Sergeant First Class Henry A. Bacon

Mr. Speaker, currently, when someone wants to buy a gun, they are subject to a background check, and once he or she is cleared, the records of that transaction are destroyed after 24 hours. But 24 hours is simply not enough time to ensure a gun is not sold to someone who should not be buying guns. Why? Because the National Instant Background Check System, or NICS, is not effective enough to warrant such a quick turnaround time on gun purchase records.

NICS is a database to check potential firearm buyers for any criminal record or history of mental illness.

Mr. Speaker, however, the NICS system is only as good as the information States provide. Twenty-five States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS system.

In these States, many felons will not be listed on the NICS system and would be able to purchase guns with no questions asked. In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system. Common sense would dictate that you do not sell a gun to someone who has been recently 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 under existing law. Also felony convictions in some States will not show up on another State's background check.

I understand the political realities of this Congress when it comes to new gun laws. Many on both sides of the aisle see anything longer than a 24-hour period to hold records as a de facto gun registry.

So we must take measures to fix the NICS system to make sure that our existing laws are enforced. I have introduced legislation with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the NICS Improvement Act of 2005, that will give States grants to update their NICS database.

This is the same bill that passed the House by a voice vote in the 107th Congress. No one person was denied his or her second amendment rights because of this bill. Even the National Rifle Association approved the bill in 2002.

It is the States' responsibility to make sure that NICS databases are in order. But if so many States are facing budget problems, many simply cannot afford to dedicate resources to updating their NICS system.

Meanwhile, too many criminals are slipping through the cracks of our background check system. This is unacceptable, especially in the post- 9/11 era. Until we fix the NICS system, our law enforcement officers will continue to be within a tight deadline to determine whether or not background checks cover all of the bases.

With my bill, we can ensure that the NICS system does its job at the point of purchase. Mr. Speaker, please bring the NICS Improvement Act up for a vote this summer. It is time that we

close the legal loopholes that make it so easy for criminals to buy guns and so difficult for law enforcement agencies to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that can work. This is a bill that has bipartisan support. This is a bill that can save lives, especially those of our police officers.

Offered By: Mrs. McCarthy

Amendment No. 7: In section 614 (relating to the national

instant criminal background check system for persons

purchasing a firearm), strike ``24 hours'' and insert ``72

hours''.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law preventing convicted felons from purchasing guns does not apply to individuals convicted of felonies in foreign countries.

In the case of Small v. United States, the ruling stated the law needs to explicitly state that foreign felons are also prohibited from buying firearms. This ruling has opened the doors for dangerous criminals to purchase guns in this country with no questions asked. But the loophole can easily be fixed.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 1931, the Foreign Felons Gun Prohibition Act. My legislation will ensure our gun laws take crimes committed in other countries into consideration before allowing a firearm purchase to go forward.

We cannot allow convicted drug dealers, murderers, rapists and even terrorists to purchase guns just because their crimes were committed in another country.

Mr. Speaker, a convicted drug dealer from South America can purchase all of the guns and ammunition that he wants and can buy in this country legally. This loophole puts the lives of our police officers, ATF officers and innocent bystanders in danger. And as demonstrated in the recent GAO report, it is already too easy for individuals with terrorist ties to buy guns in this country. This loophole will allow someone actually convicted of assisting terrorists overseas to purchase weapons like an AK-47 or a 50 caliber sniper weapon that can shoot down a plane.

I completely understand some felony convictions handed down by foreign courts have legitimacy questions. Convictions can be trumped up for political reasons by corrupt regimes. And nations involved in civil wars or other political disputes may have more than one illegitimate court administering justice. This legislation takes that into consideration.

My bill allows individuals to challenge the legitimacy of foreign felony convictions in our courts. If the foreign felony is found to be out of bounds legally, the individual would be allowed to purchase that gun.

This would do nothing to take away the right of someone to be able to own a gun. I want this bill to ensure that anyone charged with an illegitimate or a politically motivated foreign felony is not discriminated against. This may be inconvenient for some, but we must make sure that gun sales are limited to law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We cannot allow our enemies in the war on terror to arm themselves within our borders just because of a loophole. This is a homeland security problem with a common-sense solution.

Congress must work to close all of the loopholes in our pre-9/11 gun laws. It is too easy for person with ties to terrorism and criminal organizations to access guns in this Nation. Passing H.R. 1931 will help us win the war on terror and keep our streets safe from gangs and criminal.

We should be working together to make this country as safe as possible, certainly for our police officers, our ATF agents and the innocent bystanders. We can do this, but we must learn to work together. We must change the rhetoric of the gun issue. We are working for gun safety, not taking away the right of someone to own a gun.