Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Marie Clarke Arturi of Laurel, Suffolk County, New York, the recipient of the 2011 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Outstanding Service Award in recognition of her efforts over more than a decade to raise public awareness and increase scientific research for the rare bone marrow failure disorder, Diamond Blackfan Anemia (DBA).

Mrs. Arturi founded the Daniella Maria Arturi Foundation with her husband, Manny, in honor of their daughter Daniella's short but beautiful life, whose death from treatment complications of DBA on this day sixteen years ago, December 6, 1995. This marked the beginning of the Arturis' tireless efforts to improve the clinical care environment for those living with this disorder and to inspire a remarkable and growing field of researchers now dedicated to this field of science.

Mrs. Arturi's efforts have helped shine a light on the value of understanding rare diseases. By demonstrating DBA's complex link to red cell aplasia, birth defects, cancer predisposition, and the first human disease identified as a ribosomal protein defect disorder, her work has made DBA an important area of focus within the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and clinical and research communities worldwide. These efforts are now leading to

improvements in care and research for patients with blood disorders like DBA, while also leading to advanced research initiatives that are yielding clues to other, more widespread disease populations.

The 2011 Outstanding Service Award will be presented to Mrs. Arturi during the 53rd American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, on December 11, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Mrs. Marie Clarke Arturi and her family for their outstanding public service to rare disease communities and those living with Diamond Blackfan Anemia in honor of Daniella Maria Arturi.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on November 14, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: rollcall No. 837--S. 1412 (Sen. Kerry), ``aye''; rollcall No. 838--H.R. 298 (Rep. Carter), ``aye''; rollcall No. 839--H.R. 2422 (Rep. Grimm), ``aye''.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for working with me on this issue. I rise totally in opposition to H.R. 822.

It saddens me, but it does not surprise me, that we're here having this debate today. H.R. 822 is an unnecessary and seriously flawed piece of legislation. This bill overrides the decisions of States and forces them to recognize concealed-carry gun permits from every other State.

Almost every State currently allows carry permits, but States differ substantially in regards to their permitting requirements. They have different minimum age requirements. Some States require safety training before receiving a permit, and some States bar people convicted of certain crimes. These different requirements have been put in place by the elected legislatures of the States who did so with an understanding of the specific needs of their communities. H.R. 822 erases all of that and creates an unworkable system.

Under this bill, States with strong gun safety laws, such as New York, California, and Massachusetts, would allow out-of-State visitors, potentially as young as 18, to walk down our streets armed and dangerous. There are States in our Nation that don't require a background check before issuing a concealed-carry permit. There are States in our Nation that don't require any firearm training before letting people walk around with a concealed weapon. These are decisions that those States made for themselves. I don't want those decisions imposed upon the communities I represent, and neither should anybody else.

Also, police officers would be faced with the task of attempting to determine the authority of permits from 48 other States on the fly and in potentially tense situations. Simply put, this bill is anticommunity, antisafety, and antipolice.

And, finally, the bill attempts to solve a problem that simply does not exist. Many States have chosen to enter into these agreements with other States to honor each other's concealed-carry permits. Nothing is stopping a State from recognizing a permit from any other State. The fact that States have not done so represents a deliberate choice to only enter into agreements with States that they feel have the proper approach to issuing concealed-carry permits.

The Federal Government should not be second-guessing the decision of the States in this matter. It saddens me but does not surprise me. We are here today discussing not how to make Americans safer and reduce gun violence, but, instead, we're talking about how to weaken our gun laws and considering a bill that takes local decisions out of the hands of local officials.

The gun manufacturing lobby will try to say otherwise, but I fully support the Constitution, as my colleague mentioned before. I believe in the rights afforded in the Second Amendment, and I support law- abiding gun owners. In the absence of a perfect, nonviolent society, however, we must make laws to protect the public. I know this firsthand. After all, it was a man with a concealed handgun that took the life of my husband and gravely wounded my son on the Long Island Railroad back in 1993.

Now, you may hear arguments today about interstate commerce as a justification for this bill, but this bill has nothing to do with interstate commerce. This bill is simply about the Federal Government overriding the States' laws about who can carry a concealed weapon.

You may also hear comparisons to State-issued driver's licenses, which are recognized nationwide. But if we want to compare guns to cars, as the gun lobby often likes to do, let's have

this conversation. Cars and their use are among the most heavily regulated consumer products and activities in the United States due to the safety risk they pose.

One thing that does surprise me, though, is why so many supporters of this bill who have been so vocal about defending States' rights in the past are now choosing, in this instance, to trample on States' rights.

Federalism dictates that some things should remain with the States and some things should be addressed at the national level.

Going back to the matter of interstate commerce, I'm sure all Americans would love to see the House address interstate commerce in a more direct way, which is getting Americans back to work and growing the economy. We should be talking about how to create jobs and prepare the next generation to succeed in the global economy. Instead, we're talking about how to trample on States' rights, weaken gun laws, and make America less safe, all to please our country's powerful gun lobby. So, as I said, it saddens me, but it does not surprise me that we're having this debate today.

I have an amendment under which States would be required to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. The intent of this amendment is to require that States affirmatively pass legislation enacting the provisions of H.R. 822 before the bill can go into effect in that State. This would restore States' rights, something I believe in.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose H.R. 822.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 822. As you know, this committee voted down a

motion to consider the bill under an open rule. This is such an important issue that we really need to have the entire Nation hear about it and have all of us have our voices heard.

I want to make sure that I get to speak on an amendment of mine that is going to be considered. Under my amendment, States would be required to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. This would restore the critical decision of who should be able to carry a concealed handgun in our communities back to where it belongs--to the local governments that have to deal with the policing and other consequences such as this provision will do. We also will hear about other amendments that would restore rights back to States and safety back to our communities and some sanity back into this debate.

Madam Speaker, I think it's extremely important that we look at this as a States' rights issue. My State has concealed weapons laws. We allow people to have concealed weapons. But there are other States that do not come up to our standard, and we don't want them coming into our State and telling us what to do. I suggest that we really look at this very carefully, and hopefully my colleagues will definitely vote for my amendment tomorrow when it comes up.

We can deal with this. The Supreme Court has said people have the right to own a gun. They also said localities have the right to make the laws safe for their constituents. I happen to believe that H.R. 822 and the way this rule is written is not good for the United States of America, it's not good for the people of America, and I know it's not good for my State of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for stroke survivors and caregivers. Although World Stroke Day has passed, support for stroke victims and caregivers must never end. As a long- time nurse, I have seen first-hand the effects of debilitating diseases. I understand the hard work and dedication of many of our caregivers in helping these victims get back to health.

Awareness is integral in reducing the occurrence of a stroke. According to the American Stroke Association, one in every six people worldwide is expected to die from a stroke. This disease is also the number three cause of death in United States. These numbers are alarming, and I believe Congress must do all that it can to raise awareness and provide policies to address the needs of stroke victims.

Last Congress, the Democratic House passed H.R. 1032, the Heart Disease Education, Analysis Research, and Treatment for Women Act, which would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on the quality of and access to care for women affected by a stroke. In this report, the HHS Secretary would have been required to include guidance on reducing these disparities in improving treatment for women suffering from a stroke. While this legislation did not become law, I hope Congress can continue in its efforts to reduce the occurrence of and effects of a stroke.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of stroke survivors and their caregivers. Congress must continue to fight for research and quality healthcare, so that all Americans affected by a stroke can live healthy, productive lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the observance of October as National Work and Family Month. Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed with unanimous support H. Res. 768, a resolution that I introduced supporting this same goal and requesting the President to issue a proclamation calling for the observance of October as National Work and Family Month. Now that October has arrived this year, I want to call our attention once again to this effort to strengthen America's families, improve our work environments, and create a stronger economy and society.

It is an unfortunate fact that many Americans are unhappy with both their work environments and, even worse, their lives in general. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, an ongoing research project to measure Americans' perceptions of their well-being, has found that 53 percent of Americans are unsatisfied with their work environment. Even more disturbing, the Well-Being Index found an equal percentage of Americans states that their lives as a whole are ``suffering'' or ``struggling,'' as opposed to ``thriving.''

In this time of economic hardship, Congress cannot delay any longer. We must work together to find solutions to help rebalance the

family and work responsibilities of American workers. Such a rebalancing would create a healthier and happier workforce, likely resulting in higher worker productivity and a stronger economy overall. In addition, American families will be strengthened as parents spend more time at home with each other and their children. Countless studies have documented the positive effects that more engaged parents have on their children's development, particularly in terms of education and health. Moreover, studies suggest that children with cohesive and supportive families are less likely to do drugs or commit other crimes, and more likely to excel in school.

Ultimately, this is the type of America we must foster and leave for the next generation. Our workers should be as happy as they are productive. Our parents should be as successful in the home as they are in their careers. Our children should grow up in families that are as nurturing as they are cohesive. Recognizing and celebrating October as National Work and Family Month is the first step to reinvigorate the American worker and family.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2587, a bill I call the ``Outsourcing Bill of Rights.''

Especially during these difficult economic times, we have come together to do the patriotic thing--protect and create jobs here at home.

This legislation eliminates the NLRB's already limited authority to order an employer to restore work taken away in a wrongful way. By passing this bill, we are telling our Nation's workers we cannot and we will not help them. Plain and simple, if this bill passes, it will lead to increased outsourcing of jobs. Further, the bill will make certain that employers will not be held accountable.

My colleague on the other side just mentioned that 93 percent of American workers are not unionized, and I also would like to bring up the point that we have seen wages across this country going down and yet we have seen the profits in corporations going up. That's why we are in the situation we are in right now.

I come from a union family, and I am proud of that. It was able to give us the education that we needed, for my father and mother to be able to buy us a home. That, we're not seeing today. Why? Because we're hitting the workers. Why did we have unions in the first place? To give them a voice.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. In my opinion, the corporations should be a little bit more patriotic and start hiring people so we can get this economy going and make this great country what we are. America can go forward, but not without good pay for our workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of U.S. Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener, and honor his memory through the dedication and renaming of the Lynbrook Post Office.

Jeffrey, a native of Lynbrook, NY, dedicated his life to public and volunteer service as a volunteer firefighter, AMT and Navy Corpsman. Jeffrey joined the Navy shortly after September 11, 2001 and immediately volunteered to be assigned to a fighting Marine infantry company. Jeffrey trained as a fighting infantryman who also provided medical services to those who had been wounded. In February of 2005, Jeffrey arrived in Iraq and shortly after, was assigned to a Marine Mobile Assault Platoon (MAP).

On May 7, 2005, while serving with his team in Al-Anbar Province in Iraq, Jeffrey was killed while attempting to help another platoon involved in combat. Jeffrey made the ultimate sacrifice while serving and defending our country and it is for this reason that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to dedicate the Lynbrook Post Office in his honor.

As of Friday, July 22, 2011, the Lynbrook Post Office will be known as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building.'' This is a fitting tribute to Jeffrey's honor and memory. Jeffrey and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and this is a small gesture to thank them and honor the memory of such a brave and dedicated hero.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and appreciation that I acknowledge the accomplishments of HM2, Jeffrey L. Wiener, USN and pay tribute to him and his family through the dedication of the Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on July 11, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: rollcall No. 534--on agreeing to the amendment (Tierney)--``aye;'' rollcall No. 535--on agreeing to the amendment (Graves)--``nay;'' rollcall No. 536--on agreeing to the amendment (Scalise)--``aye;'' rollcall No. 537--on agreeing to the amendment (Woodall)--``nay;'' rollcall No. 538--on agreeing to the amendment (McClintock)--``nay''.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me this time. It has been a pleasure working with her. I would also like to thank Chairman Bachus and Subcommittee Chair Biggert with whom we have worked. This is something that is important to both of our districts. I also thank Ranking Member Barney Frank.

Madam Chairman, H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, but it also provides much needed reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program.

My district in Long Island, especially the community of Valley Stream, was included in the early rounds of FEMA's implementation of the flood map modernization process, and we have experienced much of the frustrations associated with the process. The whole idea of redoing what we're doing in this flood map is hopefully to prevent other Members of Congress from being frustrated as much as I have when they're trying to help their community.

Since our maps were enacted in the fall of 2009, I hear daily from our frustrated homeowners who are required to purchase flood insurance because of the updated maps and who feel they did not have the time or the tools necessary to understand and respond to the maps' results. H.R. 1309 contains provisions to better inform homeowners who are required to purchase flood insurance because of updated maps. For example, the bill requires FEMA to notify federally elected officials when there are changes to a flood zone or a map directly in their district.

The bill also requires FEMA to create a method for flood insurance policies to be paid for with installment payments, to ease the burden of having to pay the up-front full payment which can cost thousands of dollars. The bill also allows for homeowners who are in the reduced cost preferred risk policy program to enter into the 5-year phase-in for full actuarial rates when the extended rate expires in 2013.

To ensure the accuracy of the data and process FEMA used in creating the updated maps around the country, H.R. 1309 also creates a Technical Mapping Council made up of agency employees and experts in the field of mapping to develop new mapping standards for future map modernization activities. We need to use every tool available to bring relief to homeowners who are being burdened by FEMA's map modernization process, and the bill before us is a good start.

I would like also to say, once again, working with my colleague Mrs. Biggert, working on the subcommittee has been a really good process. We have been able to bring our experiences, what happened in my community in Valley Stream and the frustration that homeowners have gone through. This legislation, although it doesn't cure everything, it will help constituents. And those who have not had their maps done yet, this is a good way for going forward.

Mr. Speaker, as a nurse of many years, I rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to the Hospice and Palliative Care Nurses Association (HPNA) on the occasion of its 25th anniversary (1986-2011). Representing nearly 10,000 members across the United States, HPNA is now the nation's largest and oldest professional nursing organization dedicated to promoting excellence in hospice and palliative nursing care. Since 1986 HPNA has played an important role in promoting excellence among palliative nursing professionals through evidence-based educational tools, specialty resources, visionary collaboration, and professional networking. The important role that these nurses play in the lives of individuals and their families is worthy of celebration, and I add my voice to those honoring the organization's 25 years of service.

As my colleagues may know, nurses now comprise the largest group of health professionals with approximately 2.9 million providers offering essential care to patients in a variety of settings, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, community or public health areas, schools, workplaces and home care. Nurses represent the public interest and not a special interest. The contributions made by the practice and science of nursing are significant, and in collaboration with other healthcare professionals, significantly improves the quality of our nation's health care system. Simply put, nurses are involved in every aspect of health care, including end of life care. The field of hospice and palliative care nursing is instrumental in treating the person and taking into account the medical, social, psychological, and spiritual needs of a patient and their family at the end of life. This key field of nursing emphasizes quality of life at life's end, and for that I am grateful. Hospice is a covered benefit under Medicare, Medicaid, and most private insurance plans. I applaud HPNA,for educating families and the public regarding these important considerations and care options.

Again, I commend the work, dedication and commitment of the hospice and palliative care nurses and the HPNA to improve the quality of life for individuals and their families at the end of life. I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow nurses in this important field as well as the critical patient population and families that they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent because of a family illness on May 26, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following:

Rollcall No. 354--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Mica No. 38)--``no''

Rollcall No. 355--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Flake No. 40)--``no''

Rollcall No. 356--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Smith No. 42)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 357--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Buchanan No. 43)-- ``no''

Rollcall No. 358--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Maloney No. 47)-- ``no''

Rollcall No. 359--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Mack No. 48)--``no''

Rollcall No. 360--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Langevin No. 49)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 361--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Amash No. 50)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 362--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Campbell No. 53)-- ``no''

Rollcall No. 363--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Campbell No. 54)-- ``no''

Rollcall No. 364--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Chaffetz No. 56)-- ``no''

Rollcall No. 365--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Polis No. 60)--``no''

Rollcall No. 366--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Conyers No. 61)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 367--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Flake No. 62)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 368--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Ellison No. 63)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 369--On Agreeing to the Amendment (L. Sanchez No. 64)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 370--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Jackson Lee No. 111)--``aye''

Rollcall No. 371--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Turner No. 148)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 372--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Cravaack No. 152)-- ``no''

Rollcall No. 373--On Agreeing to the Amendment (McGovern No. 55)-- ``aye''

Rollcall No. 374--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions (H.R. 1540)--``aye''

Rollcall No. 375--On Passage (H.R. 1540)--``aye''

Rollcall No. 376--On Passage (S. 990)--``aye''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on May 24, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following:

Rollcall No. 333--On Ordering the Previous Question--``nay.''

Rollcall No. 334--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.''

Rollcall No. 335--On Motion that the Committee Rise--``no.''

Rollcall No. 336--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Tonko No. 2)-- ``aye.''

Rollcall No. 337--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Cardoza No. 9)-- ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent because of a family illness on May 23, 2011. If I was present, I would have voted on the following:

H.R. 1627--rollcall No. 330: ``aye''; H.R. 1383--rollcall No. 331: ``aye''; H.R. 1657--rollcall No. 332: ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent because of a family illness on May 13th 2011. If I was present, I would have voted on the following: H.R. 754--rollcall No. 323: ``nay''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 324: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 325: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 326: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 327: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 328: ``aye''; and H.R. 754--rollcall No. 329: ``aye.''