Floor Statements

on May 12, during rollcall vote No. 316, I mistakenly voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``nay.'' I ask that the record reflect my opposition to this amendment. With respect to energy production-related legislation, I support an all-of-the-above strategy, as long as it is responsible and meets proper safety standards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Israel's Independence Day. For 63 years and counting, Israel continues to be a valuable ally and friend. From fighting global terrorism, to containing the threat of Islamic radicalism, to impressive scientific research, Israel and the United States have developed a unique bond that is based upon shared visions, democratic values, and foreign policy goals.

Still, significant challenges remain for our close ally. Citizen uprisings in nations such as Egypt, Libya, and Syria have changed the political landscape of that region. While there is potential for positive political change, as citizens speak out and demand their rights, there is also increased uncertainty that threatens the stability of the already volatile region.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Israel's independence this year, let's give them a gift they surely deserve--the full-faith assurance that this Congress will continue to robustly aid and assist its most trusted ally in the region.

I wish President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel all the best on this very important occasion.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to share my thoughts this morning about how the Republican budget is a blow to our American ideas and priorities, I would be remiss if I didn't use this opportunity to praise our men and women in uniform, our President, and his advisers for the extraordinary courage and capability they all demonstrated in the mission that put an end to Osama bin Laden on Sunday.

Being from New York, we know firsthand of the consequences of this horrible, horrible action that Osama bin Laden took on September 11, 2001. I can't tell you how many families in my congressional district were hurt, lost their loved ones, children becoming orphans in ways that it is going to take them years, if forever, to recover.

That is why Sunday was so important. It was a moment in history, our history. We told the world as Americans, we're going to fight not only for each other but we're going to fight for our rights, our ideals that are at the core of our very being.

I would hope that, in the aftermath of Sunday, we would be able to come together in the way that we did after September 11. We need to find more ways to come together. We need to work together for the good of our constituents, for the good of our country. But that doesn't mean that we don't have extraordinary differences of opinion, and that's what I'm here to talk about today. I'm here to talk about the budget that the House Republican majority just passed--and I voted against--on April 15. I believe that that budget is a document that lays out the wrong priorities.

Trust me when I say that I'm as anxious as anyone about our Nation's fiscal policies, but we also need to make sure that, in the process, we do not kill thousands of jobs and hurt millions of American families. A budget, as far as I'm concerned, is a moral document. It should be a declaration of our country's priorities. But the Republican budget does anything but that. It hurts our most vulnerable citizens while giving tax breaks to our oil companies.

I spent over 33 years as a nurse before I came to Congress, and let me tell you, the one thing that strikes me every week when I come down to Washington is the disconnect that I see between a lot of the politicians here and the people who are back home struggling in their districts.

The budget that was passed by Republicans is absolutely out of touch with the people back in my district. How in the world can you undermine the health and well-being of our seniors at the same time that you continue to give the richest companies on the planet tax breaks? That's not what the people in my district want. The seniors, and all the people in my district, want health care. They feel like that as they get older, they want the peace of mind to know that they have access to the greatest health care system in the world. They've paid for that right. As they worked throughout their life, they paid into the Medicare system. They believe that they have the right to Medicare, and I agree with them.

Yet the Republican budget fundamentally undermines that right. The Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it. It eliminates guaranteed coverage for our seniors and turns the program into a voucher program. This is a drastic, drastic concept.

Let's not try to pretty things up here. Republicans are essentially pushing seniors into the private marketplace where they will pay more and get less. As health care keeps rising with inflation, these vouchers will not keep pace. As the Congressional Budget Office has said, Medicare beneficiaries would bear a much larger share of their health care costs. The result would be absolutely awful for our seniors. We are going to see our parents and our sisters and our brothers faced with awful choices: Are they going to pay higher premiums? Are they going to have to get health plans that cover less? Or, even worse, will they drop out and have no health care at all?

Cutting our health care system isn't the only way that families are being hurt. The high price of gas is hurting families across this country and certainly in New York. Across the country and definitely on Long Island, the price of gas has climbed way above $4. Yet in what is an absolutely mind-boggling position, Republicans in Congress still refuse to allow a vote to repeal the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that oil companies are getting. Exxon, for instance, just took in $10.7 billion during the first 3 months of the year alone. That's a 69 percent increase over the same time frame from last year. Other companies have enjoyed the same increases, all while continuing to receive $4 billion annually in subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, we're Americans. We can disagree, but we're supposed to be fighting for this country. We need to make sure we protect our seniors. We need to make sure we have jobs. We need to make sure that we keep this country safe.

God bless America.

The oil companies aren't struggling companies in need of a helping hand. They're companies with huge profits receiving billions of dollars in wasteful government spending.

I'm not a person who is against drilling.

I believe that we need a comprehensive energy policy that takes advantage of clean energy, but also takes advantage of the natural resources that we've been blessed with.

I also believe that we need to be aggressive in taking on the oil speculators who are profiting from the ballooning price of oil.

But what I find particularly abhorrent is that, at a time where Republicans are claiming that our country's fiscal problems are an excuse for us to undermine the needs of our seniors, many of whom live month-to-month, we are at the same time giving oil companies $4 billion in tax breaks.

Those are not the priorities that I believe in.

And those are not the priorities that my constituents believe in.

A budget is a moral document of our priorities. It should say something about a country's values.

That's why, to turn back to Sunday for a second, that heroic rescue said so much about our country.

Americans persevere, Americans fight for their values, and Americans are unrelenting in their efforts.

But we do those things because we want safety and security for our families.

We want to see our children and grandchildren grow up in a country where fairness and equity is the order of the day.

The Republican budget is not about fairness and equity.

It is about hurting our seniors--and doing so in order to give oil companies, who are wealthy beyond belief, additional tax breaks.

That's not just.

That's not fair.

That is not what I came to Congress to fight for.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit to this misguided bill.

It is important to note that this motion is simply a final amendment to the bill and will not kill the bill as the majority may claim.

School-based health centers are on the front lines of preventative care, and preventative care saves lives and saves money, and school- based centers are on the front lines of preventative care.

As a nurse for over 30 years, I know that prevention can keep people out of the emergency rooms that taxpayers help fund, and it keeps them from needing expensive procedures and medicines that drive up insurance costs.

Patients seen at school-based centers, for example, cost Medicaid an average of $30 less than comparable nonschool-based health center patients. School-based health centers play an important role in treating sports concussions and halting the spread of infectious diseases like the flu.

School-based centers also have a positive effect on our educational system. They have been shown to increase academic performance and reduce absenteeism. For example, a recent study found that students who use high school health centers had a 50 percent reduction in absenteeism and 25 percent reduction in lateness. Many students also increased their grade point averages over time compared to students who did not use school-based health centers.

Finally, the sad fact is sometimes these centers are a student's only source of health care. So, we are faced today with legislation that attacks the preventative health care work done by our school-based health centers. H.R. 1214 is an upsetting piece of legislation, but that's not surprising at all. After all, this bill is coming from the same conference that just voted to end Medicare as we know it.

Both the Republican budget and this legislation today are penny-wise and pound-foolish approaches that cut preventative care for those Americans who need it the most. And the worst common denominator? Both measures go against the most honorable Americans: the elderly and the children. The Republican majority passed a reckless budget before the recess, and they are poised to pass this reckless piece of legislation today.

I offer this motion to recommit today to highlight the terrible impacts of the Republican approach in this legislation. This motion to recommit is simply, again, a final amendment and will not kill the bill.

My motion to recommit requires the names and locations of each school-based health center that has applied for a grant under the program that the Republican Party would end today be posted on a publicly available Web site.

This way, we will be able to all see very clearly the damage that this Republican proposal will cause.

Like many of my colleagues, a school-based health center in my district would be denied funding under this bill. One of my hospitals in my district, Winthrop University Hospital, has been partnering with Hempstead High School to run a school-based health center. This school- based health center has 1,500 students enrolled and has 6,000 visits from students each year.

Winthrop University's partnership operates in one of my most underserved communities. About 50 percent of students who use this school-based health center are uninsured. Let me say that again: Nearly half of all students who use this health center are uninsured. Hempstead High School is the only access to medical care that they have. The grant that this center applied for will help them serve this population who has nowhere else to turn. I am going to stand with those students and their families and protect the Winthrop-Hempstead High School health center. I hope that other Members will choose to stand with their constituents as well.

Should this bill become law, those Members who voted for this bill will have to answer to their communities who would have a vital link to health care cut off. I should also note some misinformation that's being spread by the supporters of H.R. 1214. They claim that these grants aren't needed because they are readily available in other sources, but that's not true. The evidence is that SBHC construction and renovation needs have not been met through other funding. My colleagues across the aisle also claim that construction funds would be provided to centers that aren't sustainable. That's also not true. Guidelines have been developed by the Health Resources and Services Administration to ensure that no construction funds will be provided to any school-based health center that cannot document that they are sustainable now and into the future.

As I said, ladies and gentlemen, school-based health centers work. They keep our young people healthy and successful in school, and they do it in a way that saves our taxpayers money. It is just common sense to support school-based centers. Again, this amendment will not kill the bill. This motion to recommit is simply a final amendment to the bill that will provide transparency to the process. I urge all Members to support this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I also am part of the New York delegation, and I want to talk about Geraldine Ferraro. My good colleague, Carolyn Maloney, basically laid out her life and all the good things that she did. I guess I want to talk about what she meant to so many of us that weren't even in politics back then.

I think the first time that I ever saw Geraldine or heard of Geraldine was when she was announcing that she was going to be running for Vice President. So all these things from last week, when we were notified that Geraldine had passed away, many of us wanted to go back to New York for the funeral. Unfortunately, our business here kept us here so we couldn't go back. We're kind of used to that.

A lot of times it is said you can spend a lifetime here in Congress, but 2 minutes after you die they will say, ``Who was that?'' But that's not Geraldine. Geraldine was someone that was a force. Again I say in 1984, like most Americans, I took notice of Geraldine Ferraro when she did accept the Democratic nomination for Vice President at the national convention in San Francisco.

She struck me as a unique figure on TV, a woman in a male-dominated profession. She had a smile. She had confidence. When she got onto that stage, you just knew this radiance that came out of her. For myself, I was not in politics, didn't follow politics too well, but she certainly gave a strong impression to me.

Her message was also full of hope. I happen to believe that, especially when we say to people, ``If we can do this, we can do anything.'' I am one of those people that believe that. I am here in Congress. Everybody said I couldn't do that. Somehow I got here. Somehow I have stayed here. Somehow I keep fighting for my constituents back at home.

She inspired women to get involved. She inspired them to get involved in politics, whether at the staff level or as a candidate. And while I understood the importance of the event, I had no idea that I would be standing here praising this woman that I first saw on TV. As I said, I had no political ambitions. I was a nurse, just several miles away from the city where Geraldine was. Like most Americans, I did vote and I followed the news, but I never thought I would get involved in politics.

Fast forward 12 years, it's mid 1996, and I'm still a nurse in Nassau County and still not thinking about politics whatsoever. Something happened to my life, as it does to so many other lives. An event happens, and all of a sudden you change and become an activist. Gun violence was unfortunately the issue that hit my family and many families on the Long Island Railroad. My husband was killed. My son was seriously wounded. I decided that I was going to do something about it. Geraldine Ferraro, the person that I saw on TV, called me. She said, ``Carolyn, you should really think about running for Congress.'' There were other people calling me, too. And I'm thinking, ``I'm a nurse. What do I know about politics?''

But you know what? If I was going to try and do something, then I had to run. Everybody told me I was going to lose. Maybe I would have. But I didn't. I won. But Geraldine was always there to give advice. Just because you're a woman doesn't mean you can't be tough. Just because you're a woman, you can be tough and you can be gentle, and you have to use that to get legislation done.

Well, here I am in Congress, and I am proud to be following in the footsteps of Geraldine Ferraro. I wouldn't use the words, the kind words that people use for her on myself like ``pioneer'' or ``trailblazer.'' I actually followed Geraldine and her advice to come to Washington and try to make a difference.

Like so many women in New York politics today, Geraldine helped me as I went through from private citizen to candidate to public official. She opened so many doors for me, introducing me to people that I needed to meet. She was well known for this, for spending as much energy helping lift up others and having another woman follow.

We will all remember you, Geraldine. I will always remember you. God bless you. We do remember you. Thank you.

Again I thank my colleagues, Charlie and Carolyn and Peter, for arranging this moment we could pay tribute to Geraldine.

With only 17 percent of members of Congress being women, we still have a long way to go when it comes to equality in representation.

But certainly we couldn't be where we are today if it weren't for Geraldine.

I for one am looking forward to making a living tribute to Geraldine, to take her philosophy of helping others, of lifting people up the ladder behind you, as I continue my career here.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, let me say something first. In the beginning of this program, we didn't have any service. That means there were no people out there to help those that were trying to apply. But we have seen encouraging signs in the economy; yet we are still on a long path towards economical recovery. Many of my constituents are still facing hardship, including trying to keep their homes.

When the housing crisis hit, the private sector responded by turning their backs on those that needed the help. As a result, Congress stepped in and created housing programs to hold the industry accountable and to help these families weather the worst housing crisis that we have seen in generations.

Now, thanks to the leadership of the President and the Democratic- controlled 111th Congress, we are seeing more and more servicers adopting their own programs, largely based on the eligibility criteria within the programs such as HAMP.

The past few weeks my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought bills to the floor to terminate these programs, claiming they have done more harm than good to the homeowner and that struggling homeowners are in better hands with the private companies that contributed to the housing crisis in the first place. Most of the homeowners got in trouble because the private sector is the one that got them in the problems.

I disagree with that and point to constituents who have reached out to my office for help because their servicers were not being responsive.

The bill before us totally terminates the HAMP program; however, it protects assistance to the homeowners in a trial or a permanent modification.

My amendment, which was not made in order, would have expanded that provision to include homeowners who, on or before March 1 of this year, submitted required paperwork for HAMP or had made a verified request to their servicers seeking that modification.

My district office has heard from dozens and dozens of my constituents who have been waiting for up to 16 months, 16 months for a response from their servicer regarding the eligibility for HAMP. They reach out to my office at the point of total frustration due to the lengthy response time when they have submitted the required paperwork. I shudder to think what the response rate would have been without this program in place.

It's very disheartening that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to shut down these distressed homeowners before they have even a chance to qualify for the assistance.

The HAMP program was by no means perfect. Everybody agrees on that. Nor was it meant to be permanent. We all agree on that. Instead, it was meant to hold the mortgage service industry accountable and responsive to those that needed the assistance.

At a time when our housing market is still very fragile and foreclosures continue to occur in record numbers, instead of terminating these programs, we should be trying to improve them.

During the markup in committee, when we were trying to improve, we asked our colleagues, all right, let's not terminate it; let's try and fix some of the things that are not right.

Supporting efforts to terminate these housing assistance programs means turning your back on your own constituents.

Mr. Chairman, we have our disagreements. There's no two ways about it. But with that being said, to judge a program from the beginning when we couldn't get servicers, now we are getting servicers, now we are getting people to be responsive on getting people to stay in their homes.

And think about it: All these homes that are being lost to families, where are they supposed to go? In New York, you can't find an apartment, so what are we doing, making more people homeless?

It was not the fault of the homeowners. I agree, there were many people that shouldn't have probably bought a house for $700,000 or $800,000. The majority of us here in Congress couldn't even afford something like that. They should have never been given a mortgage. All of us, when we bought our homes, had to go through the third degree. How much money do you earn? Can you pay the insurance? Can you pay your taxes?

That's why we also put legislation in there to have the servicers help them.

Mr Speaker, Happy St. Patrick's Day! Originally a religious holiday, today St. Patrick's Day is largely an international celebration of Irish culture. I urge my colleagues and fellow Americans to embrace this day. Today, one in four Americans traces at least part of their ancestry to Ireland. Irish-Americans have provided the backbone of our workforce, enlivened our art and culture, defended our country, and served in this Congress and as President of the United States. Great Irish-Americans such as Eugene O'Neill and F. Scott Fitzgerald transformed American literature, innovators like Henry Ford helped revolutionize American transportation, and who can forget Presidents like Andrew Jackson, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, each Irish-American alike. Irish-Americans continue to contribute to our nation as they ably serve in their communities in numerous capacities. It is for all of these reasons that I support the designation of March as Irish-American Heritage Month and encourage Americans to celebrate Irish-American heritage. I'm proud to stand today with my colleagues, those lucky enough to be Irish-American, as well as those who aren't, and honor this group that has been so important to our nation on this St. Patrick's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my constituent Jan Gong and congratulate her as she is named a finalist in the Intel Science Talent Search 2011. The Intel Science Talent Search is America's most prestigious science competition for high school seniors. Jan is one of only 40 finalists nationwide.

Jan's project, ``The Effect of High Glucose Levels On Morphine Signaling in Mytilus Edulis: Novel Implications for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes,'' studied the addictive nature of sugar by using blue mussel as an animal model and found that high levels of glucose can regulate morphine receptors and cause morphine release, suggesting that sugar can be addictive. She also found that high levels of glucose can greatly increase the release of nitric oxide (NO), whose metabolites can contribute to vascular damage, but that naloxone, which counteracts the effects of morphine, and L-NAME, a NO synthase inhibitor, can block the effect of glucose on NO release.

As a student at Garden City High School, Jan has participated in numerous science research programs including, Columbia University Science Honors Program, Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (CTY), Research Science Institute and Intel Science Talent Search. In addition, Jan has perfect SAT score, is first in her class of 275 at Garden City High School where she is captain of both the math team and the varsity fencing team, president of the Latin Honors Society, and principal cellist in the chamber orchestra. She has been recognized by the National Honor Society, American Chemistry Society, and Latin Honors Society and is a National Merit Scholarship Semifinalist.

As a senior member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am truly impressed by Jan's accomplishments. I am pleased to see that Jan values not only her education, but also service and volunteerism within her community. In her spare time, Jan volunteers at the Winthrop University Hospital, arranges concerts at nursing homes and helps her fellow students as a peer tutor. Jan also expresses a deep affinity for the arts as an accomplished cellist. She has performed as the Principal Cellist with the Metropolitan Youth Concert Orchestra and has received perfect scores for five consecutive years during her participation with the New York State Scholastic Music Association.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and admiration that I offer my congratulations to Jan Gong and commend her dedication to education and science.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on February 19, 2011. If I were present, I would have voted for the following:

Flake (AZ) Amendment #377--Rollcall #125--No

Guinta (NH) Amendment #166--Rollcall #126--No

Hall (TX) Amendment #495--Rollcall #127--No

Lee (CA) Amendment #141--Rollcall #128--No

Griffith (VA) Amendment #109--Rollcall #129--No

Jones (NC) Amendment #548--Rollcall #130--Yes

Luetkemeyer (MO) Amendment #47--Rollcall #131--No

Luetkemeyer (MO) Amendment #149--Rollcall #132--No

Issa (CA) Amendment #569--Rollcall #133--No

Sullivan (OK) Amendment #94--Rollcall #134--No

McKinley (WV) Amendment #216--Rollcall #135--No

McKinley (WV) Amendment #217--Rollcall #136--No

Pompeo (KS) Amendment #545--Rollcall #137--No

Burgess (TX) Amendment #200--Rollcall #138--No

Heller (NV) Amendment #482--Rollcall #139--No

Noem (SD) Amendment #563--Rollcall #140--No

Pitts (PA) Amendment #430--Rollcall #141--No

Carney (DE) Amendment #241--Rollcall #142--No

Mulvaney (SC) Amendment #164--Rollcall #143--No

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

I want to talk tonight a little bit about, number one, why I even came to Congress and why I'm up here tonight talking about gun violence. I just want to give you a little history. On December 7, 1993, a deranged man named Colin Ferguson got on the Long Island Railroad train and changed my life and that of many others forever. As the train pulled into Merillon Avenue in Garden City, he took out a handgun and opened fire on those passengers in the train. He killed six people, including my husband. He injured 19, including my son, who was shot in the head at close range. Thankfully, my son did survive. And while it has been a difficult struggle for him, he has a rich life now with a wife and two children. I consider them my miracles. And I'm very grateful that he did survive.

What I did after that incident was become an advocate for reducing gun violence in this country, to see if I could help others not have to go through the same pain that my family and the other families of the Long Island Railroad massacre went through. As often happens when you become an advocate for a cause, any cause, that led me to work with elected officials and the government to try to change policies that I thought were hurting the American people.

And also as often happens when I discovered that there was only so much you could do outside the government, I ran for office myself. I was never a very political person, but I believed so strongly in this cause that people saw and gave me the chance to be their Congresswoman. The Members of this body embraced me also. That was in 1996. Even though I work hard on other issues like the economy and education, I'm still fighting that this struggle to reduce gun violence is the same battle I had back in 1993 and on.

So let's go fast forward now. From 1993 to January 8 of 2011, on that fateful day in Arizona, six lives were stolen from us, and 13 of our fellow Americans were injured, including one of our own,

Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Certainly it hit home for all of us, and it sends a chill down all of our spines. I know I'll never forget that day. The shootings had eerie similarities to our own incident in 1993. Six people were killed and over a dozen injured. Like my son, Gabby was shot in the head at close range. Like my son, she's looking like she's making a wonderful recovery. And we're all rooting for her.

There are a couple more similarities that bear mentioning. In both the shootings, the gunmen used high-capacity magazines that allowed them to maximize their carnage; and in both shootings, the gunman was tackled by unarmed witnesses while they stopped the shooting when he was trying to reload.

I ran for office and entered government to make a difference. I came to Congress to make our lives safer. I have a legislative proposal that I think should reduce the casualties in that supermarket parking lot on January 8.

H.R. 308 is a bill to ban high-capacity magazines like the ones used in Arizona and on the Long Island Railroad. These are devices designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and feed them into a gun. The State law in my State, New York, have already banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets, and that was also the Federal law between 1994 and 2004. So we know that there's precedent for this law on a State and a Federal level. There is no question about its constitutionality.

Unfortunately, most States, like Arizona, don't have limit on high- capacity magazines. This is what allowed the shooter to just walk into a common store and buy the weapon he did right off the shelf. This is a reasonable, commonsense bill that makes accommodations for public safety and gun owners' rights. This includes exemptions for our law enforcements and our military as well for testing purposes or for security guards looking after nuclear facilities.

As I noted, often shooters are tackled and stopped when they run out of bullets in a magazine and stop to reload. That was the case for my family in 1993, and that was the case of Arizona. Maybe if the shooter in Arizona had fewer bullets in the magazine, we wouldn't have had the carnage that we saw. Fewer people would have died. Fewer people would have been injured. We would be looking at one less funeral or a few less life-changing injuries.

Immediately after the shooting in Arizona, there was a lot of talk just about by everyone about putting partisanship and politics aside and working together for the common good. I see this bill as an opportunity to do that. This is not a partisan bill. There is no Democrat or Republican way to become a victim of gun violence. And there is no Democratic or Republican way to reduce it. In the absence of a perfect, nonviolent society, we must make laws to protect the public.

This is a very simple bill, a bill about our public health and our safety. We also have a moral imperative to protect innocent and law- abiding Americans from the threat of dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. In America, we believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To me, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness include being able to go grocery shopping on a Saturday or attend a public event on a Saturday afternoon without being gunned down.

This bill does not take away anyone's right to own a gun. Let me make that very, very clear. This bill does nothing to take away anyone's right to own a gun. I believe in this Second Amendment, and I support law-abiding hunters and sportsmen. But common sense dictates there is no need for the kinds of devices that this bill is addressing other than for killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.

Almost 100,000 people a year are shot in this country, suicides, homicides, accidental deaths and on and on. That's over 260 people a day. Every single one of those people have families and friends. Think of how many millions of Americans are affected by gun violence every single year. I want to remind us all that we can help lower these awful statistics. We can help save lives, and we can help prevent lives from being shattered.

Now, this bill is getting more and more support every single day. We have over 90 cosponsors in the House and 10 in the Senate. And every day there's another newspaper editorial or a columnist supporting this bill. There are a lot of coalitions, organizations, and leaders out there working to support this bill to reduce gun violence in our country--the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; the Violence Policy Center; the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; New Yorkers Against Gun Violence; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; the United States Conference of Mayors; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Richard Aborn, who was a former president of Brady; Mothers Against Guns; Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence; States United to Prevent Gun Violence; and many, many more.

Even pro-gun conservatives like Vice President Dick Cheney say that it would be reasonable to discuss reinstating the restriction that was in the assault weapons bill and to do away with the large magazines.

We are also hearing word that President Obama will publicly address the issue of gun violence soon. We don't know whether he will talk about this bill or other measures that I also support, like strengthening our background check system, or closing the gun show loophole, which allows you to buy guns at gun shows without a background check.

But the good news is that people across the country are uniting in an effort to do something to reduce gun violence. I think one of the most important things I can do while I'm here with you is to ask for your help and ask the American people for their help.

We all saw recently from the world events the kind of change that you can make happen when you have the power of the people behind you. And certainly we have done this before. We have come together as a Nation, Democrat and Republican, to pass sensible gun laws in order to save lives and reduce injuries. If you are not a cosponsor on this legislation yet, please become one. If you are still not sure if you want to support this legislation or not, please feel free to talk to me or anyone on staff. Go on my Web site and read the bill. Basically, this is a very narrow bill.

Finally, no matter what we do, whether you support this bill or not, please let's look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves: After the shooting in Arizona, will we sit by helplessly and do absolutely nothing or will we do everything we can to save lives and protect innocent people for the future?

I want to thank you again for listening to me tonight, and I want to say that even if we can save one life, one life, with all of our efforts, than to me it has been well worth it.

My good friend and colleague from New Jersey, Bill Pascrell, who has been outspoken on this issue for many, many years, I appreciate him being with me tonight.

And I thank my good friend.

You know, a lot of times there is a lot of propaganda out there that gun owners don't want to go anywhere with this, but the support for this bill and gun restrictions in general, from organizations and members of the media, are also reflected in public polls.

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns showed that almost 60 percent of all Americans and even 49 percent of gun owners support this bill.

A public policy poll found that 55 percent of the people in Arizona, a State where gun rights are dearly cherished, support more restrictions on guns.

A USA Today poll found that a majority of Americans do support stricter gun controls.

Here is one of the issues that we face all of the time: That the American people support what we are trying to do, but we are not hearing their voices. And I think that is something that the American people can do to make a difference.

I also want to note that Arizona and the Long Island Railroad are not the only recent incidents in which high capacity magazines were used. In Manchester, Connecticut, at a beer distributor, on August 3, 2010, a shooter with a large magazine killed eight and wounded two.

Fort Hood, we all remember that day: November 5, 2009. The shooter killed 13 and wounded 34.

Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008: The shooter killed five and wounded 21.

Virginia Tech, right here in our neighborhood, on April 16: The shooter killed 32 and wounded 17.

We can go on and on and on, all the way back to Columbine High School, where the shooter killed 13--13 students and teachers--and wounded 23.

Going back to California, a shooter killed eight and wounded six. At Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, the shooter killed 23 and wounded 20.

These were all done by large capacity clips.

My colleague, Congressman Pascrell, talked about health care. My son was shot 17 years ago. His medical bills within a couple of years were over $1 million, but there is the pain that he still has to go through every single day, which our friend Gabby is going to have to go through just to be able to do normal day things: tie your shoes, get dressed. My colleague mentioned $100 billion a year in health care costs.

We know that we can't save every life. I know that. I spent over 30 years as a nurse. I couldn't save every life, but we sure did our best to do everything that we possibly could to make a difference. That's why I stand here tonight and talk about why I feel so passionately about this. Unless you're a victim, unless you're a family member or a friend who has lost a loved one or someone who was injured, it's very hard to describe the pain that goes on for many, many, many years. For those who survive, there is not only the mental trauma that they go through; there is also the physical trauma that they go through, which some will carry for the rest of their lives.

Again, I say there are supporters, and I want to read off a few. They're mainly from newspapers across the country. Here in Congress, everybody talks about red States and blue States. Yet these are States that have people in them. We can disagree, certainly, on where we're going on certain issues, but there are newspapers around the country and editorial boards, which usually would not support any kind of gun legislation, that say it's time, that it's time to have a debate on how we reduce gun violence in this country.

The New York Times reads: As lawmakers in Washington engage this week in moments of silence and tributes to Representative Giffords and the other casualties, they should realize that they have the power--we have the power--to reduce the number of these sorts of horrors and the pain and suffering.

The Daily News noted that the shooter in Arizona squeezed the trigger again, again, again, and again--over 32 times--and that's just the half of it--as blood flowed and as people screamed and dropped to the ground.

Where I live on Long Island, we have gun violence. It's a suburban area, but unfortunately so many guns and large magazine clips are coming into our communities, and they're bringing with them death and pain. I know gun control of any sort is a tough sell in Congress these days, but commonsense restrictions should be enacted as such large capacity clips play such an obvious role in turning angry outbreaks of violence into massacres.

The Washington Post reads: Lawmakers should also endorse the sensible legislation introduced by myself to outlaw the sales of high-capacity ammunition clips that enabled Mr. Loughner to shoot some 30 bullets in a matter of seconds. A drug abuse history or not, no one, in my opinion, should be able to have the possession of a weapon that could so easily and senselessly be used to slaughter so many of our citizens, our neighbors, in such a short period of time.

The Seattle Times, The Denver Post, The Salt Lake Tribune, the Charlotte Observer, the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal, and The Tennessean are all basically saying it's time to look at reducing the violence that is in our cities, our communities, our towns. One of the ways we can do that is by getting rid of the large capacity clips.

The Arizona Daily Star noted that no one outside of law enforcement and the military needs to fire 30-plus rounds without interruption. Hunters do not. Neither do target shooters or those who carry guns for self-defense.

Let me remind people that a gun that anyone uses that has a clip will still have 10 bullets and one in the chamber. That's 11 bullets that someone can use for self-defense. There is no question that fewer people would have been killed and injured on January 8 if the shooter had possessed a magazine with a capacity of just 10 rounds.

Gail Collins said Congress should have an actual debate about Representative McCarthy's bill to reduce gun violence.

Even traditional, conservative, pro-gun advocate Nick Kristof talks about the contrast of guns with automobiles. He turned it upside down to argue that, in reality--and this is true--for a long time, motor vehicles were dangerous, but slowly, slowly we made them quite safe. The trade-off is that we have modestly curbed individual freedom, but we can save tens of thousands of lives every year. That's a model for how we should approach guns and a public health concern.

I talked about individual leaders who support H.R. 308. It is a long list, and many people have stood up: Mayor Bloomberg from New York City, my great city; Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, another member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, also expressed support; I had mentioned Vice President Dick Cheney, of all people, who said it would be appropriate to reinstate a ban on high-capacity magazines like we had before.

Other public officials and individuals around the country also support this bill: The New York Police Department said that a legislative solution to eliminating extended magazines would be best; the President of the Alabama Sheriffs' Association is a supporter; the Minneapolis police chief is a supporter; the Palm Beach County commissioner; the Montana Secretary of State; President Bob Brown, an NRA member and hunter who owns 18 guns, supports my legislation; the nurse who treated Ronald Reagan after he was shot supports this; the fiancee and family of Gabe Zimmerman, one of our own staffers who was killed in Arizona, support this bill.

You mentioned our police officers, Bill. If anybody would be interested, we've had more police officers killed since January of this year until now than we've had in the last number of years. We say that we are there for our police officers. You were a mayor, and I know you stood by your police officers. I know that police officers around the country know when they're facing these large capacity clips and they're outgunned, as they were when we passed the assault weapons bill.

So, Bill, I know you are where I am, and I thank you for the support that you have given me, because we did come in together, but it's people like yourself who are willing to speak out.

Please.

And I thank you again.

I just want to remind the American people who might be listening tonight, I need your help. I can do the battles here. It's so easy to email your Member of Congress or your Senator to say it's time to get rid of the large magazines, because there is no place in America anymore that is safe. This can happen anytime, any place. So I thank you for listening to me tonight, and I thank my friend for standing here with me and talking about it.

I will say, in closing, it's 17 years since the incident happened to my family. There is not a day that goes by that I don't remember what happened, and that's why I continue to fight for this issue. I don't want another family to go through the pain. I don't want to see another person die. I don't want to see someone injured for the rest of their life, and to fight those battles.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 2, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on February 16, 2011. If I were present, I would have voted for the following: Lummis (WY) amendment (No. 193)--rollcall No. 61: no; Moran (VA) amendment (No. 338)--rollcall No. 62: no; Flake (AZ) amendment (No. 376)--rollcall No. 63: no; Pompeo (KS) amendment (No. 376)-- rollcall No. 64: no; Reed (NY) amendment (No. 379)--rollcall No. 65: no.

Mr. Chair, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Rep. Holt, for serving as my designee, and offering Amendment No. 12 during consideration of the Commerce Justice Science title of HR. 1. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is consistent funding included in the CR to implement the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which became law in January 2008. In addition, I would like to thank Rep. Dingell for his unfailing support for NICS and support for this amendment. He has been a long time NRA member, and a long time supporter of responsible gun laws.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS'', is a national database system that keeps track of individuals disqualified under current law from purchasing and possessing firearms. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act, signed into law in January 2008, requires all states to provide NICS with the relevant records needed to conduct effective background checks.

The NICS Improvement Act provides grants to states and territories to update their records and transmit the records to the NICS database. Since the law was enacted, several states have benefitted from the grant program including Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, Wisconsin and my home state of New York.

This law imposes no new restrictions on gun owners and does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It simply makes improvements to a program that saves lives, and the bill was supported by the NRA.

In FY11, the law was authorized at $375 million, and the appropriation level was $20 million in FY10 and carried into FY11 through the current CR. While I believe that this program is a vital component in our fight against crime and should receive the fully authorized funding, I understand that tough decisions have to be made in this economic environment. That is why I am not seeking the fully authorized funding level, but instead am simply asking that we remain consistent and continue to fund the program at the FY10 level.

We need to give this program a chance to work and provide adequate funding to ensure that NICS has up to date records. Millions of criminal records are currently missing from the databases that make up NICS due to funding restrictions and technology issues at the state level. As a result, people who should not be obtaining guns, do.

This point is underscored by the circumstances surrounding the shootings at Virginia Tech. Under current law, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre should not have been able to purchase a firearm, but tragically he did. His information never made it into the national NICS system. He slipped through the cracks and he was able to purchase two handguns, and used them to brutally murder 32 individuals. Sadly, this same scenario happens every day.

The NICS Improvement Act has been effective. Since the NICS Improvement Act was signed into law, the number of state records of prohibited gun purchasers in the system has increased dramatically. According to Dept of Justice data, in Jan 2008 there were about 402,000 disqualifying mental illness records submitted from the states and territories to NICS. In August 2010, that number had more than doubled with 930,000 records submitted. The National Center for State Courts estimate that more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records should be in the NICS, based on responses from only 42 of 56 U.S. states and territories.

Based on this data we are missing more than half of the records that should be in the NICS system. Clearly there is more work to be done and by continuing to fund this program at FY10 levels, we will continue the effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and express that it is the intent of Congress that funding for the NICS Improvement Amendments Act be maintained at the FY10 level.

Offered By: Mrs. McCarthy of New York

Amendment No. 12: Page 202, line 16, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $20,000,000) (increased by

$20,000,000)''.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained on January 26, 2011 and missed rollcall vote No. 23 on the amendment to H.R. 359 offered by Representative Peters. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 23.