Floor Statements

I thank the heroic lady from Illinois, and I think, for all of us, hearing your words are profound.

What we are seeing here is, not only are there physical wounds, there are emotional wounds. So many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have shared with me the stories of victims who have been raped and sexually assaulted--the fear, the pain, the tears--and they all, to the woman and to the man, have said how powerless they feel.

This particular amendment will give them a little leverage. This amendment is going to give them a choice. This amendment respects the chain of command. This amendment gives them the opportunity to use the chain of command or to seek to go to the chief prosecutor in each of the services to seek an investigation and an evaluation as to whether or not a prosecution should move forward.

We have an opportunity here to really change the face of this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for allowing me to speak.

My colleagues have all spoken eloquently on the floor today about the importance of addressing this issue of sexual assault and rape in the military. What we hasten to do around here is pat ourselves on the back for all the things we have done.

But let me tell you what the elephant in the room is here today. The elephant in the room here today is we have not had a robust debate on chain of command. And why are my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle unwilling to have that debate? Let's just air it. The Senate has taken up this issue in their committee. They've had a full-out hearing on it, and yet we have not done that in the House in the Armed Services Committee. I had an amendment that was taken up last night by the Rules Committee. It had 134 cosponsors. It was bipartisan in nature. What's wrong with taking up an amendment with over a quarter of the membership of this House on the floor in what is supposed to be an open debate on this issue?

We will not fix this issue, Members, if we don't fix it on the front end; and the problem is on the front end where people feel they cannot file their complaint for fear of retaliation. And when complaints are filed, and there were 3,300 of them filed in 2011, only 500 of them were investigated and sent to court-martial, and less than 200 actually had convictions. So why would anyone who was raped or sexually assaulted in the military feel with confidence that they will receive justice?

We deserve an opportunity to have a robust debate on the chain of command and whether or not we should take these cases out of the chain of command.

Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel all have taken these cases out of the chain of command. At the very least, we should be able to debate it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me time.

Seventy men and women serving in the military every single day are sexually assaulted and raped. While we sit here and we talk, that's going on.

For over 25 years--for over 25 years--we have known about this problem and

we have done very little. Aberdeen, Tailhook, the military academies, Lackland, all of these are happening under our collective watch, and we have found it acceptable to hold hearings, to bring the brass up here, have them say the right words--``zero tolerance''--and then we would go about our business. That is not good enough. And while the NDAA has some good fixes on the end of the process, we still have much to do on the front end.

There is a reason why there are 26,000 sexual assaults and rapes a year in the military and only 3,300 have the guts to come forward. It's because if you come forward, you're retaliated against. Some 63 percent are retaliated against. And of those 3,300 that report, only 500 of those cases are going to go to court-martial and only 200 will end up in a conviction.

So why would anyone report? Because your odds of getting justice are just not there. That's why it is important for us to have a debate on this House floor about taking these cases out of the chain of command. If it's in the chain of command, then you have the potential of having the assailant be the person making the decision, or the person making the decision--the commander--being the friend of the assailant, or the commander itching for a promotion, who is fearful that if they find out that there was a rape under their watch, that they won't get that promotion.

Other countries have a similar Uniform Code of Military Justice. Ours is based on the British system. And the Brits and the Canadians and the New Zealanders and the Australians and the Israelis have all taken these cases out of the chain of command, and it's working. It's time for us to have that discussion as well.

I urge my colleagues to embrace an amendment that I will take up in Rules Committee that will at least give us the opportunity to have this debate--this healthy debate--on the House floor. Otherwise, I will guarantee you in another 6 months, in another year, we will see yet another scandal, and we will not have changed anything.

Mr. Speaker, it has now been almost 6 months since the tragedy of Newtown. The American response to that tragedy was quick and overwhelming. And yet, we have done nothing to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

In fact, many of my colleagues here in this institution seem all too ready to forget Newtown and the gun violence epidemic that is devastating families and communities across our country every single day.

According to Slate's gun-death tracker, an estimated 4,620 people have died as a result of gun violence in America since Newtown--4,620 people.

In 12 U.S. States, gun deaths now outpace auto deaths.

A new analysis from the Violence Policy Center found that in 2010, there were 31,672 firearm deaths and 35,498 motor vehicle deaths, compared with 1999, when there were 28,000 firearm deaths and 42,000 motor vehicle deaths, which is startling considering more than 90 percent of the American households own a car while less than one-third of American households own a gun.

We require auto manufacturers to include safety features like seatbelts and airbags, and to pass crash safety tests, and lives are being saved as a result.

By 2015, gun deaths will outnumber auto deaths on a national scale. Think about that. More gun deaths than auto deaths, and we require all these precautions and restrictions on manufacturers to make sure our cars are safe and we do nothing--nothing--when it comes to gun manufacturers. Think about that. Mandatory safety measures, and auto manufacturers can be held liable for defects in their products. We expect cars to be built safely, but when it comes to guns, a product designed to kill, manufacturers have been given a free pass. They can't be held liable for the deaths and destruction their products may cause. We don't even require gun manufacturers to make guns child-safe.

How many more children have to die as a result of senseless gun violence and avoidable gun accidents? New York Times columnist Joe Nocera is producing a weekly ``Gun Report'' that compiles gun deaths and injuries from around the country. I'm going to read a few of the recent posts since Newtown that deal specifically with children.

A 2-year-old boy is dead after an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound. Trenton Mathis shot himself in the face with a 9-millimeter pistol in a house in Cherokee County, Texas, while at home with his great-grandmother.

A 6-year-old girl was shot in the leg by her father during a boisterous party in Federal Heights, Colorado.

Joshua Johnson, 4, was playing with a gun at a Memphis apartment complex when it went off. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

A Garland, Texas, toddler was fatally shot in his home in what police are calling a tragic accident. Three-year-old John O'Brien was shot in the head with a handgun in front of his mother, father, and two young sisters. He was taken to Children's Medical Center in Dallas, where he later died from his injuries.

The 4-year-old son of a Jackson County, Michigan, sheriff's deputy accidentally shot and killed himself. Authorities say it happened around 5 p.m. in the deputy's home.

Michael Easter, a 3-year-old boy in Liberty Township, Michigan, died after he accidentally shot himself in the head while alone in his parents' bedroom. Police are unsure how the boy gained access to the gun. Michael was home with his mother and two sisters at the time.

A 3-year-old toddler accidentally shot himself in the head with a relative's gun but was listed in stable condition at a Nashville, Tennessee, hospital.

A teen boy accidentally shot and killed his 12-year-old brother in Orlando, Florida. The shooting happened at home in the Lake Nona area. Investigators said they are working to determine what led to the shooting.

A dad accidentally shot his son dead as he cleaned his gun in the family's living room. Christopher Stanlane, 34, was wiping down a loaded weapon in his home in Fairmont, North Carolina, when it discharged. His 10-year-old son, Christopher Stanlane, Jr., was watching television, and was struck in the back of his head with a bullet. His 8-year-old daughter was also in the room. The boy was pronounced dead at the scene.

How many more children have to die before Congress acts?

Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately unable to cast a vote on rollcall 179 on the evening of May 22, 2013. I strongly oppose the Northern Route Approval Act and I would have voted ``no'' on passage of H.R. 3. This legislation is another reckless attempt to disregard due process for reviewing projects with significant implications for national security, the environment and public health. I have consistently stated that TransCanada's application for a permit to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline must undergo a full environmental review and public comment period, as required by law, before the President determines whether the project is within the national interest. It is irresponsible to waive environmental review and public comment, much less ``deem approved'' a project of such magnitude as the Keystone XL pipeline, especially in light of the recent tar sands disaster in Mayflower, Arkansas that spilled 210,000 gallons of heavy crude oil and displaced 22 families from their homes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's ``shame on you'' Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms.

Is this really what we want to give mothers on Mother's Day?

Mr. Speaker, next to me is a mug shot. It's a mug shot of someone who's been charged with sexual assault. This is a mug shot of Jeffrey Krusinski.

Jeffrey Krusinski is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force. His job is to work at the Pentagon as the chief officer of the Sexual Assault and Prevention Office within the Air Force. This man is charged with the responsibility of preventing and reporting sexual assault in the military, in the Air Force. And just this last weekend, he was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a parking lot.

The best and the brightest the Air Force has to offer to run this office, and he's a sexual predator? Is that what we're talking about?

This is an indictment of the SAPRO office that is supposed to be the solution for military rape and assault. It's an indictment of our procedures. It's an indictment of everything we have done on this issue.

And Congress is as culpable as the military in not addressing it, because we've known about this issue for 25 years. And we are big on holding hearings and beating our chests and saying, This has got to stop. And the big brass comes up to the Hill, and they say all the right words. They say, We have a zero tolerance. And then our chief prevention officer is charged with a sexual assault.

But it doesn't end there. The bad news doesn't end there.

The military just released today it's Sexual Assault and Prevention Office report on how many sexual assaults took place in the military last year. And guess what? The numbers have gone up by 30 percent, from 19,000 sexual assaults and rapes in the military, based on the last year's figures, to the most recent year's figures of 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults in the military.

For all the money we've been throwing at this issue, for all the prevention and all the rehabilitation and all of the training, the numbers keep going up. And now, this most recent report also suggests that one-third of the women serving in the military reported that they were sexually harassed last year.

This is an institution of military good discipline, good order?

It is time for us to roll up our sleeves and do something real about this. We have got to stop just kind of nibbling around the edges in an effort to try and fix a broken system.

121 Members have joined me as coauthors of legislation that would take the reporting of sexual assault out of the chain of command, keep it in the military, but place it in a separate office staffed by persons who are experts in investigations, experts in prosecuting these crimes.

And until we do something like this, the numbers of sexual assaults will continue to rise in the military. The number of unrestricted reports will not rise as fast as the number of restricted reports.

And why do we have restricted reports? Why would we say to any member of the military, Yes, report this, but we will keep it quiet, we will sweep it under the rug?

This, my friends, is time for us to do something. It is time for us to say that we are not going to tolerate another scandal. We're not going to tolerate a scandal on Lackland Air Force Base, where there were 59 victims and 32 military training instructors who were implicated. We're not going to tolerate that in Aviano, Italy. We had a major general who overturned the decision by five military members of a jury who court-martialed a lieutenant colonel and found him guilty, and yet the major general overturned the decision and decided to reinstate this individual.

The time, my friends, has come to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for allotting me some time to speak on this bill, and to our chairman, Mr. Issa, for moving this bill forward, and to my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz from Utah, who is the author of this measure.

Imagine what our constituents are thinking right now. Imagine if they really knew that while they're scurrying around trying to get their tax returns filed on time and making sure they have adequate funds in their accounts to write out that check, that there are corporations in this country that continue to get contracts from the United States of America, even though they don't pay their taxes.

So this bill will ensure that taxpayer dollars due today only go to responsible contractors who do not have significant debts to the Federal Government. This bill will make it clear to all contracting officials: no more tax money for deadbeat contractors.

As it stands, delinquent contractors are not only eligible for future contracts, but they actually get them. With one of the largest budgets in the Federal Government, the Defense Department already has a reputation for letting contractors fleece taxpayers. And to underscore this point, when the Defense Department needed a new PR contractor, they settled on a company that still owed $4 million in taxes. How can we allow that to happen?

Another company that owed the Federal Government a million dollars in taxes was paid an additional million dollars as a contractor from the Department of Defense. Instead of using the money to pay back the government, what did he do with the money? He bought a boat, some cars, and a home overseas.

Even the IRS, the agency responsible for collecting our taxes, has fallen down on the job of making sure that our taxpayer dollars only go to contractors who have paid them. The Inspector General found the IRS gave 11 companies $356 million in contracts despite owing millions of dollars themselves.

So the question is, Why would we reward scofflaws?

Let's get this done this year. And I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if in fact the Senate is the logjam, if that's what is going to prevent this from taking effect, let's co-write a letter to the President of the United States and ask him under his powers of executive order to take the steps necessary to put this in place so that we don't continue to have contractors who do not pay their taxes getting rewarded with contracts by the Federal Government.

I thank the ranking member.

Let me just be very specific. Mr. Chaffetz, at one point, said we have a few bad apples, and the chairman suggested, Well, who are these deadbeats? Let's talk about who these deadbeats really are. $3.5 billion--54 percent of that $3.5 billion is attributed to military, active military, military Reserves, and retired military.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think maybe we should rethink this because the truth of the matter is 54 percent have either been in the military or active military. Furthermore, 46 percent of those ``deadbeats'' are civilian Federal employees retired and military Federal employees retired.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Rita Williams, an exceptional journalist whose image and voice have been beamed into Bay Area living rooms for four decades. She is retiring from KTVU after 35 years at the station.

Rita is a top-notch reporter and superb story teller. I know from first-hand experience that she is fair, professional and that she won't give any elected official a pass. Rita has earned the adoration and admiration from her colleagues, her interviewees and her viewers.

But don't just take my word for it; this is what other people are saying: Greg Suhr, the San Francisco Police Chief says, ``If there was a ``how to'' book on how to be the most gracious fair objective ``cool under fire'' reporter in the world, Rita Williams' picture would be on the cover.'' Ed Chapuis, her news director for over 10 years says, ``Her stories were always the hardest for her editors to edit, because each word was placed with such purpose and precision.'' Bill Drummond, journalist and husband of the late Faith Fancher, Rita's long-time friend and colleague, says, ``With Rita the reporting came first, and because of that commitment, her stories transcended the usual limitations of the television news medium.''

Rita grew up in Lubbock, Texas. She was the first in her family to earn a college degree. After she graduated from Texas Tech University with a B.A. in journalism, she worked as the press secretary for the late Texas Congressman George Mahon, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. She then earned her Master's degree in political science/international affairs from George Washington University. Rita worked as a news reporter at KSAT-TV in Texas from 1975-1978 and then moved to California. She was a reporter for KQED-TV before she joined KTVU in 1980. From 1985-86, she was also a Knight Fellow and taught broadcast news writing at Stanford.

When Rita entered the broadcast world, it was dominated by men. Surviving and even thriving in this testosterone-driven environment was no small accomplishment, but Rita did it with grace and tenacity. She calls herself the ``first broadcast broad.'' She opened KTVU's San Francisco bureau in the Hall of Justice.

Rita has reported thousands of social, economic and political stories, treating each one as the most important story at the time. Her work has earned her several Emmies, Tellies, a PASS award from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a public service award from the Society of Professional Journalists and many other awards. She was one of the lead investigative reporters in the Oakland BART shooting stories that contributed to a prestigious Peabody award and Edward R. Murrow award to KTVU.

While Rita takes utmost pride in her profession and work, she views her family as her biggest accomplishment. Rita and her husband of 37 years, Lindsey, are the proud parents of Brad who is now a law student in San Francisco. Brad and my children grew up around the same time, so Rita and I often compared notes and shared school referral options.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to rise with me to honor one of the finest journalists and human beings I know. On her last day on the air at KTVU, Rita humbly thanked her viewers and said, ``You have entrusted me with one of the biggest responsibilities anybody could ever have, to be a reporter and to be your eyes and ears.

I hope that I have used that trust well and that you have learned something in return.'' The answer to that hope is a resounding yes!

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Fire Chief Don Dornell, who is retiring after nearly four decades of service to the people of Burlingame and San Mateo County. His dedication to public service is a credit to his community and to his character as a leader.

Don Dornell is a Peninsula native, born in San Francisco in 1951 and raised in Millbrae as the second of five children, and one of a pair of twins. He attended Capuchino High School in San Bruno, then earned his associate degree in Political Science at the College of San Mateo in 1971.

It was then that Chief Dornell's career in public service began. He served in the Army National Guard for six years, until 1977. During that time, Chief Dornell trained as a plumber, and he began working for the San Carlos Parks Department. But from his first day, he knew that the Parks Department was not for him--his real goal was serving as a firefighter.

After a brief stint in Piedmont, Chief Dornell was hired as a firefighter for the City of Burlingame in March 1977, a community he has served diligently ever since. He has risen swiftly through the ranks, earning a promotion to Fire Captain in 1985, and serving as the B-Shift Training Officer from 1985 to 1997 and co-director of the San Mateo County Fire Recruit Academy from 1996 to 1997. In January 1997, he became Assistant Chief, and he took over responsibility for training and overseeing line personnel.

More recently, Chief Dornell has worked tirelessly to ensure successful transitions as local agencies consolidate fire protection to strengthen the cohesiveness of service and promote administrative efficiency. When the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough merged fire services in 2004, becoming the Central County Fire Department, he became the first Deputy Fire Chief of the new agency. This is a role he has embraced, as he became the agency's second Fire Chief in December 2006. Last year he took over responsibility for fire departments in Millbrae and San Bruno as well.

Chief Dornell's service to the community has taken other forms as well. He is a longstanding Fire Technology Instructor at College of San Mateo, administrator of the San Mateo County Fire Recruit Academy from 1997 to 2006, and a Member of the San Mateo County

Fire Chiefs Association, where he serves as liaison to a number of adjunct groups. Chief Dornell is also the first inaugural chairman of the Burlingame Adopt-a-Unit program, which since 2004 has supported hundreds of U.S. soldiers through their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his retirement, Chief Dornell will be relocating to Calaveras County to enjoy hiking and outdoors activities in the Central Sierra, to continue work on the home he has been rebuilding, and to spend some time travelling around the country with his wife Debra. He will also continue his work as a volunteer for the Calaveras County Sheriff's Search and Rescue Team.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in congratulating Fire Chief Don Dornell on a remarkable career. His contributions to our community are an example of the best in public service, and his leadership and dedication will be missed. We wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the remarkable Sharon Williams, the long-time director of Menlo Park-based JobTrain. Sharon is retiring after forty years of instilling optimism in each JobTrain client and building life skills amongst an entire community. I have watched with amazement over these many years as Sharon has guided the JobTrain organization.

Sharon earned her BA in English from the University of the Pacific in 1965 and her teaching credential from San Francisco State University in 1968. She joined JobTrain in 1973 as a GED teacher. She became Director of Development in 1978 and a short time later took over as Executive Director. Conducting job training classes and connecting people with jobs was very difficult in the late 1970s. Sharon guided JobTrain and its clients through difficult financial times and built a stunningly successful career and job education center.

With Sharon's outstanding leadership, JobTrain has offered cutting- edge and traditional job training, everything from solar panel installation classes to computer repair to culinary arts to laboratory technician training for biotechnology facilities. Knowing that life skills are a large component of the training done by JobTrain, Sharon and her staff insist that clients learn how to show up on time to work, become team members in the modern work environment, and learn how to balance work and the demands of a family.

Mr. Speaker, Sharon Williams has infused JobTrain with the same ``can do'' attitude that she insists from her clients. I've visited JobTrain on several occasions, most recently in the last few months. It's a very busy place. JobTrain helps 8,000 persons per year, and 600 of them receive full-time vocational training. At least 85% of those who enroll complete their training. 75% of those persons are placed in jobs, and 12 months after placement, 84% are still working. JobTrain's success is spelled out in these numbers.

Sharon's contributions to the Peninsula are not limited to JobTrain. She currently serves on numerous boards, including the Center for Excellence in Nonprofits, and East Palo Alto Digital Village. She has also previously served on the boards of the East Palo Alto Senior Center, the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula, Leadership Mid- Peninsula, and the San Mateo County Workforce Investment Board.

After forty years at the helm of JobTrain, it is time for Sharon Williams to bid her beloved nonprofit goodbye and to head off in new directions. The only thing missing from JobTrain's smorgasbord of classes at the moment is a class on how to make eyeglasses. That's not surprising. Sharon sees quite clearly the need for human dignity through productive work. Why would she believe that anyone else in the community needs glasses when her own sight is both perfect and prescient? Let us give Sharon the highest compliment that any employer can offer an employee. Let us say, ``Job well done.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Clark E. Guinan, better known as Gus, who is retiring after a remarkable legal and public service career that spanned over three decades. Gus was the City Attorney of the City of Burlingame for the last four years. His devotion to justice and the Bay Area are reflected in his work and passion for life.

Gus, a native San Franciscan and third generation Californian, was raised in Los Altos. He enrolled in the seminary in Menlo Park at the young age of 13 and studied there through high school and college until he was 24 years old. He received his B.A. in Philosophy from St. Patrick's College.

After eleven years in the seminary, Gus realized that he had a different calling. He wanted to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather who was his hero and a prominent attorney in the California Attorney General's office. Gus started law school and earned his J.D. from the University of Santa Clara.

Upon earning his degree, Gus became a deputy public defender in San Joaquin County from 1974-1984. Then he accepted the position of Senior Assistant City Attorney in Palo Alto where he served for five years.

In 1989, he faced a difficult decision. He and his wife Signe Harnett had adopted infant twin girls. They still lived in Stockton and the daily commute to Palo Alto would prevent Gus from seeing his two babies grow up. He left public service and became a litigation attorney with the law offices of Rishwain, Kakim and Ellis in Stockton from 1989-1991. Gus' love for San Francisco drew the family back to the Bay Area and in 1991 they moved to Berkeley and he joined the law office of Barry Balamuth in Orinda.

In 1993, Gus returned to public service and accepted the position of Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Rafael where he stayed until 2008 when he was appointed to his most recent position of City Attorney of Burlingame.

Gus is a member of the Public Law Section of the California State Bar Association, the Bay Area City Attorneys Association, the Marin Public Agency Attorneys and an alternate board member of the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority. In the past, he served as a delegate at the State Bar Convention in Sacramento, as a section editor of the Municipal Law Handbook of the League of California Cities and as a member of the board of governors of the San Joaquin County Bar Association. Gus has also lectured at the Delta Community College in Stockton and in the ``Bridging the Gap'' program. Last but not least, he has been a proud member of the San Rafael Elks Club since 2006.

In his well deserved retirement, Gus is looking forward to spending more time with his wife of 25 years, their now 24-year-old twin daughters Kate and Lindsey and their stepson Chris. He will finally have more time to lose himself in his passion for California history, hiking, travel, photography, reading and swimming.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representative to rise with me to honor Clark E. Guinan, a man with a brilliant legal mind and a big heart who has protected the rights and safety of the residents of Burlingame and other Bay Area communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Clark E. Guinan, better known as Gus, who is retiring after a remarkable legal and public service career that spanned over three decades. Gus was the City Attorney of the City of Burlingame for the last four years. His devotion to justice and the Bay Area are reflected in his work and passion for life.

Gus, a native San Franciscan and third generation Californian, was raised in Los Altos. He enrolled in the seminary in Menlo Park at the young age of 13 and studied there through high school and college until he was 24 years old. He received his B.A. in Philosophy from St. Patrick's College.

After eleven years in the seminary, Gus realized that he had a different calling. He wanted to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather who was his hero and a prominent attorney in the California Attorney General's office. Gus started law school and earned his J.D. from the University of Santa Clara.

Upon earning his degree, Gus became a deputy public defender in San Joaquin County from 1974-1984. Then he accepted the position of Senior Assistant City Attorney in Palo Alto where he served for five years.

In 1989, he faced a difficult decision. He and his wife Signe Harnett had adopted infant twin girls. They still lived in Stockton and the daily commute to Palo Alto would prevent Gus from seeing his two babies grow up. He left public service and became a litigation attorney with the law offices of Rishwain, Kakim and Ellis in Stockton from 1989- 1991. Gus' love for San Francisco drew the family back to the Bay Area and in 1991 they moved to Berkeley and he joined the law office of Barry Balamuth in Orinda.

In 1993, Gus returned to public service and accepted the position of Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Rafael where he stayed until 2008 when he was appointed to his most recent position of City Attorney of Burlingame.

Gus is a member of the Public Law Section of the California State Bar Association, the Bay Area City Attorneys Association, the Marin Public Agency Attorneys and an alternate board member of the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority. In the past, he served as a delegate at the State Bar Convention in Sacramento, as a section editor of the Municipal Law Handbook of the League

of California Cities and as a member of the board of governors of the San Joaquin County Bar Association. Gus has also lectured at the Delta Community College in Stockton and in the ``Bridging the Gap'' program. Last but not least, he has been a proud member of the San Rafael Elks Club since 2006.

In his well deserved retirement, Gus is looking forward to spending more time with his wife of 25 years, their now 24-year-old twin daughters Kate and Lindsey and their stepson Chris. He will finally have more time to lose himself in his passion for California history, hiking, travel, photography, reading and swimming.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representative to rise with me to honor Clark E. Guinan, a man with a brilliant legal mind and a big heart who has protected the rights and safety of the residents of Burlingame and other Bay Area communities.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin and the freshman Members who participated in the last hour for a job well done in underscoring what the sequester means to Americans across the country.

I'm going to shift gears now as I'm joined by my good colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran). We're going to talk about gun violence.

Those of us who've been victims of gun violence see horrific pictures in our minds over and over again. Mine was over 30 years ago, but I am still haunted by visuals of that day: my leg being blown up, my arm being blown up, and really thinking that I was going to die.

When you look death in the eye, there's a certain clarity that comes to you, a certain clarity about what's important, a certain fearlessness to deal with issues that maybe you wouldn't have dealt with under other circumstances.

Now I am haunted by more recent events in Newtown. I'm haunted by the story told by Veronique Pozner about little Noah, her son.

Little Noah was shot 11 times. A little child was shot 11 times. She made a point of having an open casket at his funeral for one reason, because this is not just about numbers. This is about human beings. This is about visualizing what happens when someone is gunned down.

She had an open casket, and she invited the Governor of Connecticut to the funeral because she wanted the Governor to see this little cherub face. She said it's not little angels going to Heaven. This little boy had his mouth blown off and his jaw gone and his hand gone. She wanted the Governor to remember that little face when legislation came to his desk.

It's time for all of us here in this House to stop thinking about numbers and start thinking about people. Yes, over 1,800 people have died since Newtown, and over 500 of them have been children. If we do nothing else but focus on the children in this country, that should call us to action.

I'm going to talk about a child, a child from my district, an infant, a 3-month-old infant. This infant was named Izak Jimenez. He was just a little tyke. His parents had come from the baby shower, had put him in his car seat, and the mother and the father with the 4-year-old child were in the front seat.

It was mistaken identity. Gang members--two young kids, 16 and 17 years of age--came and shot up their truck. They killed this little baby. They killed him. The parents were shot. The 4-year-old was spared. They were 16- and 17-year-old kids. When they were found, they had extra handguns. They're not legally allowed to have those handguns, but somehow they got them into their hands.

We are not debating the Second Amendment when we talk about gun

violence prevention. The Second Amendment is secure. It's even more secure since the Heller decision, when the Heller Court said:

The Second Amendment guarantees every American the

opportunity to have a gun for recreational purposes and to

protect themselves in their homes, but having said that, it

also provides government with the right to provide certain

levels of regulation.

So what are those certain levels of regulation?

Why don't we start with something really simple, really straightforward, and that is universal background checks. Don't we want to make sure that people who go to gun dealers to buy guns legally have the right to buy the guns? That they're not felons? That they're not ex-felons? That they haven't been charged and convicted of drug trafficking? That they haven't been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or that they haven't been adjudicated by a court as being mentally incompetent? Of course we do, and this number says it all. A Quinnipiac poll this month said that 92 percent of Americans believe that we should have universal background checks.

Why can't we come together--Republicans and Democrats, parents of small children and older children, people who have encountered on one level or another gun violence--and say, certainly, we can do this; certainly, we can have universal background checks so that guns don't get in the wrong hands, so that 16- and 17-year-old kids don't get a hold of a gun and then shoot up an innocent family?

So what does Wayne LaPierre say about that? This is pretty interesting.

Back in 1999, after Columbine, Wayne LaPierre was really clear about universal background checks. He said:

On behalf of the NRA, we think it's reasonable to provide

mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale

at every gun show--no loopholes anywhere for anyone.

That's what he said in 1999.

Now, mind you, a recent poll by Frank Luntz--a Republican pollster-- of just NRA members and non-NRA gun members, found that 74 percent of NRA members and 83 percent of gun owners support a universal background check. So did Wayne LaPierre in 1999.

What is he saying today?

Today, before Senator Leahy, when asked, ``You don't support background checks in all instances at gun shows?'' Mr. LaPierre responds, ``We do not because the fact is the law right now is a failure the way it is working. None of it makes any sense in the real world.''

I would submit to my good friend Mr. Moran that this is the real world and that we are dealing with real people. I know that you would like to comment, from your perspective, on the state of gun violence and the lack of gun violence prevention in this country.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

I was unaware that he had made that statement today.

In California, we have universal background checks. We have a universal background check for private sales in which you have to do it through a local gun dealer. Even with all of that burden, you might argue--if that's what the Judiciary chairman is arguing--that 600,000 guns were purchased last year in the State of California.

And how is that equal protection under the law?

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his articulate commentary about this issue.

You know, the time has come for all of us to stop quaking in our boots because the NRA leadership has spoken.

You know, I've spoken to a number of my Republican colleagues over the last few weeks, and they are without any kind of rational reason for why they can't support one thing or another. Their beliefs have become so molded by what the leadership of the NRA says. Now the NRA leadership isn't reflecting the NRA membership, and that's what we've got to remember. The NRA membership supports universal background checks.

Let me share with you what Wayne LaPierre recently said, actually in a speech over the weekend, to continue to promote what I would call paranoia and fearmongering. He was talking about universal background checks, and he said:

It's aimed at registering your guns. And when another

tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be

used to confiscate your guns.

The American people know that's not true. A tragic opportunity, that's what he calls that horrific incident in Newtown, Connecticut. Opportunity? He has lost all sense of reality.

We owe it to every American to do something rational around gun violence prevention. And I am not going to stand here and be cowed by NRA leadership and not do what's right. And oh, yes, I have already gotten plenty of threatening Facebook pronouncements. I don't care. I owe it to Noah Pozner. I owe it to little Izak. I owe it to Gabby Giffords. I owe it to 32 Americans every day who get killed because of gun violence.

So let's move on and talk a little bit about an internal NRA memo. This memo lists national organizations with supposed antigun policies. Well, it's really kind of interesting when you look at this. This is the enemies list that the NRA has developed. There are lots of organizations and people's names on it. We just highlighted a few here.

The American Association of Retired Persons is on their enemies list. You've got to be kidding me.

Hallmark Cards. Now, I had to look long and hard to find out why Hallmark Cards would be on the enemies list for the National Rifle Association. I guess 20 years ago they contributed to an initiative to try and prevent a mandatory conceal and carry in a State, and that put them on the enemies list.

The YWCA, the Young Women's Christian Association; the Anti- Defamation League, and many other Jewish organizations, I might add; the League of Women Voters, the organization promoting all of the smart voting that goes on in this country, all of the opportunities for all of us to be able to access our legislators. And then the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. These people, these organizations, can't all be wrong. But the NRA has put them on their enemies list.

Let me give you some other names you might find kind of interesting. These are celebrities, not organizations, but they include the likes of actress Lauren Bacall, Tony Bennett. Tony Bennett is on their enemies list. Is this taking us back to the McCarthy era? Sean Connery is on the enemies list. Michael Douglas, Billy Crystal, Kathie Lee Gifford, Leonard Nimoy, Mary Tyler Moore, John McEnroe, and Barry Manilow.

Now, come on. In this country, we would create a list, an organization would create a list of enemies because they support gun violence prevention?

Mr. Speaker, I'm dumbfounded by what goes on here from time to time. I'm particularly dumbfounded by the inability of this Congress and this House to stand up to the NRA leadership and stand up for America.

I'm going to close, Mr. Speaker, by memorializing two people in California that died yesterday, two Santa Cruz police officers in the line of duty, doing their job, going to a home to determine whether or not there had been some domestic altercation. Elizabeth Butler was a 10-year veteran with the Santa Cruz Police Department. Loran Baker, known as Butch, was a 28-year veteran of the Santa Cruz Police Department. It's a small town. It's a comfortable town. It's a loving town. It's an easygoing town. There are only 90 officers on their police force. They have never had a shooting death of a police officer in the history of that city. But yesterday, they lost two of them, by a man who had body armor on, loaded down with guns, who had been convicted in Oregon of a sex offense of sorts, and who had a gun and did not have a conceal permit. He comes down to California with his gun--shouldn't have had a gun because at that point he was an ex- felon--shoots two Santa Cruz police officers. Between them, they have five children.

Let's do it for the children of this country. Let's do it for law enforcement in this country. Let's do it for all of us so we can go to the mall and we can go to church and we can go to school and not be in fear of being mowed down by violence

I yield back the balance of my time.