Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou on being reelected as President of the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan, on January 14, 2012.

This free and fair election continues Taiwan's long tradition of being a strong and stable democracy. On October 10, 2011 Taiwan celebrated the 100th anniversary of its founding. In the past century, Taiwan has matured into a free-market, multi-party democracy that is a model for the world. Taiwan is an important partner in maintaining peace and stability in the region.

As a proud member of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, I have had the privilege to travel to Taiwan last year as part of a bipartisan delegation. I had the pleasure of meeting President Ma Ying-jeou and other government officials. I was strongly encouraged by their commitment to maintaining strong ties with the United States.

As a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I also discussed Taiwan's request for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program with President Ma. I raised my concerns with President Ma about the need to strengthen their passport security standards before I would be comfortable in supporting Taiwan's inclusion into the Visa Waiver Program.

I was pleased to hear that Taiwan has strengthened their passport standards, and I was proud to send a letter with some of my colleagues to Secretary Clinton recommending that Taiwan be included in the Visa Waiver Program. On December 22, 2011, the U.S. State Department announced Taiwan's nomination for inclusion into the Visa Waiver Program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating President Ma on his reelection as the President of Taiwan. I look forward to maintaining the strong U.S.-Taiwan relations under his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This legislation, which provides $662 billion in funding for fiscal year 2012, is not perfect but I will vote in favor of it for three principal reasons. First, it provides for troop and equipment readiness. Second, it provides much needed help and support for military families. Third, it authorizes critical investments in technology to ensure that the United States is prepared to defend against emerging threats now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is of utmost importance that our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time needed to successfully complete their missions and return home. This bill does that.

H.R. 1540 also provides their families with the resources and support they need and deserve. Specifically, the bill provides for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, retention and accession pay for critical skills, and hazardous duty pay. As my colleagues across both aisles would agree, it is our responsibility to ensure that our troops that have sacrificed for us receive the resources they need for success and the benefits they deserve.

Further, the bill recognizes the importance of investing in future capability and technology to meet emerging challenges on the battlefield of today and in the future. We live in an age in which the security challenges facing our nation are ever-evolving and increasing in technological sophistication and complexity. We must take the necessary steps to ensure that the United States stays in the forefront of technological advances and is equipped with vigorous capabilities in order to be able to successfully detect, deter, and defeat terrorist plots, cyber attacks, and other emerging threats. The bill before us will help us meet these challenges.

Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions included in this legislation which I support:

I. Troop and Equipment Readiness

1. Provides $22.8 billion for the training of all active-duty and reserve forces to increase readiness;

2. Authorizes $396.8 million for C-17 modernization;

3. Provides $6.3 billion to fund Navy ship and aircraft depot maintenance;

4. Provides $4.5 billion for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset and depot maintenance;

5. Provides $7.7 billion for Air Force weapon system sustainment;

6. Allocates just under $1 billion to support the Army's planned return to full-spectrum training; and

7. Provides $13 billion for Military Construction, base realignment and closures, and military family housing.

II. Help for Military Families

1. Provides a 1.6 percent military pay raise

2. Ensures fair TRICARE premiums

III. Investing in Future Technology

1. Extends important budget authorities to allow defense laboratories to recruit and retain the brightest scientists;

2. Expands developmental test and evaluation management for major defense acquisition programs;

3. Directs an assessment of mechanisms to employ non-U.S. citizens with critical scientific and technical skills; and

4. Expands pilot program for the integration of technology protection features during research and development to include contractor cost- sharing.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support the provisions in the bill regarding the treatment of detainees suspected of terrorism. I believe they are decidedly unhelpful and thus agree with the administration and those distinguished legal scholars who assert that mandatory military custody is ``undue and dangerous,'' and that these provisions would ``severely and recklessly undermine'' our Nation's counterterrorism efforts.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support the NDAA for FY 2012 because it authorizes the needed investments to keep our nation safe and enhances our defense infrastructure, along with taking care of our military personnel, and authorizing continued funding for the C-17 air transport.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1801, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As a member of the Committee of Homeland Security and as an ardent supporter of the men and women of the armed services, I am pleased to return today as we're on the floor to consider the Senate amendment to H.R. 1801, the Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act.

This legislation requires the Transportation Security Administration to develop a plan for providing expedited screening to our military personnel at airport security checkpoints.

As the gentleman from Minnesota just alluded to, the Senate amendment took a good bill and made it even better by expressly including new safeguards. Last Congress, on a bipartisan basis, an earlier version of this legislation was accepted as an amendment during the consideration of the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, which passed this House by 397-25, which was not acted upon by the Senate.

H.R. 1801 properly recognizes the preciousness of time--nothing more important than time--to the patriotic men and women serving in our armed services, but it does not compromise aviation security. Our troops help keep our country safe. While first ensuring safety, the least we can do is devise methods to help speed up the screening process for our troops who are in uniform and who are traveling on airplanes while on official duty.

Since 2001, there have been more than 2 million troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. As our military presence in Iraq winds down, more servicemembers will, thankfully, be coming home. We owe it to them and to all of our servicemembers to do all we can to smooth their travels so that they can get home and into the arms of their loving families. This legislation establishes adequate parameters that will ensure that our troops and their families, including the 236,963 military personnel in my home State of California, will be given the opportunity to board an aircraft in a security-approved expedited manner. If approved today, this legislation will go directly to the President for his signature.

With the enactment of H.R. 1801, we have the opportunity to show the country, despite all the acrimony that has been punctuated in this 112th Congress, we can accomplish good things for the American people when we focus on areas of common ground and when compromise is embraced. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation with the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to build upon this current debate of H.R. 1801 and use this opportunity to urge the Republican leadership to bring to the floor additional bipartisan, commonsense homeland security legislation. This is the only bill reported by the Committee on Homeland Security to be considered before the full House. There are a number of other Homeland Security bills on the Union Calendar that warrant consideration by the full House as well.

Among them is H.R. 1447, introduced by Ranking Member Bennie Thompson.

This legislation seeks to enhance TSA's coordination with private- sector stakeholders on aviation policy. Also on the Union Calendar is H.R. 1165, authored by Representative Jackson Lee, which would strengthen the TSA Ombudsman office.

With bipartisan support, both of these bills were ordered reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. Despite having received bipartisan support from the committee, these bills have lingered on the Union Calendar for 40-plus days. I urge the Republican leadership to schedule these bills for consideration, as I am confident they will return to this House with overwhelming bipartisan support.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

As you've heard, Mr. Speaker, the measure before us represents discrete, commonsense homeland security legislation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this motion to suspend the rules and to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1801 so that this measure can be presented to the President for his signature.

I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) and the staffs on both sides of the aisle for their work not only in this Congress but for their work in the 111th Congress, which was when this was brought forward in the prior TSA act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3630, the GOP Tax Extenders Package. This bill does nothing to create jobs, support the middle class or stimulate our economy. Instead, the Republicans have decided to play politics at the expense of ninety-nine percent of American families.

As we wrap up this year's legislative business, individuals receiving unemployment insurance benefits, physicians anxiously awaiting certainty that they will be adequately reimbursed for treatment they deliver to Medicare patients and millions of middle class families facing a tax increase are depending on us to put politics aside and act responsibly. Unfortunately, the GOP Tax Extenders Package is mere political theater that takes an irresponsible approach to solving these issues.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama called on Congress to extend the payroll tax deduction in order to save working Americans an average of $1,500 over the next year. If Congress does not act by the end of the year, American families making an average of $50,000 per year will see their taxes raised $1,000. At a time when the average American is struggling to make ends meet, it is essential that we extend the payroll tax cut to ensure that middle class American families can spend the money they've earned. Lowering the rate Americans contribute to Social Security out of their paychecks will help stimulate consumer spending, create jobs and revive our economy.

While the Republican bill we are considering today extends the current payroll tax cut by two percent and addresses the SGR ``doc fix'' for two years, there are a number of ideological poison pills attached to this bill that simply make this measure unacceptable. First, the bill cuts Medicare provider rates by over $21 billion and significantly increases the number of Medicare beneficiaries required to pay higher premiums for services they need.

Second, the bill would cut over $21 billion from Affordable Care Act programs, which will increase the ranks of the uninsured by 170,000 Americans. Although we are making progress in ensuring that more Americans have access to quality and affordable health insurance plans, the Republicans are recklessly attempting to roll back provisions of the Affordable Care Act that have proven successful at increasing access to healthcare. The Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund, an essential piece of the Affordable Care Act tasked with promoting healthy lifestyles and prevention treatment to keep Americans healthy, would suffer a deleterious $8 billion cut.

Further, this bill would roll back the amount of time benefits are provided to recipients of emergency unemployment compensation. The current program allows beneficiaries to receive unemployment compensation for up to 99 weeks; however, the Republican Tax Extenders Package would lower that amount of time to 59 weeks. As we are all aware, the current job market is extraordinarily bleak. With the unemployment level in my district hovering around twenty percent, shortening the length of time benefits are provided would have a devastating impact on those who rely on unemployment compensation as their main source of income.

Mr. Speaker, cutting back emergency unemployment compensation from 99 to 59 weeks hurts the most vulnerable members of our society. That is why I submitted an amendment to this legislation that would extend current unemployment benefits for 2012, if the implementation of subtitle B of title II is found to have a disproportionately adverse effect on workers aged 55 and older by the Secretary of Labor. Had my amendment been made in order and adopted, it would have provided much needed relief to job-seeking seniors in this tough economic environment.

Time is running out. Republican brinksmanship on must-pass legislation continues to damage job creation and create uncertainty for businesses and the markets. In their Pledge to America, House Republicans promised to focus on jobs and keep extraneous and controversial provisions out of must-pass legislation. This bill is yet another example of their broken promises to the American people.

For all these reasons I cannot support H.R. 3630, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of this great day in American history--the day that marks the end of the Iraq war. Although for years we all hoped and prayed that this day would come, there is an overwhelming feeling of relief when hope becomes a reality. Today we stand together as a nation and rejoice as we look forward to the return of thousands of men and women whose countless sacrifices, remarkable service, and enormous achievements in the name of our great Nation will never be forgotten.

Nearly 1.5 million Americans served in the war in Iraq, with 30,000 wounded and nearly 4,500 casualties. In my district, we suffered the loss of 12 remarkable servicemen. We remember Long Beach residents: Pfc. Stephen A. Castellano; Sgt. 1st Class Randy D. Collins; Sgt. Anthony J. Davis, Jr.; Sgt. Israel Garcia; Pvt. Ernesto R. Guerra; Pfc. Lyndon A. Marcus, Jr.; Spec. Roberto L. Martinez Salazar; Spec. Astor A. SunsinPineda; Pfc.

David T. Toomalatai; Pfc. George D. Torres; and Staff Sgt. Joshua Whitaker, as well as Carson resident Pfc. Daniel P. Cagle of Carson who were all killed in action.

Perhaps the most consequential victory of the War on Terror came earlier this year when Osama bin Laden's life was finally ended by a group of Navy SEALs who deftly carried-out a covert operation at bin Laden's secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. I am extremely thankful for President Obama and his Administration's firm leadership in the effort to bring bin Laden to justice. With a renewed sense that justice has been served, we must return our focus now to protecting our citizens at home, and assuring our veterans a prosperous future.

As President Obama said earlier today ``It's important for us to express our thanks in words, but it's even more for us to express our thanks in deeds.'' It is now our turn to stand up for our troops at home as they courageously stood up for us in battle.

Our troops are returning home to a tough economy. They are returning home to an unemployment rate for veterans that is 2.5% higher than the national average. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put aside our differences and come together in our commitment to ensure veterans returning home receive all the resources they need. No measure of action we take in Congress can ever truly repay our troops for their sacrifices, but I vow to do all that I can to ensure that the country they fought and sacrificed for gives back to them all that they deserve.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, while keeping the American people safe should always be our top priority, now we must refocus our priorities and our resources into protecting our homeland, educating, training and employing the American workforce, and ensuring our veterans a prosperous future in the nation they fought to defend. Over the last ten years, American taxpayers have spent billions rebuilding Iraq. We must now be willing to make the same investment of time and resources to rebuild our economy so that it provides a standard of living and quality of life worthy of the heroic sacrifices made by the men and women who risked their lives to defend our way of life and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. A beautiful Sunday morning on December 7, 1941 in O'ahu, Hawaii was darkened by a surprise and brutal attack on the United States Naval Station at Pearl Harbor.

More than 2,400 Americans lost their lives that day while over 1,200 suffered from injuries protecting not only the base and the country they loved. The attack led to the entry of the United States into World War II, the most transformative event of the 21st century. In addressing the Congress the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that ``yesterday, December 7, [is] a date which will live in infamy.'' Today we remember those who sacrificed their lives that day in the defense of our country and honor the patriots who continue to carry the memory of this day through their daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, the attack on Pearl Harbor brings back the same emotions we experienced on September 11, 2001. We were stunned, shocked, horrified, but united in our resolve to protect our homeland and defeat our adversaries. Long Beach, California, which is located in my district, played a critical role in this effort. It was one of the leading centers of military activity on the West Coast. Along the Pacific coast of Long Beach were several Navy shipbuilding and repair yards, Coast Guard stations, supply depots, and transport facilities. It is no exaggeration to state that Long Beach was a critical component of the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' that was the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the war that began on December 7, 1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbor ended on August 15, 1945, with Japan's unconditional surrender. In keeping with our national character, the United States did not gloat in victory, extract reparations from a vanquished foe, or occupy and oppress a conquered people. Rather, the United States helped Japan rebuild its economy and transform itself into a great democracy. The peace treaty that was signed on September 2, 1945, on the decks of the U.S.S. Missouri ushered into being a friendship that grows stronger and more important with every passing year. Japan is now one of our strongest allies and major trading partners.

As we reflect on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, let us remember the sacrifices of the men and women who perished that day in defense of the land we love.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees, which instructs House conferees to insist on the inclusion of certain amendments intended to improved the sexual assault prevention and response in the Armed Services that were contained in the version of National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House on May 26, 2011.

While 1 in 6 women in the United States will experience some type of sexual assault in her lifetime, as many as 1 in 3 veteran women report that they have experienced some form of Military Sexual Trauma during their service. Due to shame, guilt or fear of not being believed, countless victims do not report their assault and it has been reported that as few as 13 percent of these sexual assaults are reported to the proper authorities.

Mr. Speaker, not only do cases of sexual assault largely go unreported, but response protocols necessary to protect victims of assault need to be improved.

In addition, more must be done to protect these victims after they report their abuse. Victims of sexual assault face a lack of confidentiality, protection, support, and access to legal counsel once an incident is reported.

Currently, victims of rape or sexual assault do not have the right to a unit or duty location transfer following an assault. The result is that victims of these unspeakable crimes often have to continue serving alongside their assailant. As of this date, the Department of Defense has not yet adopted policies that will enable sexual assault victims to escape constant contact with their attackers.

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge problem. Something must be done.

Fortunately, the problem of rape and sexual assault in the military has been addressed by provisions in both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 (NDAA). In both the House and Senate versions, the NDAA makes improvements in the military's response to sexual assault and to provide greater protections for our service men and women in the armed forces. Our hope is to ensure zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military.

However, the House and Senate versions of this act differ significantly. The House version of the NDAA has stronger provisions regarding sexual assault in the military by strengthening legal protections for the victims, providing support and guidance to victims, and by strengthening the systems in place to prevent future assaults. That is why the Motion to Instruct directs House conferees to insist on the inclusion of these provisions in the compromise legislation negotiated in the Conference.

Among the House-passed improvements are provisions:

ensuring that sexual assault victims be afforded legal counsel if desired;

protecting the confidentiality and victim advocates;

requiring that commanders transfer duty stations; and

requiring adequate training and education programs to prevent sexual assault.

Mr. Speaker, we have a duty to protect our men and women in the military, who put their lives on the line for our country. We have a duty to make our armed forces safe for all men and women who wish to serve. It is dangerous enough risking one's safety in defense of our country on foreign shores. It is simply intolerable for American servicewomen and men to have to assume the risk of sexual assault from their comrades.

The provisions in the version of H.R. 1540 passed by the House reflects a zero tolerance policy when it comes to the sexual assault of members of the Armed Forces by members of the Armed Forces. That is why I strongly support this Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1540. I urge all of my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the goals and ideals of World AIDS Day. A day dedicated to bringing awareness to those who have died from the disease and the strides that have been made in the fight against it.

This year marks 30 years after the first discovery of AIDS cases in the United States. The Center of Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 33.3 million people have HIV worldwide, with 1.2 million persons who are living with HIV in the United States. Every 9\1/2\ minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. One in five living with HIV is unaware of their infection. By race, African Americans face the most severe HIV burden. The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic spans the nation with HIV diagnoses having been reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.

The theme for World AIDS Day 2011 is ``Getting to Zero.'' After 30 years of the global fight against HIV/AIDS, this year the focus is on achieving 3 targets: Zero new HIV infections. Zero discrimination. Zero AIDS-related deaths.

The goal of ``Zero AIDS Related Deaths'' signifies an increased access to available treatments for all those infected. Currently, only one third of the 15 million people living with HIV worldwide who are in need of lifelong treatment are receiving it. Universal access to antiretroviral treatments for those living with HIV will not only decrease the number of AIDS related deaths, but will increase the quality of life among those infected and decrease transmission.

World AIDS Day is an opportunity for all of us to learn the facts about HIV. By increasing the understanding of how HIV is transmitted, how it can be prevented, and the reality of living with HIV today--we can use this knowledge to take care of our own health and the health of others.

Since its discovery, countless researchers, healthcare providers, politicians, and educators have contributed to the global initiative to contain and eventually eliminate the presence of AIDS in all corners of the world. Recent scientific advancements have resulted in revolutionary breakthroughs with the potential to reverse the epidemic in coming years. I ask my colleagues to join me in this goal, to remember those who have died of the disease and to celebrate accomplishments achieved, specifically the increased access to treatment and prevention services.

It is imperative that we continue our efforts and work together to increase funding for HIV prevention and education, so that our children will be equipped with sufficient and appropriate knowledge of this growing threat within our communities until HIV/AIDS becomes a memory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3463, which simply combines two bills, H.R. 672 and H.R. 359, previously considered during this Congress. I opposed those bills then and I oppose them now. Terminating the Election Assistance commission and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, is a worse idea and a greater waste of precious legislative time today than they were when the Republican majority first brought these bills to the floor earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, since its creation, the Federal Election Commission has served the valuable purpose of preserving the voting and civil rights of our citizens which was born out of the scandal know as Watergate. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund succeeds in its purpose of leveling the playing field when it comes to corporate versus public funding of campaigns. By terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions, the Republican majority seeks to permanently tilt the playing field in favor of special interest groups and corporate money at the expense of the public interest.

Presidential campaigns are currently funded through the voluntary $3 check-off on income tax returns. Given the size of the deficit and the national debt, the amount of money saving by terminating taxpayer financing is de minimis--less than $1 billion--but will achieve a goal long sought by conservatives who have never believed that public financing of campaigns is a permissible use of federal revenues.

The Election Assistance Commission is charged with developing standards for voting systems, advising and counseling on best voting practices, assuring that every American has the right to vote, as well as to facilitate such vote, and to make sure that every single vote is counted. The precedent-setting work of the Election Assistance Commission has been recognized by nations around the world. The Election Assistance Commission has also played a central role in improving the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37 million voters with disabilities.

Let us not forget that the Election Assistance Commission was borne out of the 2000 presidential election fiasco with its unforgettable contributions to the political lexicon: ``hanging'' chads, ``pregnant'' chads, ``dimpled'' chads; ``butterfly ballots''; and ``voter intent.''

In response to the 2000 debacle, the Election Assistance Commission has performed valuable work to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of our nation's election systems. It has played a central role in collecting accurate and comparable election data. With our nation's complex and diversified election administration system, central data collection is essential if we are going to improve our citizens' trust and confidence in election results. The Election Assistance Commission develops and fosters the training and organization of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators.

Mr. Speaker, every vote counts--and every vote should be counted--and that is why we must preserve the Election Assistance Commission and oppose this legislation.

It is also important to note that abolishing the Election Assistance Commission will not save taxpayers money, but rather simply shift costs to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, and local governments. The FEC is not an agency that can make decisions in a timely and responsive fashion due to its partisan divisions. Consequently, transferring the functions performed by the Election Assistance Commission to the FEC is inconsistent with the national interest in ensuring election integrity, improving voter access to the polls, and enhancing the quality of election systems.

Mr. Speaker, the American people elected us to work on their priorities and real problems, like the lack of jobs. They do not want us to waste time on inconsequential matters of interest only to the Tea Party. H.R. 3463 is unnecessary and a diversion from addressing the real challenge facing our country. Therefore, I strongly oppose H.R. 3463 and I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this misguided and reckless legislation that puts the integrity of our election systems, and public confidence in campaign financing at risk.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 364, Designating Room HVC-215 of the Capitol Visitor Center as the ``Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room.'' Adoption of this resolution would be a fitting tribute to Gabe Zimmerman's commitment to public service and the courage of our colleague Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona.

Gabe Zimmerman's devotion to public service knew no bounds and he made the supreme sacrifice in service to the public when he was killed on January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, at the hands of the same gunman who left Congresswoman Giffords gravely wounded. Like many Americans, the tragic events which unfolded on that day in January left me in a state of shock, anger, and tremendous sadness.

As the weeks and months have passed, Americans have looked to each other for strength and have been encouraged by the tremendous progress that Congresswoman Giffords has made in her recovery. Nearly a year later, we pause to remember not only Gabe and Gabby, but all the innocent victims of this tragedy who were gunned down while waiting to exercise their democratic right to have their opinions heard.

Madam Speaker, 19 people were shot on that tragic day in Tucson--six of whom suffered fatal wounds. While this tragedy focused national discourse on the need to reassess current gun restrictions and the responsibility of public institutions in reporting potentially dangerous behavior, we were also reminded of the value of maintaining civility in our public discourse.

Gabe Zimmerman, Congresswoman Giffords' director of community outreach, personified the spirit of public service and patriotism that has made America great. His work with the people of Tucson made him a popular member of the community, and his passion for social justice transcended his official role as a member of Congresswoman Giffords' staff and left an indelible impact on everyone around him.

Gabe's drive to help others led him to pursue a master's degree in social work and a career in politics. Although Gabe's nascent career was cut tragically short, designating room HVC-215 as the Gabe Zimmerman Meeting Room will allow us to memorialize and celebrate his commitment to public service for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 364.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3094, the deceptively named ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,'' and I appeal to my colleagues to join me in rejecting this dangerous legislation designed to undermine the collective bargaining rights of America's workers.

I oppose this legislation for three principal reasons:

First, it flies in the face of 75 years of judicially-approved, National Labor Review Board (NLRB) case law governing the eligibility of bargaining units, transferring that power away from workers wishing to organize.

Second, it would open the door to indefinite delays within the union election process, inviting frivolous litigation designed to cripple the system and prevent fair elections.

Third, it would unfairly impose restrictions on the opportunity of workers to receive union information while allowing employers free reign to bombard their workers with anti-union propaganda.

In short, this legislation would reduce the power of workers to organize for fair treatment to a level not seen since the late 19th century.

At first glance, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act sounds like a reasonable bill, but its glib appeal vanishes when one examines its intent closely.

Proponents argue that by inserting delays prior to a union election, so-called ``ambush elections'' would be avoided. It claims not to interfere with the NLRB's supervision of elections.

Mr. Speaker, this claim is disingenuous. The argument that creating employer based delays for a union election will somehow give a union member more time to make a better and more informed decision is questionable at best.

Letting an employer delay union elections is unfair to the American worker who wants his or her voice heard. Big Business is not supporting this bill to help unionized workers make more thoughtful decisions. H.R. 3094 is a blatant attempt to silence and confuse.

Enacted in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was designed explicitly to encourage collective bargaining. Since then, the NLRB and the courts have interpreted this law and developed processes for handling workers who seek to form and manage unions.

H.R. 3094 would substitute 75 years of expertise and decades of case law for new and untested processes that favor wealthy special interests and corporate litigators.

Creating a legal precedent for unfairly stalling or even halting union elections is the true aim of this act. This legislation takes away the ability of unions to function as a democratically elected entity, prevents it from communicating with its members, and saps its organizational strength.

Moreover, the resounding defeat of Ohio's Senate Bill 5, which tried to restrict collective bargaining rights of more than 360,000 public employees in that state, plainly demonstrates the American people's opposition to a legislature's attempt to stifle the rights of workers.

Equally troubling is that under H.R. 3094 companies are free to force their workers to listen to anti-union information under the threat of discharge if they try to object. This provision is truly an act of coercion which has no place in the American workplace.

The result of this strategy is obvious. H.R 3094 permits employers to intimidate their employees and discourage them from securing workplace rights.

This is why the White House recently released a statement describing H.R. 3094 as an attempt to ``undermine and delay workers'' ability to exercise their right to choose whether or not they will be represented by a union.''

Imagine if H.R. 3094 passed. Imagine a working environment where a union wants to cast a ballot, but its obstructed by the employer with a steady stream of delays, bureaucracy, and litigation. Imagine a working environment where one's livelihood is threatened if a worker refuses to attend an anti-union meeting. Imagine a working environment where dissent is not permitted. This would be the reality under H.R. 3094.

At one time, this was the reality in our country. It existed in the days of child labor, when the 12-hour workday was the standard, when there were no weekends, no safety regulations, or any of the other workplace protections that we take for granted.

America no longer lives in the Gilded Age. American workers fought for over 100 years to achieve the right of collective bargaining for a better future. The democratic core of the right to unionize is under attack by this legislation.

H.R. 3094 would be a great leap backward for our country. I urge my colleagues to reject this deceptive legislation and secure the rights of American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1801, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the work of Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson.

As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I'm pleased that, for the first time in this 112th Congress, the House is considering important transportation security legislation. H.R. 1801, the Risk- Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act, requires the Transportation Security Administration to

develop a plan for providing expedited screening for our military personnel at airport security checkpoints.

Since 2001, there have been more than 2 million troops that have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Last Congress an earlier version of this legislation was accepted as an amendment on a bipartisan basis, as my colleague mentioned earlier, during consideration of the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, which passed this House by 397 votes in the ``aye'' and 25 in the ``nay,'' but it was not acted upon by the Senate, unfortunately.

H.R. 1801 properly recognizes the preciousness of time to our patriotic men and women serving in our armed services without compromising aviation security. This legislation will ensure that our troops and their families, including 236,963 defense personnel in my own home State in California, are given the opportunity to board an aircraft in a security-approved, expedited manner.

Our troops help keep our country safe. The least we can do is devise methods that help speed up the screening process for our troops that are in uniform and are traveling on airplanes while on official duty.

As our military presence in Iraq winds down, it is important that we remain cognizant of the burdens that deployments and travel have on servicemembers and their families in times of war and peace.

In addition to travel services, I support and urge this Congress, the administration, and the Department of Homeland Security to strengthen all military services and programs for our troops, including increasing veteran recruitment efforts.

Some of the additional military support that this Congress should consider would be, one, providing tax credits for hiring veterans looking for work; two, strengthening much-needed training programs for separating servicemembers; three, encouraging businesses and government contractors to hire the brave men and women who have been deployed and have now returned with developed valuable skills and professionalism while in the Armed Forces; four, ensuring that the servicemembers leave the military career-ready.

H.R. 1801 is one of many opportunities for the American public and this Congress to demonstrate their support to those who are serving bravely. Further, it is important to note that consideration of H.R. 1801 marks the first time in this Congress that the House is considering a bill reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. I and other members of this committee look forward to this legislation not being our last.

A number of commonsense homeland security bills are on the U.S. House of Representatives calendar and warrant timely consideration.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the gentleman from Minnesota has no more speakers, I am prepared to close.

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

H.R. 1801 is needed. It's common sense, and it's a piece of legislation with a history of bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and our troops.

Their time is limited, and it certainly shouldn't be wasted in long lines at the airport. Airports all around the country have multiple checkpoints that expedite the security screening process, and our service personnel have earned this privilege as well.

Likewise, I urge the Republican leadership to put on the House floor additional Homeland Security bills and bills aimed at easing our veterans' transition from military service to civilian careers. It's late November in the first session of this 112th Congress. It's coming to an end, the public is hurting, and Congress must act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1801 I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize November 19, 2011 as National Adoption Day, which celebrates adoptive families who have opened their homes to children placed in foster care. Today, states, communities, public and private organizations, businesses, families, and individuals come together to increase awareness of children in need of permanent homes and families.

Mr. Speaker, currently there are over 463,000 children living in foster care. These children have been placed in homes on the account of the physical, sexual and emotional abuse they have endured with their biological caretaker. My state of California currently has the largest foster care population with the number of youths in foster care tripling since 1981. These children deserve to grow up in a loving home that is safe, happy, and most importantly one they can call their own.

Since the first major effort to bring awareness to the need of adoptive families, which was initiated by former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and later proclaimed a month in November 1995 by President William J. Clinton, nearly 50,000 children in the system have been adopted yearly. American families have opened their homes to these children and provided resources and opportunities that allowed them to have a chance of claiming the American Dream.

Unfortunately out of the 463,000 children living in foster care, about 107,000 are available for adoption. 65% of children who are not placed in a permanent home emancipate themselves from the system often left unemployed, without a place to live and resorting to homeless shelters. Less than 3 percent go on to college and emancipated females end up four times more likely to receive public assistance compared to the overall population of the United States.

Measures by the government have been implemented to increase the adoption rate and make the process of adoption easier for families who seek to adopt. The Affordable Care Act increases and improves the Adoption Tax Credit. It allows the process of adoption to be accessible and affordable for families who want to nurture, care, uplift and open their home to a child. States can also receive incentives for increasing adoptions of children adopted from foster care. A project by the Department of Health and Human Services, AdoptUsKids, offers support to States and even tribes and territories to recruit adoptive parents. The project also provides assistance and help to families considering adoption or those who have begun the process.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we continue to create more programs, events and activities that will enlighten citizens of the United States on stories of children successfully placed in permanent homes, debunk myths about the process and acknowledge the thousands of children who could potentially become a part of these statistics. Through these efforts we can increase the rate of adoption, decrease the rate of homelessness among the youths in

this group and help develop future leaders and innovative thinkers of tomorrow.

To the families who have opened their hearts and homes to these children we celebrate you and your efforts to change the lives of these children. As the rest of us enjoy and share the company of our children and extended family members, let us not forget those children who will not have the same opportunity to do the same. Let us not forget the children who will not be able to celebrate the holiday season in a warm, loving, and happy home they can call their own. Let us remember these children and work towards positively affecting these children's lives and securing their success in the future.

November is National Caregivers Month. All across America, there are thousands of Americans who need help. They need help to stand, to sit, to put on their shoes, to go to the rest room, and even some to take their last breath. And there are those who are sitting by the bedside of those people, we call them in-home health care workers, who oftentimes in this country barely make even a minimum wage themselves, and if they needed the very care that they were providing, they could probably not afford it.

As this Congress decides and looks at the joint committee's decisions and proposals before us, let's not go against those working people, thousands of people who don't even have enough to take care of their own families.

The decisions can be done better, but they certainly should not be on the

backs of working people and those who care for our Americans.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 822, the proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I call on my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-considered and unwise legislation which will effectively force all states to accept the lowest-common-standard in concealed carry laws. Passage of this bill is reckless and undeniably a threat to public safety.

This law would add an unnecessary burden on police officers who risk their lives every day in traffic stops and other risky situations. It would make it nearly impossible for them to be able to determine whether the guns they encounter are legal or not.

The very likely and viable threats posed to public safety if this legislation passes are egregious. This legislation will do away with the strict gun laws each state has established according to its constituent composition and needs and empower dangerous individuals to carry concealed, loaded guns in states where they would not qualify for a local permit.

California has one of the most stringent gun laws in the Nation, and there is a reason for that. California had the highest number of gun murders in the Nation last year, 1,257, which is 69 percent of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state.

A very real example of what this legislation will do is a person convicted of domestic violence and not allowed to possess, let alone carry a concealed weapon in California, can cross state lines into a state that does not have the same restrictions, receive a permit for a gun, then cross states lines back into California and exact revenge against his victim.

Proponents against gun laws and restrictions constantly chime, ``Guns don't kill people. People kill people.'' That may be the case, but a person with a gun can kill another much more easily than a person without one. FBI crime statistics based on reports to FBI bureau and local law enforcement show that in 2010, the latest year for which detailed statistics are available, there were 12,996 murders in the U.S.; of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.

This dangerous bill will allow a resident of a state with strict concealed weapon permitting standards to simply go to and obtain a permit in a state with minimal standards, then head back home and carry a concealed weapon in a state that would have never allowed him to do so in the first place.

If ever you needed a concrete example of why this is such an ill- conceived and dangerous piece of legislation for both the public and law enforcement, consider the recent testimony of Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The Police Commissioner testified that in 2005, a man named Marqus Hill had his concealed carry permit revoked by Philadelphia Police after he had been charged with attempted murder. Mr. Hill later traveled to Florida, got a new permit despite his record, used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun into Philadelphia, and later shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest, killing him in the street.

Mr. Chair, the ramifications of such legislation do not stop there. It would also make it easier for gun traffickers to move loaded guns through urban city streets where police officers are already having a difficult time combating crime and violence. It will be nearly impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry permits.

Policing our streets and confronting the risks inherent in even routine traffic stops is already perilous enough. Ambiguity as to the legality of firearm possession could lead to confusion among police officers that could result in catastrophic incidents. Congress should be working to make the job of law enforcement officers more, not less, safe.

Today, states establish standards for carrying concealed, loaded handguns in public places that include criteria beyond an applicant's ability to pass a federal background check. For example, at least 38 states prevent people convicted of certain violent crimes from obtaining carry permits, 14 states require applicants to demonstrate good character to obtain a carry permit, and about half of states grant law enforcement discretion to deny a permit. The National Right-to- Carry Reciprocity Act would gut these standards and empower dangerous individuals to carry concealed, loaded guns in states where they would not qualify for a local permit.

We see firsthand the tragedies that can unfold when guns end up in the hands of criminals, the seriously mentally ill, domestic violence offenders and other dangerous people. Let us not forget the tragedy earlier this year in Tucson, Arizona. Statistics show that every year, more than 12,000 gun murders are committed in big cities and small towns throughout the United States.

States and localities should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their communities. It is essential that state, local and tribal governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities.

H.R. 822 is a dangerous piece of legislation that will create a very real threat to public safety. In opposing this reckless piece of legislation, I stand with the people of my home state of California. I stand with domestic violence prevention advocates. I stand with law enforcement across the Nation and our local police who risk their lives every day to protect the public. I will vote against H.R. 822 and I urge all members of the House to do likewise. For the foregoing reasons I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 822 and allow states to continue to decide for themselves and set their own standards regarding who can carry hidden, loaded guns in their communities.