Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect again on yesterday's tragic and obviously painful events. I think it's important for our colleagues, and certainly for those we represent across America, to recognize that our attention on those issues are equal to the pain and the devastation that they represent. It is important to again offer sympathy to those who lost their loved ones, to those who still are under the care of the medical team in Boston, to the city of Boston, the State of Massachusetts, the mayor and Governor, my colleagues from the State of Massachusetts, and certainly the people there. You have our prayers and, again, our commitment to never cease until the perpetrator or perpetrators are brought to justice.

In saying that, I believe it is important that we proceed in a discussion that will also move this country forward, and that is to finally get to a point of passing a budget that eliminates, takes away, never to be seen again, this horrific sequester that the American people do not deserve.

Let me congratulate the President on having a humane budget, a budget that considers the needs of Americans. It is outstanding that he has offered a universal pre-K, having seen the tears of grown men when the sequester came through and their child was eliminated from Head Start, grown men, parents crying at the Head Start center. And everywhere I go in my district, people who are in charge of Head Start literally in pain about those that they have to eliminate from those positions because those families don't have the resources for private child care.

So I congratulate the President on his astuteness in recognizing the importance of that and recognizing to not stray away from the necessities of job creation and putting in place major transportation jobs and infrastructure jobs: passenger rail, which I am so passionate about; surface transportation; and a most important one, rebuilding your neighborhoods and communities and cities where jobs are in short demand and where the infrastructure and the city is crumbling.

I want to congratulate the President for his saving of Medicaid and ensuring that seniors who are in nursing homes will be protected. But, more importantly, that those without health insurance will have the ability under the Affordable Care Act to ensure that they will have that.

But I serve as well on the Homeland Security Committee, and I think it is important to say and be honest that the sequester is devastating to America's homeland security. It is good to have a budget that respects those needs, but it is important to tell the truth. We are desperate when it comes to recognizing the needs of our Border Patrol agents and the numbers, even at

21,000, that we may need to increase, that there are Border Patrol agents being removed from the front lines in order to process those individuals who have come across the border. When they do that, they remove the coverage from the front lines on the border dealing with those who are in those detention centers.

We have to recognize that transportation security, as much as one might say how many officers they have, in the sequester, we will be standing in long lines, and it is about to come. That is the front lines of securing this Nation, along with the Coast Guard and many, many other facets of the Department of Homeland Security.

We are asked a question about the securing of the homeland. We are feeling the pain along with our colleagues of the tragedies that have occurred, the attempted Times Square bombing, the successful bombing in Boston. We cannot take this anymore, and I believe it is time, with the President's budget, the Senate's budget, the House budget, that the Speaker of the House needs to immediately appoint budget conferees to move us forward to conference and to get rid of the sequester, which is not the fault of the American people.

Our deficit is going down. We need to determine what revenue we can increase in order to pay our bills and provide for the basic necessities of this Nation. Not only is the tragedy in Boston one of human life, but it is a disaster that requires Federal Emergency Management aid, just as our continued friends in the Southeast and Northeast are still suffering from Hurricane Sandy and the atrocity of this House not providing them with resources for 65 days.

So I believe it is time for the American people to know that we do care. In order to care, you need to have budget conferees go through the budget process and begin to pass elements of the President's budget that speaks to the heart and mind of the needs of the American people.

I conclude by offering my deepest sympathy and my promise to those who suffer that America and its Congress must stand up to respond to your needs. I'm ready to do so, as my colleagues are, and we should do it now.

I have been on this floor yesterday and today, earlier this morning, to offer my sympathy to those who lost their lives and suffer in Boston and say that we are united with them. But this Congress now is proceeding on some important business, and I offer to my colleagues that we cannot wait to pass legislation on gun safety and gun violence prevention.

Homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24. Homicide is the leading cause of death for many minorities in this country. 82.8 percent of young people who are killed are killed with a firearm. Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or a teenager loses their life to a firearm. And in 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns.

We must respond.

I have introduced H.R. 65, which indicates prevention, or a system to prevent children from having access to guns. Children have accidentally shot themselves, shot their parents because guns have been accessible because we as adults have not been responsible.

As we work across the Houses, it is important to pass gun violence prevention legislation and do it now. It does not violate the Second Amendment.

Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on the Science Committee, and thank the proponents of this legislation, my chairman on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Lipinski, for their bipartisanship on something that is enormously crucial; and it is certainly crucial for those of us who serve on both Judiciary and Homeland Security and probably a number of others.

What I want to applaud most of all is the R&D and expanded training. We will need to have a cadre, an army of civilians, who understand the protection of America's cyber landscape, if you will. And it is a domestic issue, as well as a security issue, because America's energy and utilities and medical care all are tied into the cybersphere.

Whether or not it is a youngster who wants to hack, or whether or not it is an aggressive foreign country, it is valuable and important for us to be trained. I'd like to offer the importance of Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-serving Colleges as well, being part of this very important effort and, as well, to educate the private sector, which has 85 to 80 to 90 percent, in essence, of the private sector dealing with cybersecurity.

Let me complete, Mr. Speaker, by saying as we move forward, I think it is important for Homeland Security to be a lead on some of these issues, particularly the bill coming forward. But I applaud this legislation. I congratulate the proponents and sponsors and ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was my intent as well, as my colleague indicated, to come to the floor and discuss and urge the fast consideration of gun safety legislation and to speak as well to the jurisdictional issue of the Homeland Security Department working on cybersecurity.

But I, too, believe it is most important to offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives in Boston on Patriots' Day in this Boston Marathon that all the world comes to; to thank the first responders, including nurses and doctors, volunteers, marathon runners, and those who came from around the world to be in this unifying event. We give to them our deepest concern.

I express my deepest sympathy to my colleagues who represent the Boston area, to Governor Deval Patrick, and to those families who lost loved ones and those who are now lingering in hospital beds. I wish them well and stand with my colleagues as we did on 9/11 and many other times, that those who perpetrated this heinous act will be brought to justice.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Speaker, I also hope to look at venues and big events in the pending weeks and months so that we can reassess the safety and security for the American people. That is our charge and our responsibility, and I know that together we will be able to accomplish it.

Again, my deepest sympathy for this loss. We cannot express the depths of the feelings of sympathy that we have.

May God bless you, and may those who have lost their lives, may they rest in peace.

I thank my good friend.

I'm so glad my good friend talked about the question of fairness because I believe in fairness as well; and I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically, with great presence, to vote this legislation down because it is unfair because I believe in the working man and working woman and working families who desperately need a fair body that is in regular order, the NLRB, that allows companies, corporate America, to come to the table of reconciliation on issues like pay equity, of which my good friend Rosa DeLauro is a champion of and I'm joining her, on good issues like the quality of life in the workplace, the idea of income and negotiations on plants being shut down.

What my good friends want to do is deny the process to this President that Ronald Reagan used some 240 times, the hundreds of recess appointments in

the 1980s, to ensure that regular order occurred in this Nation on behalf of the working men and women of America. This is a direct stab at them. This is a direct affront to them. And I would ask my colleagues to vote against this and for the working men and women of America. This is a bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.''

This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, are violated.

The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare their paychecks.

The NLRA also protects workers when they act together to protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws have been applied to protect employees who discussed their salaries with each other on Facebook. You don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws.

Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations Board (``NLRB'') with their workplace grievances.

The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices involving unions.

Throughout the week, we have been hearing from souls who have asked us to have mercy on them and to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Thousands came to petition the government. There were mothers and fathers and children, and I am listening to their cries, as America has listened and as the Statue of Liberty often said: to bring you those who were in need but wanted to serve this Nation.

Today, I introduced Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, H.R. 1525, to have earned access to citizenship, family reunification, border security, supporting our Border Patrol agents, and a number of items that will bring us together. I hope that we can move this legislation forward.

Let me quickly say that 50 of us signed a letter this week to stop the filibuster on sensible gun legislation. Thank goodness the other body now will move forward to answer the cries of other Americans who have been the victims of gun violence. It is certainly in keeping with the Second Amendment that we have the opportunity to have universal background checks, to rid ourselves of assault weapons and multiple rounds that have killed many in the various mass killings, and to have the ability to help those who have mental health needs.

We can do this as Americans and as Members of Congress. I ask that we move forward and respond to the American people.

Today, the bodies of this Congress have an opportunity to save lives. In fact, they have an historic moment. They actually have the ability to act for once after a tragedy of the proportions of

Newtown, having not acted over the years--after Columbine, the theater in Aurora, the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech, and many, many others, including that of our colleague in Arizona.

So I am hoping that as we stand here today that the right consciences of those who have the opportunity in the other body to pass sensible gun legislation will do so. In order to aid them, to listen to the voices of the people, 50 Members of the United States House of Representatives have asked for those in the other body not to filibuster any gun legislation, but to have an up-or-down vote. The reason we say that is because of the massive numbers of loss of children, some 80 children who die every month by gunshot, the thousands of teenagers who pick up guns to resolve differences, and the million people who were killed by guns since the assassination of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy.

This is a Nation that is gunned, but not safe. The tragedy that happened in my area just a few days ago with the slashing of students by another student at a community college. Just imagine--14 people were injured--if that person had had an assault weapon with multiple rounds, similar to the heinous acts that occurred in Newtown, when 155 rounds were shot in 5 minutes. So I'm hoping that this letter will move those Senators not to filibuster and to let us have an up-or-down vote.

I also rise today to encourage us to do the right thing and to vote ``no'' on the National Labor Relations Board legislation that wants to stop the President from his Presidential authority, and that is to make sure that the government runs by appointing people to the NLRB through recess appointments, among others, just like President George Bush did 140 times, to make recess appointments to be able to move the government forward. In contrast to the D.C. Court of Appeals decision that ruled that our President cannot, three other decisions and other court decisions said you can.

We need to vote ``no'' on this legislation. It is destructive, it is only to stall government, and it is only to stop the work of the NLRB, where workers and corporations come together to solve their problems.

What we should be doing is working to create jobs. That's what Americans want us to do. They want us to make it in America. They want us to build up manufacturing. They want us to create and pass legislation, as we introduced yesterday with whip Hoyer, 38 pieces of legislation that we all are joining to support to create jobs.

One thing they don't want us to do is to pass anything with a chained CPI on Social Security because Social Security is solvent. Those people are not the fault of any deficit or any debt; they are hardworking people. I will not ever vote for a chained CPI. And I am not a whiner.

I, frankly, see those people in my district who are supported by Social Security and Medicare, which they earn because they work for it. They did not have it as a handout, because seniors are important and seniors believe in young people. We should protect our seniors; we should invest in education.

I salute the President for his early pre-K initiative, that every child should have the opportunity to be in a pre-K program, supporting our teachers. So here we are; this is what we should be doing. We should be promoting job creation to bring down unemployment and to, in fact, get those who are underemployed and those who have completely gone out of the marketplace. They can be hired, they have skills, including our disabled.

Then we should continue to invest in education, including higher education, making it easier for parents to get the Parent PLUS Loans to send their children to college and putting the burden on colleges to make sure that these young people finish college and not go in and get debt and, therefore, come out with a large debt and no degree.

This is what America is about, investing in young people, protecting our seniors, and realizing that the chained CPI is not the way to go on Social Security. It's to save it because they earned it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and friends who are managing this legislation.

We are in the Judiciary Committee passing something called the REINS Act because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe that the President is omnipotent.

Frankly, as my good friend from Colorado said, the President doesn't control the bus drivers and school aides and nurses aides and doesn't control the secretaries and doesn't control the construction workers who happen to be women. They don't control those individuals. Oh, and let's not forget the office workers who happen to be women.

Many of my constituents who get up every morning--I saw one young woman, Mr. Polis, get on a city bus, drop her child off at the school, really do a marathon dash to the school in order for the bus to make a U-turn around--not a school bus, a city bus--to get on that bus to track all the way across to get to her job. I can assure you that she is not getting probably equal pay for equal work because that is the dilemma that we have.

So I support ordering the previous question and voting ``no'' so that we can move forward and do the right thing.

And that just compounds my reason for coming to oppose this rule on the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act because it is, in essence, a complete opposite. I would call it something else, but

I'm going to restrain myself. H.R. 1120 is ridiculous.

In actuality, my friends, what it does is put a spear through the relationships that corporate and workers are able to have before the NLRB. The President has just finished appointing Republicans and Democrats--three Democrats and two Republicans--to do the work that brings businesses together for a fair assessment of their issue with working people.

Many resolutions of issues dealing with fair pay, dealing with working conditions are done at the NLRB.

I thank the gentleman.

Do you know what this bill does? It puts a knife in the process that has been used by President Bush 140 times--recess appointments--to keep the work of the American people going forward. How backwards is that?

I love my friends, but we need to put on the floor sensible gun legislation, we need to be talking about immigration reform. But to talk about blocking the NLRB from work when President Bush used the same process. And the fact that a court ordered something--300 other opinions said the recess appointments are legitimate.

I ask my colleagues to vote down the rule, vote down the bill, stand with your working friends in America, stand with our unions, stand with making America great, and stand with peace and reconciliation by a working NLRB.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, and the underlying bill, H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.''

This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, are violated.

The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare their paychecks. It also protects workers when they act together to protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws protected employees who discussed their salaries with each other on facebook. You don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws.

Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, with these grievances.

The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices involving unions.

Recently, the D.C. Circuit, one of our federal appellate courts, ruled that the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, cannot carry out its congressionally delegated duties of enforcing the NLRA because it deemed President Obama's appointments to the Board invalid.

The entire decision hinged on a controversial interpretation of the word ``the'' in our Constitution. Article II states that ``The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.'' The court decided that this clause of our Constitution refers to some recesses, but not others. Many other federal courts have disagreed with this stretched reading of our Constitution, and in areas of the U.S. covered by these courts, the D.C. Circuit decision does not apply.

While we eagerly await the Supreme Court's verdict on the meaning of the word ``the,'' the NLRB is still allowed to continue carrying out its statutory duties under the NLRA, and American workers still retain their rights under the NLRA.

That is why I am opposing. This bill merely eliminates the rights of American workers in places outside the D.C. Circuit to seek a remedy when their employer violates our National Labor Relations Act. Without a remedy, rights are meaningless. Depriving employees of this remedy during these difficult economic times is merely a stab in the back to hard working Americans across the country. This Congress should not take actions that undermine American employees and working families.

The argument that an active NLRB produces economic uncertainty is unfounded. America has prospered since the creation of the NLRB. Other countries that have much stronger laws protecting worker rights and are much more heavily unionized, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, are doing better or at least as well as the United States in this economic downturn. H.R. 1120 merely seeks to add more uncertainty and create fewer rights for American workers during these tough economic times.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and the underlying bill. Congress should not remove the ability for employees to seek redress for workplace wrongs. Instead, we need to stand up for our employees and working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest labor leaders that I have known and to honor the memory and mourn the loss of Ronnie Raspberry of Houston, Texas. I rise to pay tribute to him as a champion of working people, one of the great community leaders in the cities of Houston and Harris in Texas.

Unfortunately, he passed. In this month of April, we lost a dear friend. Ronnie Raspberry was born in 1941 in the midst of the times of challenge. And he married his beloved wife, Roycie, and they are proud parents of five children.

Being born in the midst of World War II, he understood as a child the value of service, and so he joined the United States Marine Corps and was honorably discharged.

He then began to work in an apprenticeship program under the Houston Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for the Electrical Industry. He then became a member of Local Union No. 716 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, where I first met him. What a generous heart; what a man who loved people. He loved to train people. He was a fighter to ensure that there was dignity in the workplace.

In 1974, at age 32, he was elected as business manager. He held that position for 15 years. During his stewardship, he served as its chief contract negotiator, chairman, and secretary of numerous boards and trusts and committees. He continued to represent labor at labor conferences. He was elected and served 5 years as a representative of the Sixth District International Executive Council.

Ronnie was awarded the West Gulf Ports Council ``Labor Leader of the Year,'' Mr. Speaker, and appointed to many other positions by Governor White. We knew he was a good leader.

So I stand here today to offer my deepest sympathy to his wife and family and to thank him for his service as he rests in peace. We love you. We thank you for being the great leader that you've been to all those who are in need, fighting for the working people. Thank you, Ronnie. God bless you. And, again, may you rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Ronnie Raspberry, a great American, a champion of working people, and one of the great community leaders in the City of Houston. Ronnie Raspberry died this past Monday, April 8, 2013, at the age of 71. His loss is mourned not only by his family and friends but the thousands of people he helped and inspired over the course of his full and eventful life.

Born on August 14, 1941, Ronnie Raspberry later met and married his beloved wife, Roycie, and they were the proud parents of five children.

After serving and receiving an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps, Ronnie applied for and was accepted into a 4-year Apprenticeship Program under the Houston Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for the Electrical Industry.

After completing his first of apprenticeship training, Ronnie became a member of Local Union #716 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Ronnie served on every committee his local union, IBEW Local #716, would allow.

Ronnie completed his apprenticeship, graduating with honor. He then ran for and was elected to a number of Board positions in his Local Union.

In 1974, at the age of 32, he was elected as Business Manager of IBEW Local Union #716. He held this position for 15 years.

During Ronnie's stewardship of Local Union No. 716, he served as its Chief Contract Negotiator, and as both Chairman and/or Secretary of numerous Boards, Trusts, and Committees, as well as all other responsibilities that go with being Business Manager. He continued to represent labor at Labor Conferences and Conventions, as well as Political Conferences and Conventions.

Ronnie was elected and served 5 years as representative to the Sixth District International Executive Council of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representing the IBEW members from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

In 1986, Ronnie was awarded the West Gulf Ports Council ``Labor Leader of the Year'' Award. Ronnie also appointed by then Governor Mark White, to serve on the Management Task Force for the Texas State Treasurer, Ann Richards. He later was appointed by Governor Ann Richards as a Commissioner on the Texas State Licensing and Regulation Commission, a position he held for six years.

Ronnie served as the Executive Secretary of the Houston Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council until December 2012 when he finished his term. He then joined the high respected law firm of Williams Bailey, now Williams Kherkher, of Houston, Texas, serving as Labor Relations Officer, a position he held until he passed away earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, Ronnie Raspberry lived a full and consequential life and he will be deeply missed by all who knew him as a friend, colleague, advocate, and community leader. Most of all he will be missed by his relatives and his children who knew and loved him as Dad; his loving wife, Roycie.

Mr. Speaker, I ask a moment of silence in honor of the memory of Ronnie Raspberry.

Mr. Speaker, most of us came here to this place to serve the American people and to ensure that the most powerful law- making body answers the needs and the cries of those who cannot speak for themselves, and yet, as we languish in those values, they may be more on paper than they are in action.

I rise today to ask, maybe even plead, that this House puts on the floor H.R. 900, which is to eliminate the sequester from the Budget Reconciliation Act and to go to regular order because the people of the United States are hurting, and even more so, I would say that they are crying.

It's very easy for us to be able to say there is no impact; we see no impact. I hope for those who have been in their districts for the last 2 weeks that they will realize how inaccurate and untrue that is. In fact, it hurts me to see the pain in my constituents' faces and homes because of sequester--a reckless scheme to move Congress to act and it did not work.

Some will say whose fault it was, whose idea it was. We really don't care because right now there are people who have lost Head Start seats, whose parents have been told their children cannot come back to school anymore. Grown men crying--grown men crying because their little one cannot go back to a Head Start class, and they have nowhere else for them to go.

The WIC program that is so desperately needed for women, infants, and children--cut to the bone. This is a scheme that is long overdue for us to get rid of.

Food inspectors. Just recently, a food business was shut down in my district. The thought of it is horrible. Many of their products in our local grocery stores. If we had not had food inspectors from the FDA, which we probably won't have anytime soon because they're being slashed and eliminated, this product would still be on the market. $85 billion in cuts is too nondescript.

The Federal emergency management under Homeland Security, $1 billion being cut, which means those who are still suffering from Superstorm Sandy, many of whom are homeless, 40,000 are still in hotel rooms in New York, they won't be able to be helped.

Department of Transportation, $1.943 billion, and that means the New Starts, mobility, people waiting in line for light rail, jobs cut immediately. I spoke this weekend to FAA members, air traffic controllers. Don't think it's not being felt, and it will be felt more and more in the summer increase of travel because of $637 million in losses, and almost $500 million of that is jobs.

We are in trouble. $512 million cut from Customs and Border Patrol over the international ports of entry. We're talking about comprehensive immigration reform and border security. There's your border security--cutting the very personnel that are ensuring the security of America. That's wrong-headed, and it's time to stop now.

But it really pains my heart, if you will, to see the cuts to those innocent families with those children in Head Start, to see the cuts to workers who have done nothing other than to come to work every morning, those Federal workers, and the impact on contractors to the Department of Defense, work that is forward-thinking in dealing with technology, cut to the bone, slashing employees. We will see the surge of the economy going down.

This is not the fault of the administration. This is the inaction of us in the United States Congress, and I think it is immediately necessary for Speaker Boehner to put on the floor of the House for a full debate H.R. 900, eliminate the sequester, simple sentence, and go to regular order. Begin the process of the budget. Whether you like this budget or that budget, begin the appropriate process of appropriations, for if you don't think that we're going to have one of the darkest seasons forthcoming, you wait and see what $85 billion in reckless cuts means. It's a trickle-down effect. You cannot recoup. Jobs will not come back, and we were moving up, creating jobs.

Everybody wants to point the finger as to whose fault it is, and I believe it is something where we have to come together.

I want to finish on the note that medical research funded by the National Institutes is also being cut, and we were number one in medical research. The time is now. Get rid of the sequester and help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I too adhere to the Second Amendment, as all of us do. I can assure the gentleman that anything we do with sensible gun legislation that will protect the lives of babies whose lives were lost in Newtown and Aurora and Virginia Tech and Columbine will be fair and just. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will hear from those of us who are sending him a letter: no filibuster, but real gun-sensible legislation.

Let me turn to the budget and indicate that it is important that we rid ourselves of the sequester and ask the Speaker to put on the floor H.R. 900. I think it is good that the President has saved dollars out of the Iraq and Afghan war of over $1 billion and provided security for embassies and $222 million for gun legislation enforcement, but we must not have to change CPI.

Many people don't realize that in this instance of Social Security seniors are paying more money for health care.

They will not be able to compensate. Those who are poor and vulnerable will be worst off after the changed CPI.

I join with many, many Members of the United States Congress to say we can make Social Security solvent, Medicare solvent and Medicaid solvent, but we must not have to change CPI. I oppose it and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest appreciation for the life, legacy, and actions of Mr. Cesar Estrada Chavez.

The changes that Cesar Chavez fought for throughout his life have dramatically changed the way that farm workers are treated in our country. Cesar Chavez was one of the Nation's greatest civil rights activists and the tireless champion of migrant farm workers fighting for humane working conditions.

As a young man Cesar Chavez worked in the fields where he saw firsthand the dangerous conditions which farm workers were forced to endure. In 1952 he became an organizer for the Community Service Organization (CSO), a Latino civil rights group, and eventually became the national director of the organization.

In 1965, Chavez co-founded the National Farm Workers Association with Dolores Huerta which evolved into the United Farm Workers union. The National Farm Workers Association was successful in securing fair wages and safe working conditions for farm workers. The UFW also led a worldwide grape boycott that helped ensure farm workers had a voice in contract negotiations.

Cesar Chavez is also known for his fasts which he used as a nonviolent method of promoting his beliefs. In 1972 Chavez fasted in response to Arizona's passage of legislation that prohibited boycotts and strikes by farm workers during the harvest season.

On April 23, 1993 Cesar Chavez died, bringing great sadness to the farm workers community that he spent his life fighting for. With his death also came a great sense of pride for all the progress that Chavez brought as a direct result of his unwavering commitment to farm workers' rights.

I urge my colleagues in joining me in celebrating Cesar Estrada Chavez's life and legacy. America is a better place because of Cesar Chavez.

Mr. Speaker, today is Equal Pay Day, the day in April recognized annually to signify the point into a year that a woman must work to earn what a man made the previous year.

This means that on average, a woman needed to work from January 1, 2012 until April 9, 2013 to earn the same salary that a comparable man earned in 2012 alone.

More than 50 years after Congress made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sex, it is shameful that hard working American women are paid so much less than their male counterparts for the same work.

Today, women make up nearly half the workforce, but their paychecks still lag far behind men's. Today the typical American woman who works full time, year round is paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to her male counterpart.

The wage gap occurs at all education levels, after work experience is taken into account, and it gets worse as women's careers progress.

Women are paid less than men in nearly every occupation. One study examining wage gaps within occupations found that out of 265 major occupations, men's median salary exceeded women's in all but a few lower paid service sector jobs.

The six jobs with the largest gender gap in pay and at least 10,000 men and 10,000 women were in the Wall Street-heavy financial sector: insurance agents, managers, clerks, securities sales agents, personal advisers, and other specialists.

Advanced-degree professions proved no better predictors of equality. Female doctors made 63 cents for every $1 earned by male physicians and surgeons. Female chief executives earned 74 cents for every $1 made by male counterparts.

Women only constitute 3.7 percent of Fortune 500 chief executives and 18.3 percent of corporate-board directors.

The wage gap impacts women as soon as they enter the labor force, expands over time, and leaves older women with a gap in retirement income.

The wage gap is smaller for younger women than older women, but it begins right when women enter the labor force. The typical 15-24 year old woman working full time, year round, earns 92.2 percent of what her male counterpart is paid.

Among older women, the gap is even larger. The typical 45-64 year old woman working full time, year round is paid just 72.8 percent of what her male counterpart is paid. For women still working at age 65 and older the figure is 72.1 percent.

A typical woman who worked full time, year round would lose$443,360 over the course of a 40-year working life due to the wage gap. This woman would have to work almost twelve years longer to make up this gap. A typical woman working full time, year round who starts, but who does not finish high school would lose $372,400 over a 40-year period, an enormous amount of money for women who are typically paid $21,113 a year. This woman would have to work over seventeen years longer to make up this gap.

As a result of lower lifetime earnings and different work patterns, the average Social Security benefit for women 65 and older was about $12,700 per year, compared to $16,700 for men of the same age in 2011.

In 2010, women 50 and older received only 56 cents for every dollar received by men in income from pensions and annuities. One study found that the typical woman worker near retirement with a defined contribution plan or individual retirement account had accumulated $34,000 in savings, while her male counterpart held $70,00--more than twice as much. Reasons for the Wage Gap

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you so very much for the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues a

pending action in the United States Congress and a plea for civility and fairness.

As I do that, let me acknowledge Equal Pay Day and my support, as I've done over the years, of Congresswoman DeLauro's continued acknowledgment and recognizing of the need to finally put an end to disparities in pay for women. That's what America is all about, and I'm delighted to join my colleagues who have already spoken to the idea of ensuring that we have equal pay. I hope we can pass that legislation.

I also want to raise an issue and offer my concern and expression, if you will, of comfort to the students at Lone Star College. Part of Lone Star College is in my congressional district, and I share that with one of my colleagues in Texas. I just wanted to say to all of the parents and to my colleagues: I have children who have finished college. We support our children, all of our children, going to a safe place and being safe and having the ability to be educated in a safe place. So I express great sympathy. We are not sure of the status or whether or not there has been any loss of life. We know that there are persons who are critical, and we are wishing and hoping for their safety.

We do want to determine the facts, and our law enforcement was there expeditiously. Allow me to acknowledge the Lone Star Police, the police in the surrounding area, the Harris County Sheriff's Department, and the first responders who were there as well.

Today, however, I want to acknowledge that we have a pending crisis, and that is that we have the need to pass sensible gun legislation. Why do I call it a ``crisis''? It is because we are moving toward a day that has been designated by the leadership in the Senate that we would be able to vote on sensible gun legislation. Remember, I've said ``sensible'' gun legislation. So, today, I rise to the floor of the House because I think it is crucial--I think it is imperative--that we find that common path to save lives. That's what it really is about. It is a pathway to be able to save lives.

I am delighted to have one of my distinguished colleagues on the floor. She is the former speaker of the Ohio House, the distinguished Congresswoman from Columbus, Ohio, who will share her thoughts about the pending vote that is coming up this Thursday.

Let me just cite for you that we have heard the commitments and sermons and passion after each tragedy. I remember Columbine. I was here, Mr. Speaker, for Columbine. In fact, I was appointed to a school safety select committee to talk about school safety at that time. Obviously, a lot of us were here for Aurora. Virginia Tech, I was here for that as well and then, of course, Newtown and then cases in between. Many of us are here for the tragedies that we see when we go home.

Just this past weekend in Sugar Land, Texas, an individual who was mentally challenged was shot dead in his house when he came out of his bedroom, Mr. Speaker, pointing a gun at law enforcement officers. Many of you know the tragedy that we face in Texas, which we are still mourning. Two prosecutors and a prosecutor's wife--district attorneys in Texas--were shot dead. Individuals were shot dead by someone who should not have had a gun. Tragically, the individual was released and should not have been released; but more importantly, they were able to get a gun through what we understand might have been a straw purchase-- somebody else purchasing the gun for them. So I believe we are no longer at the point when we can have sermons or we can mourn and yet not do something.

Let me thank--I think ``applaud'' is not the appropriate terminology--those parents who flew in Air Force One from Newtown, Connecticut. You can imagine that they are hurting. Tears came to my eyes as I saw them deplane, come down out of Air Force One, knowing that they are still hurting. I heard a quote that said: For some of us, it's months. For those parents, it's one day at a time.

To imagine little ones--5 and 6 years old--whose bodies were riddled, and they are here in the hallways of Congress to be able to ask us: Can we do the right thing that is for the American people?

And I want to answer today a question that I raised: Can we stop the filibuster? Can we resolve the fact that sensible gun legislation does not violate the Second Amendment?

In fact, we protect the Second Amendment. No one has challenged the Second Amendment, and no one has challenged permits for concealed weapons that are in many States. With the tragedy that occurred in Arizona in which someone was using an automatic weapon and had multiple rounds and for those who say, you see, if the good guys had a gun--and in that instance the good guy had a gun and was probably going to shoot the wrong people if someone had not intervened--what we need to do, in essence, is to ensure that we find common ground and do sensible things.

What do I think are sensible things?

Sensible things include universal background checks. I know there are some discussions about family exchanges and one-to-one exchanges among family members. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to reasonable discussions, but we've got to close the gun show loopholes; we've got to close people opening up their trunks on a highway and giving them to someone who is going to wind up shooting in a robbery; or going into an old man's house just like happened in my community last night--shooting an 83-year-old and taking his car--or the incidence, as I indicated, of this individual with mental health concerns; or the bloody killing of a mother's daughter and her granddaughter by what I would say is a crazed ex-husband, who did not need to have a gun.

So isn't it reasonable to think that universal background checks would weed out those who did not need to have them?

We're not going to knock on your door and take any guns from families, but we do hope that you will secure them. I hope that I'll be able to get a vote on H.R. 65, a bill that was taken after an ordinance that I passed in the city of Houston, as a member of the city council-- because we have legislative authority--and, in fact, legislation that's the law of the land in Texas, and that is to hold people responsible for not locking up their guns.

I would be happy to yield for a moment to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio. I just want to pause on that a moment. Let's think about storing guns. I want to thank her for her legislative prowess. We are so proud that she has already come here ready to go, because anybody who was the minority leader of the Ohio House, if you will, is already ready to go. She is already taking charge on women's issues, and she is taking charge on economic issues. I am very proud to yield to the gentlelady at this time.

I thank the gentlelady for bringing a sense of passion to this debate. So many of us can remember where we were and how incredulous it was when we heard the news coming, and first we thought this is not real. We couldn't be hearing it accurately. Maybe we were hearing the tragedy of six adults, that already was innocent teachers and principals, but we couldn't imagine you were talking about a classroom, that someone would open the door in a recovery mode and see the carnage that one had to be able to look at. Not to be any more graphic, but so much so that, as I understand it, many could not view the situation.

And so I thought it was imperative to come from Houston today, and before I got on the airplane I stopped at the Konia Learning Center for K-6, and I listened to babes talk about knowing Sandy Hook, raising their hands and about wanting to stop gun violence, and understanding that guns in the hands of teachers would not be the way to go. Having little ones in the fifth and sixth grades explain how fearful they would be to have guns with teachers, not because it was the idea that our teachers are not ones that are loving, but we know what happens with human nature and accidents, guns being taken out of drawers or purses or pockets and what can happen.

Yes, I believe we can have common agreement on increasing school resource officers, however school districts would like to use them. We have very fine police departments for many of the school districts that I represent; and do you know what those chiefs of police told me in an earlier hearing that I had in my district, not one of them, university chiefs of police or school district chiefs of police, wanted to arm school personnel and teachers in the classroom to be able to protect our children. Those were the chiefs of police. I didn't put words in their mouths, and they wanted it to be known that they are the responsible ones for security, not to be able to arm those who in essence would be responsible for shooting a gun, making a decision when to shoot, and then not making a decision right and causing havoc, causing themselves to be shot, or causing someone else to be shot.

As a matter of fact, at a press conference I had on the anniversary Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4 in my district, because we had been having these gun informational press conferences to raise the understanding, we have been working with a group by the name of Moms Demanding Action, thousands of moms across America, we were with them on Thursday, and then we were at the Lighthouse Church this past Sunday when Moms Demanding Action went to the pulpit, honored and recognized Pastor Henderson to talk about Moms Demanding Action to prevent gun violence.

But this little school that I went to, I said to them that I would come and give their message on the floor of the House, that I would tell the President that I was in this school where these children are so bright, private school that it was, alongside a public school, these children spoke well about their fear of gun violence, the gun violence that they see around them and that they want to be in a place where they are safe, and guns they feel do not make them safe.

So I got motivated, and I thank the Senators for informing me, a letter that I received March 22, 2013, from Senator Paul, Senator Cruz, and Senator Mike Lee, and they have now grown to 13 Senators. I know they have good hearts, but the language that I want to read specifically says:

We will oppose a motion to proceed to any legislation that

will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.

You see, that's wrong in and of itself because we're talking about sensible gun legislation. I don't want to restrict anything. I would like to take that word out of the vocabulary of sensible gun legislation, because I will not restrict you from getting a gun if you pass a background check. I will not restrict you from having guns in your home, but I will hold you responsible for guns that are not locked up. I will not restrict you from hunting. I will not restrict you as a sportsperson. I will not restrict you for a legitimate concealed weapons permit, but I will restrict that dastardly person who went to the door of a Colorado corrections chief and shot him dead because he had a gun that he should not have because we don't enforce, which we should, but add to the idea of preventing straw purchases for that individual for getting a gun because someone purchased the gun for him. Mr. Speaker, that can be blocked.

And the idea of storage, my friends, I'm talking about gun locks. Maybe somebody has a gun lock manufacturing company in their district. Just think what would happen if folks have to lock up their guns, at least the ones that are classic, the AR-15s or the assault weapons that you already have. No one is coming to get those. But the guns that the young man had in Newtown, if only they had been locked up. Many people don't speak of it, but I think she deserves to be mentioned, his mother, who I know had to be a loving mother. I know she cared. She recognized the disturbed individual that he was, and maybe it might have gone another way. Maybe there should have been some other response to his situation, but all you can say is that mother was trying. But look at her, dead in her bed. Guns that were open to someone who was challenged.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine why we would ignore some of the numbers that I'm getting ready to share with you. But before I do that, let me raise again, if I can highlight what simple legislation that we're asking for: require universal background checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Let me be very clear: dangerous hands.

Ban military-style assault weapons.

Limit high-capacity magazines. That was the kind of magazine that was used tragically in Arizona. The individual could keep shooting and shooting, and the only way he was stopped was when he had to reload. Just imagine, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, no reloading. And the individual in Newtown, 155 rounds in 5 minutes before he stopped, taking the lives of so many.

Let me share with you these statistics that impact urban loss of life, rural loss of life, just the enormous tragedy. Take the incident of a rogue cop in California that wound up with weapons of war until he was finally caught, how many people he killed and how many more he could have killed. He had assault-type weapons.

If you speak to the law enforcement community, particularly right after Newtown, people became gunned up to the extent that when I spoke to my law enforcement, they indicated to me that they couldn't even find any guns, that people had bought guns so, so much.

Let me share with you some of these numbers about gun violence. First of all, the number of persons killed by guns since Newtown, 440 in the United States. I'm sure that number is down since the time these statistics were presented: 103 in Texas, 21 in Houston, 57 this month alone; 48,000 people killed annually in the United States. If I might remind you, over 1 million persons, Americans, have been killed by guns since John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., were assassinated.

So let me remind you of that list. John F. Kennedy, assassinated by a gun in 1963; Bobby Kennedy, assassinated by a gun in 1968; Martin Luther King, assassinated by a gun in 1968; and Ronald Reagan, attempted assassination in his first term, and the critical and devastating injury to his press secretary, Mr. Brady, who has committed himself to gun safety, again, not to take your guns away.

I thank you, Mr. Brady. We have had an opportunity to work together. I thank you for what was done, and certainly your legacy of commitment. I thank that legacy.

Then, of course, let me thank Mr. Bloomberg, who is one that has shown his passion, so much so that he has received criticism. Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. Thank you for standing up and saying that those who would stop gun legislation that is sensible, that they have to have their story told to those around the country and those in their district, for we're not asking for anything. We're just asking for fairness, just an up-or-down vote.

Let me share with you these numbers that I think are devastating. In 1 year, on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun. In 1 year, 31,000--and this is from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence--31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries; 12,179 people murdered; 44,466 people shot in an attack; 18,223 people who killed themselves; 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun.

Let me just stop for a moment. How tragic it is that someone would think that the only way out of their misery is by a gun. And it is well known by these statistics that if a gun is near you, if you are near a gun, if you are near a gun, then that leaves you more open to using that gun for violence against others or violence against yourself.

If you make it easy, rather than giving these people mental health services--which I think should go hand in hand with sensible gun legislation, and that's why I'm supporting a number of initiatives and cosponsored initiatives by Carolyn McCarthy, because it is important to find a balance and to be able to work on issues that would balance the needs of our community and mental health services, but also the needs of our community in being protected from gun violence.

I want to restore the Centers for Disease Control's ability that was taken away a few Congresses ago by people who really don't understand sensible gun legislation. They stopped the Centers for Disease Control from doing the research and gathering the statistics on what violence does to America, what the medical cost is, what the psychological cost is. We want to reinstate that so that we can make important decisions.

When I was with these children, one of the things that comes up in the idea of teen violence or the loss of life is that teens pick up guns 87 percent when they are bullied or when they feel someone has hurt them, said words to them, because the gun is accessible. They bring the gun to school, they have a gun, or they engage in gang violence.

Don't separate gang violence and say it's just a bunch of gangbangers. It's gangbangers who are kids who have guns. And the young man that I brought to the State of the Union was a redeemed gangbanger, was shot at 15. He's here today, at 21, 22, about to get married, and shuns guns. But guns were accessible to him. He was already shot at in a drive-by. And then after he's shot at in a drive-by, then there was a point when they got him.

Don't condemn the gangbangers. They've got guns that are trafficked, that are not enforced, that are straw purchased, and they come into places even that have strong gun laws. Why? Because we don't have sensible gun legislation.

And yes, I'm going to agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends. Let's enforce the gun laws that we have. Who would run away from that? That's a sensible proposition.

Put a resolution on the floor of the House. Let's enforce the gun laws that we have. But join me in voting for universal gun background checks to close the gun show loopholes.

I mentioned this idea of suicide, and let me just finish on this enormous, terrible number. How many of us have read articles, have seen over the last couple of days tragedies that have occurred that have been publicized nationally?

All I can say is, you have a person who is disturbed, who has given up on life, who doesn't have a connection to faith, cannot find their faith leader, cannot get a hug from their family member, and all they think they can do is commit suicide, and they've got a gun.

I venture to say there's probably very limited numbers of those who take a knife and stab themselves. And yes, there are pills. But they have a gun because nobody was there to stop them, they weren't able to get mental health services and they've got a gun. 592 people were killed unintentionally, and 8,610 were shot unintentionally but survived.

There was one time in Houston where every time school was out, little ones, 2 years old, 3 years old, 4 years old, teenagers, accidentally shooting themselves, playing with a gun, taking the gun from under the mattress. Guns not stored.

That's why we passed that legislation in Texas to hold adults responsible for a child that gets a gun and injures themselves, kills somebody, or kills themselves. That's the least we can do for our children.

Over 1 million have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968 when Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.

And then U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous, high-income countries combined, despite similar nonlethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the United States is 19.5 times higher.

Mr. Speaker, we're not gaining anything by being gunned up. Among the 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States.

On Thursday, not only should we get a vote, not only should there be no filibuster, but we should win that vote. Win it in the name of somebody in your congressional district that died unfairly because someone who should not have had the gun had it. And I can venture to tell you that background checks will have a sizable impact.

Now, somebody said in 1994, when we passed the assault weapons ban, that it didn't do anything. Oh, there's a big debate. There's a tit for tat. But it is documented that the numbers of killings by assault weapons went down. Of course you can find other ways to kill people, but the utilization of assault weapons went down. That's a victory. That's a victory.

When I had this listening session with my little ones at the Konia Learning Academy, we had pictures of these weapons. Do you know that these little ones that were pre-K could point out that these were machine guns? Little ones. What are we doing to our kids?

They should call it a carrot because they've never seen one. With the violence on TV, we want to talk about that, and violence around them, and the gun talk and the killings on national TV, what do you expect?

Wouldn't it be nice if the headlines came out on Thursday, the Senate makes the first step, sensible gun legislation? Wouldn't that be good? That we came together and we did something that spoke to the anguish and pain?

I was here for 9/11, a memory that none of us will ever forget. And the one thing that I will compare to what is happening with these families is the 9/11 families. The Congress felt compelled, after its own mourning and the loss in the Pentagon and the loss in Pennsylvania, we just felt compelled that we had to do something, that the pain of these families scattered all over America, we had to answer them.

We obviously suffered. I remember standing on the steps singing God Bless America. But we put away any opposition to issues that had to be addressed. We put forward a Patriot Act at that time that was bipartisan. We worked in the Judiciary Committee. We handled the privacy issues, because we felt that this was a time for America to shine.

Well, I believe this is the time for America to shine. Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, in the cost of the criminal justice system, and security precautions such as metal detectors and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens--Mr. Speaker, you've got to get up out of your chair on this one--estimated to cost--with a smile on my face, because you stand up and I need to sit down because it's just knocking me down--a hundred billion dollars. And that was 2000. And so it's soaring in medical costs, in fear, in security.

What are we going to do about the enormity of gun violence? Where there are more guns, there are more deaths. An estimated 41 percent of gun-related

homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not have occurred in the same circumstances had no guns been present. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

Mr. Speaker, we have within our power to be able to move forward on sensible gun legislation. I will be asking my colleagues to join me in a letter to send to my friends on the other side of this body to be able to listen to our voices as fellow legislators. And then, as well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the voices of America will ring. I know that my phone will ring for those who are saying, They're snatching our guns away. And I'm going to have a smile on my face because they have a right to express themselves.

But right now we need to put aside our individual political futures, because I believe that when you do the right thing, your future will be bright. And some child will say, Look at America. Look at the red, white, and blue. Look at the country that stands for values that we all are created equal. They didn't come to take away guns. They came to enforce good laws. They came to ensure that guns are not exploited, that loopholes are not walked through and become open caves, and that people are safer in their schools, their homes, their places of worship.

Just think about that. A pulpit. Ministers in my State have been shot dead by guns of disturbed members--because they have guns. And let's make, Mr. Speaker, the mental health system a parallel effort to be able to ensure the safety of us all.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this brief discussion--and if I may, how much time is there remaining?

Thank you very much.

I'm so glad the Speaker was responding on that hundred billion dollars. It probably got him out of his chair. I think we're allowed to say those kinds of things on the floor.

I will have a few more points that I do want to make. The number of a hundred billion dollars is certainly a lot, but I want to spend some time on this issue of gun trafficking and to speak about how gun trafficking can be something that we can find ways to come together.

Gun trafficking is dastardly because in jurisdictions like Washington, D.C., strong gun laws; New York, strong gun laws; the State of Connecticut, strong gun laws; and now Colorado, strong gun laws. And my heart goes out to them for the loss that they experienced with the shooting of their head of corrections in a terrible manner, being shot on his doorstep. Also, the district attorney and his wife that were so loved and the other district attorney that was so loved that was shot here in Texas. That comes out of criminals with guns that they should not have. And so forcing a review of our gun laws to stop gun trafficking and to pass legislation that stands in the gap and that speaks to straw purchases--using someone else--and holding people very responsible for doing that is a smart way to go.

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns have a very important point, and that is, when you pass the universal background check as a systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers, and the seriously mentally ill, that's the answer to people that say it doesn't make a difference. Criminals and other prohibited purchasers can avoid background checks by buying firearms from unlicensed private sellers. That's the back of the trunk. That's the gun shows. Often at gun shows are anonymous online transactions.

If my recollection is correct, the shooter at Aurora got his guns online. How tragic. And in the course of those shootings, we know that little ones lost their lives in that theater. What a terrible thing to come out for a joyous occasion, an exciting night, fiction but fun, and you lose your life and you never get home.

I heard something today that I thought was important. Parents who sent their children to school that morning in Newtown were sending their children to school--it was December 14--with the expectation for celebrating holidays like Hanukkah and Christmas. They were looking forward to hugs and toys. They were looking forward to family dinners. They were looking forward to picking those children up at the end of the day. Mr. Speaker, they did not get a chance to do that.

And so when you have background checks, certainly in the instance of Newtown, a different set of circumstances, both dealing with mental illness and the access to guns. But I tell you what it will do with background checks. It will lessen the horror of those involved in criminal activities.

The private sale loophole undermines the background check system by allowing millions of buyers to avoid background checks simply by going to private sellers. We've got to fix that. And we've got to hold the data. We've got to make sure that our law enforcement can check a national data system so that those who would perpetrate violence cannot go from State to State.

I know that I wanted to pass similar legislation on DNA data for child predators so that a person cannot go from State to State. Now we have the technology and we have the ability to protect rights. But if you are involved in criminal activity and you're in the database on guns, your rights are lessened because we have to save lives.

The Internet has created a vast marketplace for guns, where millions of buyers and sellers can easily identify one another and conduct firearms transactions with no supervision whatsoever. Nearly 12 years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that there were 80 online auction sites and approximately 4,000 other sites of gun sales. No control whatsoever. The private sellers are literally involved in-- maybe not to their own choosing--those guns getting out into the arena and being utilized by others to do harm.

So this is a time when we don't need a filibuster. What we need is a debate on the pros and cons of sensible gun legislation and, finally, a vote that would move us to respond to the pain of so many Americans.

Why shouldn't this be a Democratic and Republican effort? Once the Senate votes on something that has substance to it, why shouldn't our Speaker, Mr. Boehner, also put it on the floor and not block it? The reason is because there was regular order on the Senate side. It went through committee.

But in the instance of Republicans, listen to a 2010 survey by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who found that 82 percent of U.S. gun owners, including 74 percent of NRA members, support criminal background checks for all gun sales. What more do we want? What are we saying here? That we can't come together on a nonwatered-down gun background check?

Let me speak to why I think that's so important. We have officers around here. This is like a little city. We have our Capitol Police. They wear the uniform. They're here to protect. Law enforcement officers all over America--school law enforcement officers, county and city, villages, departments of public safety, highway patrol, drug enforcement, ATF, FBI, men and women in the United States military--are here to protect. My friends from the Texas Air National Guard, my friends from the National Guard, they're here to protect.

What happens when they lose their lives through some untoward violence that's not on a battlefield somewhere, but right here in their own hometown? What happens when an officer has fallen because someone who shouldn't have a gun illegally has a gun, and we've done nothing about it?

Close the gun show loopholes, stop the gun trafficking, and, most of all, get us universal access to gun checks and background checks. Everybody should be required.

I know that we can't see these clearly, but there is a whole load of guns, and it says handguns offered by a private seller in Tennessee, handguns licensed by a licensed dealer--not checking anybody, though. You got the money, you can just show up. I remember walking into a gun show and seeing children walking around unaccompanied. I believe they should not be able to walk around at a gun show unaccompanied. Long guns being sold by a private seller in Columbus, Ohio. This is what's happening all over America. Probably right, as I'm standing on the floor of the House, that is

what's happening. That's why I support Mayor Bloomberg and his commitment to this whole idea of sensible gun legislation. There are currently 18 million assault weapons in circulation, and I don't think most of them are in the hands of the United States military.

I am just going to add these points and come to a close, Mr. Speaker, because this is what pushes the wrong direction; this parts us away from each other. We can't be friends. We can't talk about sensible legislation. And I hate to say it, I don't know how much carnage we have to see. I don't know how much we have to see, how many sirens we have to hear for those of us who live in urban areas, police cars running after ambulances because there's been someone that's been shot.

What I would say to you is listen to the voice of a victim that I met just a couple of days ago. I just want to put this myth out. She was a teacher coming home late at night and somebody came up and said, get out of the car. She didn't know what to do. She didn't get out of the car. She bent down, and that person shot her in the legs. I asked the question, if she had a gun, does she think that she would be able to do better. She said, no, I was too scared; I wouldn't know what to do.

My friends, don't fool yourself that having a gun is going to make it better for you. We've got to lessen criminals having guns; we've got to have background checks; we've got to close the gun show loopholes and people selling guns out of the back of their trunks on a highway somewhere outside of a gun show.

More guns don't lead to more murders. This is myth number one. A survey by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health found strong statistical support for the idea that even if you control for poverty levels, more people die from gun homicides in areas of higher rates of gun ownership. You've got a gun, you may be in jeopardy.

The Second Amendment prohibits strict gun control. We all know that that is not supported by the Supreme Court and that we're not talking about taking guns away. We're talking about regulating guns. As many people have said, we regulate insurance. We ask you to have a registration and a driver's license for a car--that can be a deadly weapon--and we have you register it. And we have you have, if you will, a license.

State-level gun controls haven't worked. Scholars Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander recently studied State-to-State variations in gun homicides. They found that firearm deaths are significantly lower in States with stricter gun control legislation.

Myth number four: we only need better enforcement of the law; we don't need new laws. We passed several laws. Yes, we need enforcement; but it is well known that you need to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm, and you need to have universal background checks in order to stop the criminals from getting guns, and you need to work on the mental health services so that those individuals cannot have guns. In some States they have that. We're not blanketing everyone; but in certain instances we need to be able to protect those individuals, protect their families from the crazed person, the violent abuser, the domestic abuser who goes and violates a restraining order and has a gun--because they just bought the gun because there's no background check. And you can't check if they have a restraining order.

Sensible gun regulation is prohibitively unpopular. We've already heard of the large percentages from Republican pollster, Mr. Luntz, about the percentage of individuals--Republicans, all Americans, NRA members--who believe in universal background checks, not arming parents and arming, if you will, the teachers who are there to have a pencil and a pen and a chart and to talk about reading, writing, and arithmetic.

So I am humbled today to have the opportunity to speak to my colleagues, but I am humbled by the fact that we live in a democracy. There is something called a ``filibuster''; it's a procedure that's used--not in this body--simply we've got a bunch of Members on the floor that talk, talk, talk, one after another. But we don't have the procedure; the Senate does. As I indicated, initially three of our friends, and now 13, I would ask them--and I would ask the minority leader--I would ask them not to engage.

I would ask the other body to work with us. I would ask the other body to hear our cry. I would ask the other body to think of those who as we speak are being shot by a gun in America by someone who shouldn't have it. I'm asking them to think of the little children from one end of America to the other who were shot with a gun.

For us Washingtonians--and I say that because I am in Washington a lot of the time here in the United States Congress--remember the sniper of a few years ago, the frightening atmosphere of a sniper, a young man and his father; guns they should not have had; killing innocent people along the highways and byways of this region. The sniper.

That's what my message is today, that we have no time--no time--for a filibuster. We may have time for prayers. We may have time for encouragement. We have time for common sense. We still have time for a vote that will pass. And we have time for the House to take up sensible gun legislation.

We still have time to save the lives of little babies. We still have time to save an innocent woman who may be subject to domestic violence. We still have time. We still have time to stop the gang-banger. We still have time to stop the criminal that may have come into your house or come into a bank or accost you on the street. We still have time to keep the guns out of their hands. We still have time.

Who is going to answer the cry to stop the filibuster and stop the foolishness? I ask my colleagues: If it is not us, then who? If it is not now, then when? In the memory of John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America; in the memory of his brother, Bobby Kennedy, former Attorney General of the United States of America; Martin Luther King, in his memory, a man of peace and nonviolence; and President Ronald Reagan, who lived, if it is not in the common sense of those leaders of our Nation and the needs of the children and families across America, then whose voices will we heed?

There is still time for commonsense legislation, and I might say that we should demand, stand up for a vote on this Thursday. I hope our voices--not mine, but our voices--are heard.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing this time to debate on the floor of the House, and I yield back the balance of my time.

U.S Senate,

Washington, DC, March 22,2013.

Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, We, the

undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that would

infringe on the American people's constitutional right to

bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without

being subjected to government surveillance.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens'

right to self-defense. It speaks to history's lesson that

government cannot be in all places at all times, and

history's warning about the oppression of a government that

tries.

We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation

that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun

restrictions.

Rand Paul, M.D.,

Ted Cruz,

Mike Lee.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to House Resolution 141, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 10, 2013, at 10 a.m., for morning-hour debate, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher.