Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the importance of getting a deal done on the fiscal cliff in few hours we have remaining. A potential Alternative Minimum Tax patch would protect 30 million taxpayers overall and 222,513 Texans from paying the AMT by raising the exemption amount.

Way back on January 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush took over from President Bill Clinton, the CBO estimated the total budget surplus for 2002-2011 would be $5.6 trillion.

And the campaign to spend the surplus began in earnest, despite warnings. Leading up to the 2001 tax cuts, the Administration and the Republican Congress were well aware of the looming AMT problem. Negotiators took advantage of this situation in order to keep down the costs of the 2001 tax cuts.

In June of 2000, one Treasury economist studied the AMT and warned that AMT taxpayers were due to grow at a rate of 30 percent each year between 2000 and 2010. Nonetheless, President Bush proposed a $1.6 trillion tax cut without an increase in the exemption level to protect taxpayers from the AMT.

Since 2001, Congress has had to extend an AMT ``patch'' almost annually so that the Bush tax cuts are not taken back by the AMT. The true cost of what was to be a $1.6 trillion tax cut has been estimated to be $2.2 trillion because of the AMT patches, exploding expiration dates, and debt-financing when the surplus disappeared. This budgetary sleight of hand is largely why we are here--literally at the eleventh hour--seeking to stop tax hikes on the middle class and avoid a brutal sequester.

This body should also not forget that we passed the Bush Tax Cuts under Reconciliation, which again is part of the background story, and the reason they are set to expire again.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get a deal done on the fiscal cliff this evening.

Thank you for these words. I share a desire to serve the Nation in this pivotal time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is enormously important that, as Starbucks said, we ``come together.'' And we can do so. We can do it in a rationality that takes a simple analysis. A simple analysis says that if I like a bag of potato chips, that's a luxury item, I can run in and get it. I don't have to think about it. Its cost is manageable. If I want to go in and get a high-end Cadillac, I'll think about it for a couple of days.

That should be the thought process for this fiscal cliff. Pass the $250,000 that will give 99 percent of Americans a tax break. Protect those who are unemployed who have worked and provide for their unemployment insurance. Protect those with the AMT--30 million taxpayers will fall over the cliff if we don't fix that, 222,000 Texans. And then if we have to deal with looking at how we address the question of reforming those benefits of Americans who work like Medicare and Social Security, we can do so. But I join the AARP, I join senior citizens: Leave Social Security alone. The changed CPI will not work, and that is not a time to deal with it in these waning hours.

We, Republicans, created this quagmire with the sequestration. We need to go and be able to address the immediacy. Get your bag of potato chips, cut the taxes for 99 percent of the American people and protect the unemployed.

We can do this. We don't have to go over the fiscal cliff. A shared concern for America, that's what we need today.

I thank Mr. Michaud very much. I thank him for his leadership on this legislation. And I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the author of the bill, along with Mr. Michaud and Mr. Bilirakis, for their leadership.

Texas competes with many States for the number of returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan and certainly is known for the presence of veterans from almost every single war. We are a State of military personnel and military bases, and Houston is known as well for the large numbers of veterans residing there.

I happen to represent the veterans cemetery and interact with veterans on a regular basis. We have Ellington Field, which we hope will some day hold one of the major commands. So we see veterans every day, and we have the opportunity to interact. And we know their dreams and aspirations and those of their family members.

I rise to support H.R. 4057 with the Senate amendment to particularly emphasize some very important points. I want veterans to be treated fairly. I want them to be able to build on the training and the amount of talent that they've built on in the United States military. This legislation protects them and acts to help them utilize the post-Iraq and Afghanistan GI Bill, one of the most unique initiatives in the Nation and one that we supported in a bipartisan way.

This legislation will allow the VA to conduct a market survey of online tools that allow veterans to assess their academic preparedness, to pursue postsecondary education training opportunities, and provide these veterans with a list of institutions that match the criteria. That is our Achilles' heel. Veterans come back, they see a lot of advertisements, they are attracted to a number of institutions; but they may not work for them. This kind of tracking and guidance will say, We really appreciate you; we want you to use these resources in the best way possible. In addition, the VA will then be required or will be able to secure information from other Departments, like the Department of Education, to know about these institutions and guide our veterans in the best way possible.

I see veterans, as I said, all the time. I see homeless veterans. I see veterans seeking services. I see veterans, as many of us do, in our offices. They want information. They want to be respected. They want to be able to contribute in today's society, to help their families, and to use those skills where they were serving their Nation in the best way possible.

I believe the gift that we've given them in education should be a guided gift to give them the kind of pathway, if you will, that will make sure that these resources are used in the best way possible. So I support this legislation.

I would finally say that I additionally support the bill coming up about dignified burial and other veterans benefits just to specifically say because of my district having the veterans cemetery, because of the many issues we have dealt with in the particular cemetery in Houston, this is great news to

know that no veteran will be undermined in their burial, no veteran will be in an undignified burial because of this legislation.

I thank my colleagues for moving forward on recognizing that our veterans have sacrificed for us. We need now to respect that and sacrifice for them.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, and I want to first of all say this will not be the last we hear of your voice, and what a stupendous voice you have. Thank you so much for making this time on the floor a time that pays tribute to veterans but also recognizes the outstanding service that you've given to this Nation, to the Committee on Homeland Security and your other committees, but more importantly the passion that you've shown as a true American. I hope that we heed the voice that you just lifted up that we owe to veterans not only this great legislation, but also the ability to come together and work on their behalf and on behalf of all Americans.

Thank you again for allowing me to comment on this bill as the ranking member on the Homeland Security Transportation Committee.

I thank Mr. Bilirakis. We have worked together on a number of legislative initiatives, and I thank him as well for his service, along with the retiring chairman, Chairman King, and our Democratic ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for their leadership. It gives me great comfort to be able to come on the floor today and say thank you.

Even though no one wants to see a homeless hero, a homeless veteran, I spent, over the holidays, time visiting a number of our centers where homeless veterans are, and I can tell you that they are the most giving and charitable persons.

Many of us will be able to recount on Thanksgiving Day, or during the holiday, being able to give or to share or to be able to distribute food or to serve veterans who, unfortunately, not of their own doing, have fallen upon hard times, do not have a place to live, and are coming to the various food pantries and food kitchens. It was one of great pleasure to me, not for their condition, but to be able to humbly just provide them with a warm meal. This is a commonsense legislative initiative that

says to homeless heroes, every day we're thinking of you.

As the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee, I can assure you that Transportation Security officers are grateful to Ms. Hochul and to the Senate amendment for giving them this chance to further their service to the Nation.

There are many things that are left behind, and many times in the airport you hear that PA system saying, Come back, come back to the security checkpoint; you've left your iPad, your coat, your shoes. What else could you have left? Many times, unfortunately, those individuals are already on the airplane, and so we try our best, but we leave behind quality items that could be used for our veterans.

The Senate amendment expands this to other charities as well. But as the ranking member, I want to commend to our TSA officers and our officers that are supervisors across the Nation's airports, and to our airports, yes, you have the opportunity to give to veterans, charitable institutions and others, but I encourage you, because of the extensive number of homeless veterans, that you give these items so that we can have, not only resources, but clothing for homeless veterans of whom we hope that we will provide a pathway to be able to get out of the status of homelessness, but also while they're doing so, to provide them with this quality clothing.

So again, I rise to support H.R. 6328, as amended by the Senate, to thank the author of this legislation, Ms. Hochul, the gentlelady from New York; again, remind her that she will not have a silent voice, and this is a very grand and wonderful way to end at least your legislative service, your bill-writing service on this floor of the House and in this Congress where you are serving the Nation's veterans. We are forever grateful, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I want to thank the gentleman from California both for his longstanding leadership and the history of his emphasis on how important our children are.

As a founder and chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I'm delighted to have joined with my colleague, Congresswoman Bass, and various cochairs of the Foster Care Caucus on the bipartisan legislation that the Uninterrupted Scholars Act is, and the bicameral legislation, and to also add appreciation to Chairman Kline of Minnesota and to Senator Landrieu for her leadership and partnership. I know of her great interest on the issues of both domestic adoption and international adoption.

Certainly, unfortunately, the system of foster care has many times, when it has not been intended to, been, if you will, a place of hopelessness. This legislation wants to provide a lifeline to foster care children, particularly as they approach adolescence and high school and going on to college, so that they can be taken out of the abyss of hopelessness.

I've had the opportunity, of course, to be able to meet with foster care children both in my district and here when they've lobbied on the Hill, and their stories are both of passion and commitment to having a future, a commitment to serving the Nation, a commitment to making a difference. Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make a difference? Why can't they be considered just like those who have different lifestyles, if you will, in terms of a family situation?

So this legislation says that they should have, as well, that kind of orderliness. And if their orderliness comes through a social worker or a caseworker who will have access to their records to be able to plan for them the best format, whether it is to remain in a school, to transfer to a school, when they cannot access that natural parent or any other relative that would stand in for that child. There's nothing more, if you will, desperate and disappointing than to be able to find a child that has no hope, no one to turn to, and really wants to do, wants to accomplish, wants to graduate from high school.

So I believe that the Uninterrupted Scholars Act is a very important provision that reflects the laws that have been passed dealing with privacy as it relates to records of children in postsecondary school and the protection of those school records. This, in particular, allows, let me say, an exception to release the student's education records to a caseworker, State or local child welfare representative, or tribal organization that has a right to access that student's case plans. Again, that helps those students be able to have a lifeline.

Just a week or so ago, there was an article in The New York Times on three young people from Galveston, Texas. They were not necessarily foster care children, but it is indicative of what happens to children of less means. Part of their lack of success was their inability to access the Internet, to get timely notices that they were supposed to apply for a scholarship, to have their parents know that they were supposed to modify their income sheet.

If you can imagine, we just went through Hurricane Ike, and this one child's parents had received aid through Hurricane Ike. Well, they were told that they didn't meet the scholarship standards because they made too much money, and they didn't modify it to say that it wasn't money that we made; it was aid because we were victims of Hurricane Ike.

This is similar to what happens to foster care children, and I am very delighted that we have legislation that is common sense and that we can attribute to the Foster Care Caucus, which we work closely with as a Congressional Children's Caucus.

I want to thank Mr. Miller and Mr. Kline for their dedication and commitment to the Nation's children. They are, in fact, a precious resource, and the Uninterrupted Scholars Act is one element of saying that they are important to us.

Let me again thank Congresswoman Bass and Senator Landrieu for their leadership, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reflection and remembrance of the life of Senator Daniel Inouye.

I was deeply saddened to hear of the loss of Senator Daniel Inouye on Monday; his passing marks the end of an era for the people of Hawaii, for the United States Senate and Congress, and for the country. A public servant from start to finish, Daniel Inouye has left a shining, indelible mark on history that will inspire Americans for generations to come.

His story is simply incredible. Daniel was a medical volunteer during the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941. Even though the U.S. Army banned people of Japanese descent from enlisting, and even though Executive Order 9066 authorized the internment of roughly 110,000 Japanese Americans, Daniel Inouye found it within himself to be an American patriot.

Soon after the ban on enlistment was lifted, he abandoned his Pre-Med studies at the University of Hawaii and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1943. He was a war hero in the truest sense of the term, earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the battlefields of World War II before his State was even admitted to the Union.

Daniel Inouye was a Lieutenant and Platoon Leader on the battlefield in Tuscany, Italy in April 1945. Even after being shot in the stomach by German machine gun fire, he refused medical treatment and still managed to find the courage to destroy 2 machine gun nests. Nearly losing consciousness from blood loss, he heroically charged a 3rd machine gun nest before having his right arm severed by a German grenade. Somehow, even after these grave injuries, Daniel Inouye still found a way to toss a grenade that destroyed the 3rd bunker.

He remained a proud member of the military until his honorable discharge as a Captain in 1947. He was Hawaii's first Representative in the House, a source of great pride to all Members, past and present.

As Hawaii's first Congressman and, subsequently, as a nine-term Senator, Daniel Inouye embodied the spirit of ``aloha'' in his work. Serving as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he worked to strengthen our national security and help veterans access the benefits they've earned.

He was a consistent champion for the interests of Hawaii's people. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with Senator Inouye, and my thoughts are with his family and with the people of his beloved Hawaii, who will always remember him for his leadership and his courage. As a Senator, he never forgot his military roots, and has always been a voice for veterans.

Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home State. His fellow Americans will long remember his leadership in protecting our men and women in uniform, strengthening our national security, reaching across the aisle, and investing in a future of prosperity for all.

By his actions, he stood firm for the independence of the Congress, the strength of our democracy, and the values of the American people.

I want to extend my condolences to his wife, Irene, his son Daniel Jr., and the rest of his family as they mourn the loss of a great man.

When asked recently how he wanted to be remembered, Daniel said, quite humbly, ``I represented the people of Hawaii and this Nation honestly and to the best of my ability. I think I did OK.'' I think that I speak for us all when I say that this was quite an understatement for a man who accomplished so much and sacrificed so for this country. And so with heavy hearts, we bid ``aloha'' to Senator Daniel Inouye--a man whose chapter in American history will live on.

Senator Inouye lies in state this morning. But as a young lieutenant platoon leader on a battlefield in Italy, even after being shot in the stomach by German machine-gun fire, he refused medical treatment and still managed to find the courage to destroy two machine-gun posts. Nearly losing consciousness from blood loss, he heroically charged a third machine-gun nest before having his right arm severed by a German grenade. Somehow, even after those grave injuries, Daniel Inouye still found a way to toss a grenade that destroyed the third bunker.

What an American. What a man who loved this country and stood for the values of diversity. He loved the independence of the Congress, and he fought for it in the strength of our democracy and the values of America. His words were this:

I represented the people of Hawaii and this Nation honestly

and to the best of my ability. I think I did okay.

To the Senator and your family, you did more than okay. To the Asian American community in Houston, Texas, and all of Texas, I want you to note this hero spoke volumes for what America is all about, that no matter where we've come from, we can stand equally under the sun.

He thought of that and his beloved Hawaii as his final words, not only in representing Hawaii--``aloha''--but to America.

Senator, we love you, and good-bye. What a great champion, a great warrior for peace, and one who represented all of us so well.

Mr. Speaker, I too believe in military preparedness, coming from a State like Texas, where the population of men and women who have served or are serving in the United States military is renowned and appreciated.

As I look at the tourists who walk through the Halls, I wonder which of those young people will take an oath and join the United States military. And so when I see raises for the troops, it pleases, I think, all of us.

I'm concerned about the Afghanistan timeline. I had hoped that it could be expedited. I certainly do commend the Iron Dome because we saw it work with respect to Israel. I question, however, the drones that may have collateral damage.

But I do think it's important that this bill does, in fact, make a commitment to protecting the women and children in Afghanistan, responds to the issues dealing with sexual assault against military personnel, and particularly women, and is strong on Iran sanctions.

But I rise today as well because I think when we talk about people, and we talk about the men and women of the United States military, we talk about their health. And yesterday, in the Rules Committee I raised this point and I raise it again.

I'm going to support this bill because I think it'll make a leap of faith and commitment to finding the cause of triple negative breast cancer. I mentioned yesterday in the Rules Committee that triple negative breast cancer cells are usually of a higher grade and size, onset at a younger age, more aggressive and more likely to metastasize.

In fact, the survival rate for breast cancer, but on triple negative, people are diagnosed and they die in months, maybe a year, such as my constituent, Yvonne Williams, a wonderful health professional who left a husband and two children.

Or maybe the young lady who stopped me when I was walking in the Race for the Cure and said, my mother, a Hispanic woman, got triple negative breast cancer. We did everything we could, and she died within months.

Apart from surgery, the only relief is cytotoxic chemotherapy, its only available treatment. Targeted molecular treatments, while being investigated, are not accepted treatment for this disease.

As I speak today, there are women who may be listening, or others who realize that either their loved one or they may be diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, and they understand the impact. Whether they are Caucasian or Asian or Hispanic or African American, this disease has not been able to be treated like breast cancers in the other stages.

So I offered an amendment that the House accepted. I think it is an important amendment because what it spoke to is that we need to pinpoint and focus in on what is the cause of this disease. And it called for the triple negative breast cancer patients to be identified earlier in the progression of their disease and to develop targets on molecular and biomolecular issues.

But through that amendment, I must say, although I wanted the specific language, the House was able to hold its position.

The House was able to hold its position. And on title VII, section 737, I want to say thank you. There is a long amendment that includes my amendment and specifically speaks to having a report that will have recommendations for changes to policy, a law that could improve the prevention, early detection, awareness and treatment of breast cancer among the Members of the Armed Forces.

I would ask the Defense Department that when you look at treatment and research, you must include the triple negative breast cancer. That is, as well, an attack on your personnel in the United States military. If we care about our soldiers, our men and women in all of the branches who serve us, we'll care about their health, and we will include that research.

I thank the conferees for moving forward on something that is so near and dear to the families of those who live, but certainly of those of the families who have died.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support of language from my Amendment, Number 91 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would direct the Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC).

In addition, my amendment was intended to result in information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted therapies for the disease.

Unfortunately, my language was not included in the Senate Amendment but I have read language in the Joint Manager's Statement and the Conference Report does provide for a study.

The language reads, ``Study on incidence of breast cancer among members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty,'' and is included in Section 737.

I stand up for all women today who have been victims and really for those who might so that we can look into prevention, cure, and eradication of breast cancer.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort, DOD and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain.

Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.

Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39 percent higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups.

African American women are also 12 percent less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer.

More than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

I thank the gentlelady, the ranking member from the Rules Committee, and I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, when I mention the words Hurricane Sandy and the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, many would wonder what do they have in common? The enormous gun tragedy, a loss of 26 lives, and Americans suffering from a devastating storm. Certainly our hearts go out for those babies who were lost. But it really speaks to Americans in need. And I guess that's why I'm so troubled to be on the floor today, because the framework that we have says to America that when you're in need, we will not, as this Congress and as this government, be prepared to help you.

I think what is disappointing--and I know for the Speaker it is probably the same case as I'm speaking, because just about 3 days ago we thought there was a deal between the White House and the framework that was offered and the leadership of this House. It's disappointing that, in the course of a couple of days, we've come to a situation where this plan, Plan B, raises only about $300 billion from high- income households, and the Center on Budget Priorities suggests that millionaires will get $108,500 per million, over $1 million in tax cuts.

But what will the middle class get?

Plan B allows the old pre-Bush--or Bush tax cuts to continue the itemized deductions for the rich, giving them more opportunity to keep their money. In fact, we will lose $400 billion, under this plan, in high-income revenues. Disappointing.

But at the same time, there is a thought that we should cut Social Security by changing the way Social Security is calculated, so that if a senior buys cheap food, that means they need cheap Social Security, and we cut their Social Security benefits because we thought there was a deal. I can't agree with that at all, cutting Social Security, and I can't agree with recalculating how a senior gets their check.

But I will tell you that this plan raises taxes rather than reduces it, as the President wants to do, as this House of Democrats wants to do, as the Senate bill, where 180-plus Democrats have signed. This raises taxes $1,000 on 25 million working families.

And then there is a mysterious bill that, I guess, suggests that we are in the business of making cuts. But you know what that will do?

And by the way, there's no sequester plan in this plan that is here. It cuts education, research, and national security; but it also cuts the hardworking Americans who are yet employed, and it cuts off 2 million of them, unemployment insurance. It cuts out doctors.

I thank the gentlelady.

Twenty-seven percent.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his inquiry.

When we started out with the Plan B, there was no sequester plan. Obviously, there was a mysterious offering last evening.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

In the original Plan B that I assume the Rules Committee was to address last evening through the distinguished chairperson, there was no sequester plan. We were in a posture of cutting education and research.

Yes, you are right. In the creative work of your staff, as you said right here on the floor of the House, late into the night you found the reconciliation that had been addressed in the summer, I believe, and all of us, a lot of us, voted against it.

All of us voted against it, and we understand that that plan will have no traction in the United States Senate. I thank the gentleman for his work, but what I'm suggesting is there is no sequester plan. There was no sequester plan with the Plan B. And as I was saying, if I can quickly go back, Madam Ranking Member, without this plan, what we leave in place with Plan B, which really troubles me, coming from the Texas Medical Center and meeting with the hospital before I left Houston, it cuts reimbursements for doctors seeing Medicare patients by 27 percent. Fifty million Americans will then have their health care in jeopardy. It cuts nutrition plans, food stamps. There is no plan.

My quiet comment, Mr. Speaker, as I close, it is in disappointment. It is not in shrill debate. It is simply in disappointment. Because we have Americans who are looking to us to work with the President, to work with the Speaker, to go forward on the plan that was offered on Monday--at least for us to debate--and to find a way to be able to respond when people like those victims of Hurricane Sandy and Newtown, Connecticut, call on us. That's all I'm asking my colleagues, is that you work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 but will use this statement to speak of the silver lining in this otherwise flawed legislation.

The silver lining of which I speak is Title 7, Section 737, which includes language for a breast cancer study. Last night before the Rules Committee I spoke of an amendment I offered to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which directed the Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). In addition, the amended language was designed to result in the generation of information that could then be useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials design. This will enable medical professionals to identify TNBC patients earlier in the progression of their disease and would help advance the development of multiple targeted therapies for the disease.

My amendment which passed the House was designed to highlight the importance of studying and eventually finding effective treatments for triple negative breast cancer.

I was pleased to note that, although it was not included in the bill we vote on tonight, my amendment helped generate the language included today in Title 7, Section 737 which highlights the importance of breast cancer among members of the armed services. I wish to emphasis the importance of addressing trople negative breast cancer and that this aspect must be included in the National Defense Reauthorize.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

I believe that through a coordinated effort between the DOD and NIH that they can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain.

Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Today, Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.

Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39% higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups.

African American women are also 12% less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer.

More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

Mr. Speaker, let it be very clear, Emanuel Cleaver is not retiring from the United States Congress, but we are here to thank him for his service to the Congressional Black Caucus as chair, but really to the Nation.

Let me thank my colleagues for gathering this morning to raise a voice of crescendo in thanks and appreciation for this man called Emanuel Cleaver. His progeny and his ancestors are grateful for the mark that he has made on behalf of America.

Chairman Cleaver speaks eloquently about his origins of hailing from Texas and his many relatives who remain there, even those who are in the surrounding areas of the 18th Congressional District. He's a proud graduate of Prairie View A&M University in Texas, in the surrounding area of Houston, Prairie View, Texas. He has a great heritage and connectedness to the Black Power movement, and he is a good combination of peace, gentleness, firmness, leadership, and courage.

And I might say that he was a man for these times, just as the Bible dictated that Esther was a woman for her time, was there for a time such as that. Our chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus found his role in a number of challenges that we faced. And if I might paraphrase a Biblical story, hopefully I have it nearly right, but I call this chairman a modern day Joseph who is able to wear the multicolored coat, representing constituencies from all backgrounds and going to represent his people in a foreign land. Chairman Cleaver would go to places where others had not gone or raise his voice for issues that were unpopular, and he did so with the consensus and collaboration of the astute and committed members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

I went to his district, as many of us did. We're proud to see the affection, friendship, and love given to him by his constituents. I was so interested in what we call the green corridor; so many are looking to instill and implement that in their own districts.

Thank you, Reverend Cleaver, for coming to Houston, Texas, on more than one occasion, but particularly to the NAACP banquet when I was named a recipient of the Mickey Leland Humanitarian Achievement Award, but more importantly, for your words of diminished return that if, in fact, we go to the lowest common denominator, if we don't raise ourselves to the highest level of challenge, then it becomes a diminished return, if I might paraphrase Chairman Cleaver's words. It was a rousing and challenging speech that lifted people off their feet, and it caused us to think about what we need to do.

Finally, as others have spoken of his work on creating jobs for all of America, particularly those underserved, where the African American job unemployment rate was so high, he was a champion during the debate and the challenge of passing the Affordable Care Act, now proudly ObamaCare. When we came together that Sunday, March 19, before we had to go and vote, it was Chairman Cleaver that led us to a prayer service where we worshipped and were renewed. We came back ready to cast our votes, to put this great legislation that is going to save lives over the top. We did it as a body, as a collective body, and as a group of members of the Congressional Black Caucus. And so even preceding his time in leadership, he led.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me offer my thank-you to this native son of Texas, a graduate of Prairie View A&M, one of the great institutions in the State of Texas. Let me congratulate his wife and his wonderful children and his extended family and all those who have seen in him the willingness to sacrifice for others. Thank you, Chairman Cleaver. The great news is you're not retiring from this body and your leadership for America will continue.

Madam Speaker, you will hear many voices being raised in the backdrop of an unspeakable tragedy from which, even as Members think of it, they cry.

Just a few minutes ago, there was a press conference in which there was probably not a dry eye in that room as Members gave tribute to those lives lost and to those being buried today, and as they spoke of their own anguish, their lost children, and of the loss of their fellow staff members in a gun incident.

So I rise today to say that we must act and can act and can pass legislation even this week. I join with Senator Feinstein's effort and Congressman Perlmutter's and Congresswoman McCarthy's and that of many others with legislation. I join with the legislation of H.R. 277, that talks about protecting our children, which was introduced by myself. I join with the statement by the Progressive Caucus that speaks about this ammunition, these guns, and mental health. I also join with Dick's Sporting Goods store.

I will just personally say to those who are listening: maybe you'll want to turn in your guns. Oh, no. I am not going to take your guns, but look at what Dick's Sporting Goods did in the moment they wanted to be part of the solution and a part of America. Let us mourn with action.

God bless those who have lost their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reflection and remembrance of the life of Senator Daniel Inouye.

I was deeply saddened to hear of the loss of Senator Daniel Inouye on Monday; his passing marks the end of an era for the people of Hawaii, for the United States Senate and Congress, and for the country. A public servant from start to finish, Daniel Inouye has left a shining, indelible mark on history that will inspire Americans for generations to come.

His story is simply incredible. Daniel was a medical volunteer during the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941. Even though the U.S. Army banned people of Japanese descent from enlisting, and even though Executive Order 9066 authorized the internment of roughly 110,000 Japanese Americans, Daniel Inouye found it within himself to be an American patriot.

Soon after the ban on enlistment was lifted, he abandoned his Pre-Med studies at the University of Hawaii and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1943. He was a war hero in the truest sense of the term, earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the battlefields of World War II before his state was even admitted to the union.

Daniel Inouye was a Lieutenant and Platoon Leader on the battlefield in Tuscany, Italy in April 1945. Even after being shot in the stomach by German machine gun fire, he refused medical treatment and still managed to find the courage to destroy 2 machine gun nests. Nearly losing consciousness from blood loss, he heroically charged a 3rd machine gun nest before having his right arm severed by a German grenade. Somehow, even after these grave injuries, Daniel Inouye still found a way to toss a grenade that destroyed the 3rd bunker.

He remained a proud member of the military until his honorable discharge as a Captain in 1947. He was Hawaii's first Representative in the House, a source of great pride to all Members, past and present.

As Hawaii's first Congressman and, subsequently, as a nine-term Senator, Daniel Inouye embodied the spirit of `aloha' in his work. Serving as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he worked to strengthen our national security and help veterans access the benefits they've earned.

He was a consistent champion for the interests of Hawaii's people. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with Senator Inouye, and my thoughts are with his family and with the people of his beloved Hawaii, who will always remember him for his leadership and his courage. As a Senator, he never forgot his military roots, and has always been a voice for veterans.

Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home state. His fellow Americans will long remember his leadership in protecting our men and women in uniform, strengthening our national security, reaching across the aisle, and investing in a future of prosperity for all.

By his actions, he stood firm for the independence of the Congress, the strength of our democracy, and the values of the American people.

I want to extend my condolences to his entire family as they mourn the loss of a great man.

When asked recently how he wanted to be remembered, Daniel said, quite humbly, ``I represented the people of Hawaii and this nation honestly and to the best of my ability. I think I did OK.'' I think that I speak for us all when I say that this was quite an understatement for a man who accomplished so much and sacrificed so much for this country. And so with heavy hearts, we bid ``aloha'' to Senator Daniel Inouye--a man whose chapter in American history will live on.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012,'' a bill that simply clarifies a provision of the Economic Espionage Act for the purpose of protecting American business and jobs.

More specifically, S. 3642 would broaden language in the Economic Espionage Act so that it protects businesses from trade secret theft to the extent that it was originally intended to rather than the narrow scope applied by a recent Second Circuit court opinion.

In United States v. Aleynikov (April 2012 decision), the Second Circuit overturned the conviction of a defendant who was found guilty of stealing computer code from his employer. The reason for this reversal was that the court determined that the theft of the trade secret did not meet the interstate commerce threshold delineated in the Economic Espionage Act.

Even though the Defendant copied stolen code from his New York office to a computer server in Germany, downloaded the code in New Jersey, and then took the code with him to his new job in Illinois, the Second Circuit found that the stolen trade secret was not part of a product that was produced for or placed in interstate commerce and, therefore, was not the subject of this criminal provision of the Economic Espionage Act.

Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, is essential for fostering innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace.

The fact that the stolen computer code, which was proprietary, was not produced to be placed in interstate commerce should not preclude a guilty verdict from being rendered.

Businesses often spent time and money to develop their own proprietary software to be used internally; if others can steal their idea, it undermines the creator's ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, and the incentive to innovate is reduced.

These innovations add value to the overall business, even if they are not commercial end-products themselves. The language contained in this bill will fix the problem so that trade secret thieves cannot take advantage of the loophole in the Economic Espionage Act.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in honoring and remembering all of the victims of the tragic shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT. My condolences and prayers go to the families and loved ones of the women and children who lost their lives in this senseless tragedy.

I also recognize and applaud the heroic efforts made by the teachers, administrators, and law enforcement officials who acted quickly to secure and protect the lives of the children who survived this deadly encounter.

As the founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have listened to the tragic testimony of individuals who have survived or lost loved ones as a result of gun violence.

The parents and grandparents who dropped off their children and grandchildren in the early morning hours of December 14, 2012, could never have imagined that by 10 a.m. on that morning they would to have face this tragedy.

This moment will be etched in our memories and will forever remind us of other moments like those of Aurora and Columbine. Moments when lives are needlessly lost due to gun violence.

As we unite in grief, it is time for us to unite in finding a solution. Newtown, CT by all accounts is a small close-knit town. Everyone in Newtown was in some way connected to the students, parents, teachers, and administrators from Sandy Hook Elementary School. And if asked, they would all agree that things like this sad occurrence just do not happen in Newtown.

We must join together in recognizing that things like this can happen in any community and we must immediately begin to address the underlying problems that would lead a young man to take up arms against defenseless women and children.

If we act now and work together, we can work towards preventing these types of tragedies. At around the same time that the children in Newtown, CT faced a deranged gun man, thousands of miles away in China, another man also attacked a group of school children. Again, a tragedy that no one in the community could have anticipated; however, because the man in China was armed only with a knife, he wounded instead of killed 20 children. The lives of 20 children in China were spared because their attacker did not have in his possession a gun.

I believe the solution to these acts of violence can be found by taking a multifaceted approach. There are those who will say that ``guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' The statistics for the harm that people are capable of doing with guns to themselves and others is alarming. People are indeed killing people, with guns. We need to reform how we view guns in this country and also how we address mental health challenges in our communities.

We must act now. This is the right moment to demonstrate that the safety of our children is one of our most sacred priorities. It is imperative that this Congress brings to the House for immediate consideration the following gun safety laws.

First, there must be an immediate ban on all assault weapons.

Second, we must close gun show loopholes which allow for the sale of weapons without a background check.

Third, we must reform our current mental health system to provide support for families to enable them to get immediate assistance for mental health issues. In addition, there should be pathways for families who are facing these challenges to gain emergency access to publicly funded or private counseling services.

Fourth, we must look at the design of primary and secondary schools in which these schools may need to have reinforced bullet proof window and reinforced secure entrances.

Lastly, we must expand current state laws to hold adults accountable and responsible for the security their weapons. We can help to prevent tragedies like this one from happening again.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun violence, claims the lives of over 30,000 people For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, approximately 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence.

In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

There were 73,505 Americans treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers--less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns here in the U.S. over the course of 7 weeks rather than 7 years.

Homicide

U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.

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

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.

Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010.

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005- 2010 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

For years, I have introduced and reintroduced gun safety legislation and supported the efforts of my colleagues who have also worked diligently to protect the lives of our nation's children through adequate gun safety.

I re-introduced H.R. 277 the Child Gun Safety And Gun Access Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would prevent anyone under the age of 21 from being eligible to own a handgun and would prohibit youth from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons.

Under this legislation parents and supervising adults will be held accountable if a juvenile is able to gain possession of dangerous firearms that are located in their household.

The statistics are clear, firearms in a household must be properly and adequately stored.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self- defense shooting.

Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3.

A 2009 study found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault.

My legislation also requires a parent to accompany a minor when attending a gun show.

Our focus should also be on the owners of guns. Parents need to keep guns and ammunition out of the reach of teenagers. Parents should be responsible for securing from their minor children access to dangerous firearms.

Further, my bill is a preventative measure, my legislation encourages school districts to proved or participate in firearm safety programs.

It also addresses the underlying concerns related to violence and suicide. It amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support programs to promote mental health services among all children and their families and to provide early intervention services to ameliorate identified mental health problems in children and adolescents. This is a multifaceted approach to address this multifaceted issue.

As in years past, I once again will join Senator Dianne Feinstein in advocating for additional gun safety laws. I support Senator Feinstein's bill which she intends to introduce once again in the 113th Congress to ban the sale of automatic assault weapons and ban the sale of big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's leaderships and will continue to join her in advocating to pass this legislation in the 113th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to do all that we can do to reverse this level of gun violence. We must pass common sense gun safety.

The previous question was ordered.