Carolyn McCarthy

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. It is so important for those that are watching this when you have veterans out there. We have the oral history of our veterans that is going to the Library of Congress. I know projects that I have been doing back home, we have been working with an awful lot of veterans who were prisoners of war, because what you said earlier is so true. Veterans need to be remembered for everything that they have done for this Nation, but certainly there are so many veterans out there that are not honored. I just wanted to say that with your words and talking about your father, and I know that our colleague here probably wants to talk about her dad, who was also in the war. With that, I really appreciate your words, and I really think that all of us should be encouraging our veterans to talk about their experiences so the younger generation does know about it.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would like to thank some of my colleagues who have been instrumental in getting this legislation to the floor today. Chairman Skelton of the Armed Services has done a tremendous job. We were under a lot of pressure to try and have the bill on the floor today, and I appreciate everything that he has done. Also, my good friend Congresswoman Nancy Boyda and Congressman Joe Wilson have been great friends to the glider pilots, and I thank you both for the issues that you have been fighting for. We are here today to honor the glider pilots of the World War II. Glider planes were lightweight aircraft without engines that were used to drop supplies and reinforcement personnel for troops and surveillance. They were effective because they made no noise, and they could fly into enemy areas undetected. The gliders would be towed by larger planes in order to take off, but then would fly and land on their own. The glider pilots flew dangerous missions and were constantly at risk of being shot down. We have heard in the past that some of these pilots that volunteered to be glider pilots were suicidal. They were not. They wanted to fly, and they wanted to be part of protecting this Nation. So they became glider pilots because that was the only way they were going to get into the air at that particular time. Glider pilots were instrumental in the invasion of Normandy on D-Day, despite the fact that pilots had to improvise where to land, since no appropriate landing strips were known to be behind enemy lines. Later in the war, Germans would plant wooden poles in open fields to prevent glider pilots from landing. The U.S. Army Air Forces began training glider pilots in 1941. The program quickly grew during the war. Eventually, thousands of men were trained to be glider pilots. Throughout World War II, the glider pilots flew many successful missions. The glider pilots' first mission occurred on July 19, 1943. Operation Husky, which it was called, called for glider pilots to carry British airborne troops into Sicily. Despite the heavy casualties from landing at sea, the glider pilots did complete their mission. In March of 1944, the glider pilots completed Operation Broadway in Burma. The glider pilots took the Japanese completely by surprise, carrying troops, airborne engineers and equipment by night. They seized and prepared landing strips for forthcoming transport planes to evacuate the wounded. When you think about World War II and you think about the equipment that these glider planes were carrying and how they were able to accomplish this feat as far as making roadways for wounded, they did it in 2 hours, in 2 hours. Completing a mission like that would have taken much, much longer. Usually a trip like that to the front lines to get the wounded back would have taken so much longer by ambulance. Perhaps the most famous mission of the glider pilots was the Battle of Normandy. On D-Day, the glider pilots participated in the largest combined airborne and seaborne invasion in history. They carried troops of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions and their equipment to landing areas behind enemy lines. Their work helped to secure victory in World War II. Madam Speaker, each year we lose more and more of these courageous veterans. We are lucky enough to have a glider pilot in the gallery with us today. His name is Michael Samek, and he is the gentleman that asked me to do whatever I could to recognize the glider pilots. I believe Congress must recognize their accomplishments for future generations. When you think about even the war today that we have, so many of our young men and women and many people are coming home, and they are veterans. From the beginning of time, we have honored our veterans, and I am sure that we are going to find many other veterans that we have not honored, and I hope the committees will honor each and every one of them as time goes on. But that is why I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 42. This bill recognizes the glider pilots and the many troops who put their lives on the line to defend the ideas and the freedoms of this country. All of the glider missions were successful. Unfortunately, casualties were still suffered. Earlier today, ``Silent Wings,'' a DVD on these brave men, was released. Robert Childs, who was the director who became interested in glider pilots, started working on this project almost 11 years ago. I will be sponsoring the screening of the film tonight for all Members and staff. These events help to truly honor the sacrifices and bravery of the glider pilots. I hope you will all join me in celebrating with these veterans. We must remember and teach future generations about the sacrifices that glider pilots and all our veterans made for our country. I urge my colleagues to support the glider pilots and to vote for H. Con. Res. 42. Again, I will say there is not enough that we can do for the men and women certainly of past generations and for this generation that support our country, fight for our country to give us our freedom, and for that, I truly am honored to be able to sponsor this resolution.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as you have heard our colleagues coming down to the well and talking passionately on the anniversary of the Iraq war and the debate that will go later on in this week and a vote that will come on to the floor of the House, I think that this is what certainly the American people want to see; but tonight, Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about something else. We in Congress must keep our eyes and ears open on all things that are happening around us; and today I want to talk about the tens of thousands of Federal Aviation Administration employees that are working without a contract. Most of these workers are represented by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Professional Airways System Specialist, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The FAA under the Bush administration has attacked the collective bargaining process. The FAA has not implemented a single negotiated and ratified contract with any of its contract unions. FAA employees need a fair collective bargaining process restored. Just as this House gave collective bargaining rights to TSA employees in the 9/11 bill, which was the right thing to do, we must do no less for the employees of the FAA. Let me be very clear on this point. Our air traffic controllers do not have a contract with the FAA. The FAA imposed work and pay rules on these individuals last September. There is no Federal law that recognizes imposed work and pay rules as a contract. Morale among FAA employees is extremely low. Retirements are far exceeding FAA's planning. Fatigue among those employees who remain is a major concern, and these are all direct effects of the unilaterally imposed work rules. In 2003, there were over 15,000 air traffic controllers. At the end of 2006, there were barely 14,000. Of the 14,000 working today, almost 2,000 of them are trainees and not fully certified. At the same time, and by no means by coincidence, operational errors are on the rise at the FAA's busiest facilities, including Atlanta-Hartsfield and the Southern California TRAY-CON. Current FAA projections are that by the year 2010, which is only a few years away, 40 percent of the air traffic control workforce will have 4 years or less on the job. This House has a duty to these individuals to a fair process. That is all they are asking for, nothing more, nothing less. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people do not understand the job that air traffic controllers have, yet they have the control of the thousands and thousand of lives on a daily basis. Every single day that people fly, it is the air traffic controllers that are basically controlling the skies to make us safe. And being that we are talking about 9/11, think about what our air traffic controllers did on that day. They brought down thousands and thousands of planes without one incident. They saved so many lives, and yet here the administration is taking away the right for them to earn a decent pay. The pressure that is up in those towers is unbelievable. I have spent time there just to see what that job was like. They are not asking for more or less. All they are asking for is a contract. This House has a duty to make sure that those workers have what is due them.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Wexler and Ranking Member Poe. As the author of H.R. 222, I rise in support, as all of the members of the Friends of Ireland Caucus do. This month, the peace process of Northern Ireland has an opportunity to make great strides. Several significant events are taking place this month. On March 7, new assembly elections were held. On March 14, new members for a power-sharing executive will be nominated. And, finally, on March 26, London will rescind direct rule and restore Northern Ireland's devolved government. It has been a long road to get to this point, but restored progress has been made. Recently, Democratic Unionist Party leader Mr. Paisley, and Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams spoke directly across the floor on the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some people will say this was a small matter. For those of us that have been involved in this issue, it was a great stand. This dialogue is a major achievement in the ongoing peace process. However, there is still much work to be done, and this month is critical to ensure a successful devolution on March 26. President Bush's Special Envoy on Northern Ireland has recognized the importance of this month's events and the need for Congress to help galvanize the momentum to achieve the March 26 deadline. Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell believes a power sharing deal in Northern Ireland is now possible, following the March 7 assembly elections, but believes the U.S. still has a huge role to play in stimulating the investment and the trade in Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I have introduced the Good Friday Agreement. This resolution shows Congress' support for the Good Friday Agreement, commends the efforts of Prime Minister Blair and Irish Taoiseach Ahern and all the parties for abiding by the St. Andrews Agreement. H. Res. 222 further encourages the parties to work in good faith to meet the Good Friday Agreement. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to make a difference in Ireland by helping to make sure that we keep this momentum going. But I think, more important, when we see the troubles throughout the world today, Ireland has always been something that many of us here in Congress have been fighting for to bring both sides together. The people of Ireland want this peace process to go through. It is good for the whole nation. We here in Congress will be going as an envoy to Ireland during the Easter break, hopefully to be congratulating everybody and telling them we will do whatever we can to make sure the government stays up and running. But, more importantly, it is the people of Ireland that have overwhelmingly on both sides said, ``We want the peace process to go forward.'' I urge my colleagues to vote for peace in Northern Ireland and support H. Res. 222.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davis of Illinois and Congressman Westmoreland from Georgia, also. March marks the 95th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. Founded in 1912 by Juliette Gordon Low, with only 18 members, Girl Scouts is now the finest organization for girls in the world, with close to 4 million active members and more than 50 million former members, and I am proud to say I am one of them. Girl Scouts provides high-quality, age-appropriate experiences for girls locally, nationally and internationally that build girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place. For 95 years, Girl Scouts has served girls through a remarkable leadership development program delivered by dedicated volunteers in every community across the country. All programs are girl-driven and provide girls with a wide variety of leadership building activities that promote teamwork and the development of strong decision-making skills. There are many programs to choose from, including more than 70 achievement badges encouraging girls to pursue education and careers in math, science and engineering, an anti-bullying and violence prevention program, and a program that connects girls with their mothers who are incarcerated. Girl Scouts also offer a huge range of outreach activities to girls who have never had the opportunity to be a Girl Scout, including Latina and Native American girls, along with girls in rural communities and in public housing developments. Girl Scouts recognizes the importance of giving a voice to girls by sharing original research reviews that have helped change the dialogue among the media, policymakers and community leaders on issues important to girls. They have released numerous reports that have helped shape policy discussions in this country. In celebrating 95 years of excellence and the significant contributions, Girl Scouts will raise the bar in being the voice for all girls. Help me commend the Girl Scouts of the United States of America for its leadership and expertise in meeting the needs of girls throughout their 95 years of remarkable programs, knowledge and information about girls who recognize the nearly 1 million current adult volunteers and volunteers through the decades. Mr. Speaker, spending time as a Girl Scout when I was a young child I have to say was a wonderful, wonderful experience. Back then, we only worked on homemaking skills. We did things that girls did in the early 1960s, but today I am proud to say that when you see the Girl Scouts working together, serving, certainly volunteerism in nursing homes and helping our elderly, mentoring for those students that need it, they have come a long way and they are on the right track, certainly expanding their horizon for what they are going to do. When they meet with other Girl Scouts internationally, it is a wonderful opportunity so different countries can get to know each other. They are the future of our Nation, and I am proud of them, and I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the glider pilots of World War II. Glider planes were lightweight aircraft without engines that were used to drop supplies and reinforcement personnel for troops and surveillance. They were very efficient, because they made no noise and could fly into the enemy areas undetected. The gliders would be towed by larger planes in order to take off, but then would fly and land on their own. The glider pilots flew dangerous missions and were constantly at risk for being shot down. Glider pilots were instrumental in the invasion of Normandy on D-Day, despite the fact that pilots had to improvise on landings, since no known landing strips were known to be behind enemy lines. Later in the war, the Germans would plant wooden poles in open fields to prevent glider pilots from landing. The U.S. Army Air Forces began training glider pilots in 1942. The program quickly grew during the war. Eventually, over 6,500 men were trained to be glider pilots. Throughout World War II, the glider pilots flew eight successful missions. The glider pilots' first mission occurred on July 19, 1942, Operation Husky, which was called for the glider pilots to carry British airborne troops into Sicily. Despite the heavy casualties from landing at the sea, the glider pilots completed their mission. In March of 1944, the glider pilots completed Operation Broadway in Burma. The glider pilots took the Japanese completely by surprise, carrying troops, airborne engineers and equipment by night. They seized and prepared landing strips for forthcoming transport planes and evacuated the wounded. The glider pilots accomplished this feat in 2 hours, completing a mission that would have taken 2 months by ambulance. Perhaps the most famous mission of the glider pilots was the Battle of Normandy. On D-Day the glider pilots participated in the largest combined airborne and seaborne invasion in history. They carried troops of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Division and their equipment to landing areas behind enemy lines. Their work helped to secure victory in World War II. Mr. Speaker, each year we lose more and more of these courageous veterans. I believe Congress must recognize their accomplishments for the future generations of our veterans. That is why I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 42. This bill recognizes the glider pilots and the many troops who put their lives on the line to defend the ideas and the freedoms of our country. All of our glider missions were successful. Unfortunately, casualties were suffered. On March 20, ``Silent Wings,'' a documentary on these great pilots, will be released. The documentary features interviews with glider pilots, Members of Congress and media icons. I will be sponsoring a viewing of this powerful film on the evening of March 20. I hope you will all join me to commemorate these veterans. We must all remember and teach future generations about the sacrifices that glider pilots and all veterans made for our country. I urge my colleagues to support the glider pilots and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 42.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the conditions that we have been hearing about on the care of our veterans at Walter Reed Outpatient Care. Walter Reed is the first stop for many of our brave men and women returning from Iraq. These soldiers risked their lives defending this great Nation. They have lost friends in combat, and they have seen countless comrades lose limbs and suffer horrible wounds. They expect no reward in return for their bravery. Unfortunately, the treatment they have received when entering the outpatient care is substandard. Conditions at Walter Reed Building 18, even though they are being improved today, should have never gotten to that condition. We have all read reports on the matter; so I will not go into all of the details. Mr. Speaker, if these conditions existed in the public, the authorities would have quickly been notified. However, the mismanagement of care does not end with Building 18. Many of our veterans are lost in the system once they are transferred to the outpatient care. Case files are being lost. Head trauma victims are not receiving the level of managed care they require. Non-English-speaking families are left to navigate through the red tape that exists at Walter Reed and, I am sure, many other veterans' hospitals. The management at Walter Reed is directly responsible for these conditions, and I know those are changing now. But, again, we must make sure this does not happen again. Congress has the ability to improve the situation for our new veterans. We are all aware of the benefits of health information technology. Health IT allows patients to move throughout the health care system in an easy manner. If Health IT was implemented at Walter Reed, our veterans would be able to move from inpatient to outpatient care without the fear that their records would be lost. The benefits our veterans would receive if health IT is implemented far outreach the cost of the system. Many of our Iraqi veterans are coming home with head injuries. Roadside bombs and IEDs are responsible for this increase. These veterans require constant care and supervision. Many of them have lost cognitive abilities. In some of the worst cases, veterans are barely aware of their surroundings. Let me say this: I know a lot about head injuries. Going back 13 years ago, my son was shot in the head, received traumatic head injuries, and he was left partially paralyzed. We were lucky. His mom was a nurse. She knew how to go through the system. He was also lucky that I had training in physical therapy. People understand, he was only 26 at that time, as many of our soldiers that are injured. They don't need just 3 hours of physical therapy a day; they need 4 in the morning, 4 in the afternoon, and then they need their families around them to take care of them in the evening time. It is hard. It is difficult work. But I know our young men and women are able to do this. The families need to be trained on how to work with their children that have head trauma. But, again, it is up to us here in Congress, and I know there are hearings, but we must come up with answers on giving the treatment to these veterans with head injuries and to all our veterans that go through Walter Reed. You cannot expect someone to go onto the campus and think that they are going to remember that they have an appointment the next day. You can't expect them to understand even sometimes where they are at that particular moment. This has been treatment that we know how to give, and why we haven't given it to them I do not understand. I know that Walter Reed is one of the best hospitals in the Nation, as long as you are in the hospital. But when you come out, that is where we are losing our veterans through the cracks. It is unacceptable, and we in Congress have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen. During the Vietnam War, our military came home, and, unfortunately, we did not honor them the way they should have been honored. I thought we had learned our lesson. The brave young men and women representing this country have done a wonderful job, and for us to even let down any kind of health care treatment for them is a black mark on this Congress and certainly on us, the United States of America. I know the President has put a commission in place. I have been around here long enough to know, enough commissions. We need action. We can do it. That is what we are very good at, getting down to the bottom of it and putting in action. We can't have these veterans wait any longer. Let me say this: Every day, Members of Congress get on the floor and say what a wonderful job our men and women are doing. Every day we honor them. And yet all of us have let them down. That is not acceptable. I hope that we will do better in the future. The future has to be now. The time has to be now. We cannot wait 2 to 3 to 4 months for a commission report.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Strengthening unions results in a stronger and more vibrant middle class, which is something we can all support. Madam Chairman, we have heard arguments about how this legislation is taking away a worker's right to vote. Let me make it absolutely clear, this bill does no such thing! It does not take away the voting rights of workers. The bill says that if 30 percent of workers want an election instead of a majority sign up, they get the election. I want people to know, though, that most workers do not want to go through the so-called election process because it is so favorable to the employers. Despite recent arguments from the bill's opponents, we are not talking about anything remotely similar to the American election system. During our election season, we will be exposed to ads on our TVs that we can turn off. With the union elections, employers hold employees captive for one on one meetings with supervisors to listen to anti-union rhetoric. Having someone tell you how to vote on campaign ads over and over again might be annoying. But imagine if it was your boss telling you how to vote with your job hanging over your head. In Committee, we heard about situations where employees have to walk past armed law enforcement to cast their votes. One witness, a Smithfield Foods worker, talked about a time when on ``election'' day, sheriffs officers were dressed in battle gear with guns lining the long driveway leading to the plant. This is not the traditional American election. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and give workers the choices they deserve.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63. Despite the brave efforts of our troops, the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Our troops have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Unfortunately, they are caught in the middle of sectarian violence. From the onset of the conflict, there has been mismanagement and mishandling from this administration. The administration was not prepared for the violence following the removal of Saddam Hussein. In addition, the previous Congress did not do its job. The 110th Congress held the first oversight hearing since the invasion in 2003. That is 4 years without any congressional oversight. I have heard so many speeches here saying that we support the troops. I think everyone, every single Member, supports the troops. Yet all those years that we were hearing from the families and from our soldiers themselves, saying they did not have the equipment, they did not have certainly the equipment to keep them safe, where were we? Where were we as Members in making sure that our military had the best equipment? Since January, we have had 52 oversight hearings on Iraq. It turns out that nearly $12 billion from the American taxpayers have not been accounted for. That is $12 billion that could have been spent on our equipment to protect our troops. Our troops deserve better. The President explained his new plan for Iraq last month. Again, I hear that we must stand by the President. Well, I was one that stood by the President. I voted with the President. I voted for every appropriation for the President, and now he is doing the same thing. It is not working. It has not worked. It is time for a new plan. He called for an increase of 20,000 more troops in Iraq and, unfortunately, I am afraid that this is a little bit too late. We needed hundreds of thousands of troops in the beginning. That is when the generals asked for those troops and they were denied. The truth of the matter is we did this war on the cheap. We did not do it right in the beginning, and now we are all paying the consequences. Throughout the conflict our troop levels have changed. We have sent more troops in when our generals called for them. Then they were made smaller. To no fault of our troops, the extra numbers did not calm the situation. I do not believe that putting more of our brave men and women in harm's way is the solution to this conflict. President Bush emphasized his intentions of placing more authority and responsibility on the Iraqi Government. Well, it is about time. We have spent a lot of money to train the police officers, to train their military, and yet they are not standing up for their own country. Prime Minister Maliki has not proven that he can stop the violence that is going on in his country. That should not mean that our troops should be there. Our troops are trained for a war, not to settle political differences in that country. He has failed to bring equal representations of the Sunnis and the Shiites into the Iraqi Government. This shortfall has fueled sectarian violence, putting our troops in greater harm. Poor planning by civilian leaders within the administration has placed our brave men and women in harm's way. Our troops have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They have served our country bravely and honorably, and we all know that. Many of these troops have served their full tours of duty in Iraq, and they have left behind family and friends to defend this great Nation. More than 3,000 of our men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice, and not one of them, in my opinion, has died in vain because they were doing their duty. We sent them there, and they have lived up to that, and thousands more have suffered debilitating injuries. It is time to shift the burden of this conflict to the Iraqis themselves. We have a responsibility in Congress to make sure that our troops are not put unnecessarily in harm's way. President Bush has made his decisions without consulting enough experts and retired generals. Where was all the information that we needed years ago as far as bringing the experts, knowing what the culture was in the Middle East? That is something that we still are not addressing here. Decisions have not been clearly thought out and our troops have paid the price. And after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that a phased redeployment of our troops is the best option. No one is really talking about Afghanistan either. When we started, we were winning in Afghanistan. When we took those troops out of Afghanistan, we started seeing the insurgents coming in. We can put our troops along the borders. We can stop the insurgents coming into Iraq while the Iraqi Government tries to solve their own problems. We can go back into Afghanistan and make sure that we shore up that country so more insurgents and military equipment are not coming from that country. We must show the American people and our allies, by the way, who are leaving, they are not supporting us, it is not just Democrats and a lot of our Republican colleagues that feel that we should get out. Our strategy has been wrong, it is time to work together, and I am hoping after all these debates, when we come back from our break, we can actually go to our committees and come up with a way to solve these problems, not only for America, but before the world.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the negative impact of President Bush's proposed budget on New York State. New York is consistently faced with a funding imbalance. We receive far less funding than we pay out in taxes. This imbalance has held back projects in key areas. Key programs have been constantly underfunded, and this year's proposed budget again makes the wrong choices for New York's families. Gang violence is a growing problem on Long Island. Our police departments and community groups are doing all they can with this small budget. Unfortunately, these budgets will be further reduced if the President has his way. His budget request attempts to eliminate two of New York's local crime fighting tools: the Community Oriented Policing Service, or the COPS Program, and the Justice Assistance Grants Program. These two programs allow law enforcement agencies to hire police officers and support crime prevention. It is a lot cheaper to prevent crime than it is to send someone to prison. Police departments rely on this money to purchase new technology and equipment, to educate their members on how to best combat issues such as gun violence. In the year 2006, New York received more than $27 million in COPS and JAG funding. If this money is not available, our law enforcement will not have the tools they need to keep our families and communities safe. But it is not just our communities that are put at risk by the President's budget. College assistance programs to help New York students will be slashed if the President has his way. The education of our Nation's students is one of the most important issues facing us today. I have traveled to China and India and have seen the attention those countries are giving to education for their students. We need to do a better job at funding our educational programs to give our students the tools they need to compete in a global economy. However, under the President's budget, key programs such as work study and supplemental educational opportunity grants will be frozen. Tuition in New York State schools have increased over 20 percent over the last few years. These new cuts in student aid will put college further out of reach of so many of the New York students. This is the wrong message to be sending to our students who work hard in high school and dream of going to college. We can do a better job, but we need adequate funding to truly help our students achieve their dreams. As you know, our health care system needs attention also. Over 40 million Americans are without health insurance. In New York 2.5 million are uninsured. In his State of the Union address, President Bush vaguely outlined a proposal to deal with this very issue. I applaud the President for bringing this issue to the forefront of the debate. However, I do not agree with the President's plan. I am afraid his proposal will raise health care costs for New York's working class, while doing very little to help the 2.5 million uninsured. The money President Bush requested for his plan can be better used to lower premiums and truly make health care affordable for all Americans. Since the start of the 110th Congress the House has done the people's work. We have raised the minimum wage, cut student loan interest rates, and helped Medicare beneficiaries. We have changed the focus of our Nation to help all Americans. The President's budget request misses the mark and will harm already underfunded programs. We in Congress must devote more attention and funding to our Nation's education and health care. These issues have been long underfunded for too long. I look forward to working with my colleagues to refocus our priorities and fully fund our educational and health care programs. I know in the next 3 days we are going to be debating Iraq, which I think is probably one of the most important issues facing this Nation. But even with that, we as Democrats will continue doing the work of the American people and finally getting some work done that is going to help all Americans. That is what we as Democrats will do. That is what we pledged and we will follow through with that.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, for the last several weeks you have heard me talk about gun violence in this country, and I happen to think there are solutions where we can reduce gun violence. I would like to talk about firearm tracing data. Firearm tracing data gives law enforcement agencies the ability to retrieve useful data on guns used in crimes. Tracing data will let our police departments locate the gun dealers who sell guns used in crimes. Without this tracing data, local law enforcement will not be able to pursue civil action on suppliers that have been implicated in crimes without asking the ATF's permission first. It is important that we use tracing data to single out the bad gun owners. One percent of gun owners sell 50 percent of the guns used in crime in this country. That is a staggering number. We can crack down on that 1 percent. We can make our streets and cities safer. The collection of tracing data does not prevent anyone from purchasing a gun. It simply gives law enforcement the tools that they need to solve crimes. As you can see by this chart, 91 percent of Americans believe that tracing data should be used in some form to help crimes, 91 percent. Why aren't we doing a better job on helping our police officers do their job? Last week, New York Mayor Bloomberg teamed up with Boston Mayor Menino on this very issue. Together they have formed a bipartisan coalition of more than 120 mayors from across the country. The group has many mayors from the urban as well as the rural areas. These mayors understand the need for tracing data. They understand that Congress has done little to help gun violence and stop gun violence in this country. They are tired of sitting back as their cities lose more and more citizens to gun violence. By the way, they are also tired of seeing the health care costs on those victims that do survive. This is something that we should be dealing with. It is a health care crisis in this country. Last week, they held their annual conference here in Washington. They spoke with Members from both sides of the aisle. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. It is not a pro-gun or anti-gun issue. It is a pro-law enforcement issue with common sense, and it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. We must do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of those that don't deserve to have a gun. That is why I introduced the NICS Improvement Act. This bill will simply strengthen the States. Right now when the NICS system doesn't have the information in it, how can it basically report out who should not be able to buy a gun? My NICS bill will be giving the States the money to bring their computers up to speed, so that way when someone is adjudicated in court, whether it is on a felony or on domestic violence, someone who should not be able to get a gun shouldn't be able to get approved through the approved NICS system. This is common sense. Again, this is a pro-safety issue. It doesn't affect anyone who wants to buy a gun, but it makes this country safer from gun violence. I know it is a very political issue. Everyone is always saying that you are trying to take away my gun. I have never done that. What I am trying to do is save lives; and I am trying to save, certainly, people from being harmed. Our mayors across this great country understand that. We can do a better job. Congress needs to start listening to the American people. These statistics show that gun owners, by the way, approve overwhelmingly of being able to trace these guns. We should be able to do it. We can do a better job. Americans should have a safer country.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated and spirited community leader from the 4th Congressional District, Director of the Uniondale Public Library Susan K. Kern. Susan K. Kern began her library career 40 years ago in her hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts after receiving her Master's degree in Library Science from Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts. Susan spent time working in public libraries in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey before relocating to Long Island, New York in 1981. In 1986, Susan became the Director of Uniondale Public Library. She remained in that position for over 20 years. During her tenure at the Uniondale Public Library Susan was a major factor in several projects and programs that are still in existence today. She was responsible for installing the library's first elevator in 1987, coordinating the removal of dangerous asbestos in 1992 to keep the community safe and healthy. The major project of her Uniondale Public Library career has been the Building Expansion and Renovation project. Beginning in 2003, this renovation took nearly 3 years to complete, ending with a Grand Reopening Celebration on January 8, 2006. This project has doubled the size of the library and has enabled the facility to offer more services and materials for the community. In addition to the great projects Susan has completed, she is also responsible for many programs for the community. Susan has initiated many art exhibits, classes for both children and adults, and countless cultural programs for community members of all ages. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in recognizing the outstanding guidance provided by Susan K. Kern, and the remarkable accomplishments she has made along the way. Together with her family and friends, I applaud Susan for her dedication and service to the community. I wish her continued success, and am honored to have her as a member of my district.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman on the Education Committee. Madam Speaker, I am watching and listening to this debate, and we certainly have had this debate going back into the committee last year. Many of us have said this is only the beginning of what we are going to be doing for our students. When you travel around the world and you look at those students that are going to school and you see what those nations are doing to make sure that their students are prepared for the global economy, I have always thought, what are we doing here? What are we doing here in the United States? I heard that some people say they can go to college without taking out a loan. Well, I wish a lot of my students back home, my constituents' children, could do that. Almost all the students that I know that are going to school have a job and go to school, because that is their dream. Then I hear that this is not going to do anything for our students that are in school. I sit on the Financial Services Committee also, and we know the burden that our young people are facing when they finish college because of the interest rates. We are trying to address that. As I said, this is the first of the things that we will be doing to make sure that our students have the opportunity to go to college, to keep the costs down and help them on every single level. This actually fits, in my opinion, with Leave No Child Behind, which we will be addressing in the committee this year also. We want our students to be well prepared so they are able to go to college, and it fits together, and we are going to make sure that we have a good plan for Leave No Child Behind. I am looking forward to working on that. College education is expensive, and yet we know that our students need to go to college to compete in the global economy that we are facing. This Nation has not stood up to help our students, and we need to do a better job of it. This is the beginning of that. I hope all my colleagues will support this bill.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as the House begins its work in the 110th Congress, we must address the issue of gun violence. Congress has a responsibility to make sure violent criminals cannot legally purchase guns. I am not proposing any new laws or a ban on buying guns. Instead, we must help our States enforce current laws that prevent criminals from buying guns. The NICS system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is the database used to check potential firearm buyers for any criminal records. In large, NICS has been a very good success. Since 1994 more than 700,000 individuals were denied a gun for failing their background check. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information in its database. Mr. Speaker, 25 States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS system. In these States, many felons won't turn up on the NICS system and would be able to purchase a gun with no questions asked. In 13 States, domestic violence and restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system. Common sense would dictate that you don't sell a gun to somebody that has a restraining order. Unfortunately, that is not the case. On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle. His own mother had a restraining order against him as a result of his violent background. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but he simply fell through the cracks. Four days later, Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, opened fire and killed two innocent people. Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him from buying the gun failed. We must fix the NICS system. That is why I introduced H.R. 297, the NICS Improvement Act. This legislation would provide grants to States to update the NICS system. States would be able to update their NICS database to include felons, domestic abusers and other violent criminals. We need the NICS Improvement Act to become law, and we need to pass more bills like it. These ideas impose no new restrictions on gun owners, but give the government the tools to ensure existing laws are effective and enforceable. In fact, the NICS Improvement Act already passed the House in the 107th Congress by voice vote. Last Congress, a Judiciary subcommittee passed the measure. Unfortunately it did not get to the full committee. This is commonsense gun legislation that we can all agree on. This bill will save lives while not infringing on anybody's second amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, I call on Congress to act quickly on H.R. 247. If we can prevent tragedies like this happening throughout the country, we could save lives and enforce the laws already on the books. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring one other subject up. This country is facing a shortage of blood. I would encourage all people in this country to give blood. It is easy, it is painless, and it can save someone's life.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, unfortunately, violence has struck our schools again. Unfortunately, this has been an increasing trend. In the past several years, we have seen countless incidents across the Nation. School violence is not limited to urban areas. Acts of bullying and other violent crimes occur in schools across the Nation on a daily basis. We must do something to stop this growing trend. Our current reporting system on school violence is severely flawed. Under current law, school violence stats are collected through surveys and self-reported data. This data is not the most current data available and does not provide an accurate view of the situation. The FBI has developed a system of reporting that is both comprehensive and up to date. This system is referred to as the NI-BERS System. It collects the data, details of crime incidents, and is a much greater tool to prevent school violence. Accurate data is valuable to addressing this issue. It allows our school administrators to see the true impact of school safety programs and it provides the basis for need-based school funding. In response to these issues, I have introduced the Safe Schools Against Violence in Education Act. My bill, referred to as the SAFE Act, moves reporting data from surveys to real crime stats in the NI- BERS System. This move will allow schools to accurately address school safety issues. It will also ensure that funding is allotted to the schools that need it the most. Our schools do not have the resources that they need to combat school violence. President Bush has constantly cut funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. These cuts have left our already-overburdened schools without the money needed to stop school violence. The SAFE Act will restore funding for our schools through a need- based grant program. Schools that do not have a safe climate will receive grants from the Department of Education. That money will be used to update school safety programs to curb the needless acts of violence and make our schools safer for our children. If we are serious about school safety, we must not only implement new reporting measures but must fully fund our schools. The SAFE Act is endorsed by the National Parent and Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the National School Safety and Security Services. Congress has sat and watched as schools across the country have attempted to deal with school violence with insufficient data and little to no funding. We tried to correct this in Leave No Child Behind. So as we reauthorize Leave No Child Behind this year, I am hoping we will be able to implement a better program. We have an opportunity to change the way we handle school violence in this country and truly make our schools safe. We see and hear every day about the violence, when our children are in school and do not feel safe, and I have talked to so many teenagers and middle school students that say that many times they do not feel safe in school. We can do something, but we need a better way of reporting it.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman of education for bringing this important matter to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I know Congress isn't used to having straight, clean bills. We can do this. Ten years I have been in Congress, and 10 years we have been trying to get the minimum wage raised. We talk about small business. There is not one person on the Democratic side that doesn't support small businesses, but we also support those people that are trying to make a living wage. By estimates, there are 623,000 single women raising families trying to make a living. I go to the grocery store. I fill up my gas tank. We are very privileged here to make a very nice salary. Yet we are denying those that need our help the most to give them some sort of life. $7.25. Who the heck can live on that, even if you work 60 hours a week? And, by the way, these people that are working these jobs on minimum wage usually have two jobs, sometimes three. It is time that we do this. It is the moral and right thing.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, you know, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, we are all working people, working with the staffs on the Republican side and the Democratic side. Here we are. There is a change. None of us know whether we are going to be reelected in 2 years. That is a risk that we all take. But for the staff who have worked so hard for all of us on all of our issues, we certainly should be looking at this as positive legislation. I have worked so many times with my Republican colleagues with their staff members and we have worked certainly well together on so many issues, but that is not the point. The point is these are people that have devoted their lives to public service. We don't even pay them enough. Any one of them can go into the private sector and earn a heck of a lot more money. So here we are at the end of a session, 11:00, almost 12:00 at night, and we are going to deny severance pay to those who have served this country so well. I urge my colleagues, no matter what our differences are, these people have done great service to this Nation and they certainly deserve severance pay. I hope that this Congress and certainly the Members here will put themselves in a position of what their staff might be 2 years from now. These are people that are devoted to each and every one of us. They have served each and every one of us. They have served this Nation. I hope we can pass this resolution and give them a severance pay.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Stewart Manor School for having received the prestigious Blue Ribbon School award. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes schools that make significant progress in closing the achievement gap or whose students achieve at very high levels. Stewart Manor School has high expectations. It ranks in the top 10 percent in the State of New York in math and English scores. Stewart Manor School has proven it has outstanding instruction, teacher training and student achievement. The future of this country depends on the hopes and dreams of its children, and our community and our Nation are enhanced by the contributions of high achieving students like those at Stewart Manor School. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and admiration I offer my thanks and recognition to Stewart Manor School.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, last month the people voiced their opinion of the 109th Congress. Their message was loud and clear. It is time for common sense, and I hope we can follow the people's lead and pass some commonsense legislation coming this January. I am particularly interested in commonsense legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on anyone's second amendment right. When it comes to commonsense gun laws, the Congress has a dismal record. Thus far this Congress has given corrupt and incomplete gun dealers immunity from negligent lawsuits. This Congress has made it a crime for two police departments to share information from ATF's ballistics database. This Congress has tied the hands of law enforcement during times of disaster and has made it possible for guns to be brought into hurricane shelters. But next year I am hoping for a fresh start when it comes to commonsense gun laws. Last spring our Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security approved H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. That is a bill that I had introduced a number of years ago. This is a bill that would improve the effectiveness of the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database used to check firearms buyers for any criminal record or other disqualifying criteria. Overall, the NICS has been a great success. Since 1994 more than 1.2 million individuals have been turned down because of a failed background check. NICS also provides the vast majority of honest gun sellers with peace of mind in knowing that they are selling their products to citizens who will use them safely and legally. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that is put into it. And, unfortunately, many States do not have the resources necessary to enter all of their disqualifying criteria into the NICS system. This is thanks, in part, to the many unfunded mandates this Congress has imposed upon the States. The end result is that felons and others who are not permitted by existing law to buy guns are passing background checks and buying guns through legitimate means. In fact, 28 States have automated less than 75 percent of their criminal history records. In 15 States domestic violence restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system. Mr. Speaker, each year we see thousands and thousands of people dying because of gun violence. We see so many more being wounded because of gun violence. We have a chance to enforce the laws that are on the books, but we need to help the States get the money to computerize the information that they have. We can save lives, number one. We can cut down on health care costs. And all that can be done by passing the NICS Act. The bill was passed a couple years ago. Unfortunately, the Senate ran out of time. In January we here in Congress will be working 5 days a week; and I am hoping with that we will have the time to pass the laws that this country expects us to do, bread-and-butter issues to make us safe, to help the economy. We can do this. And I am hoping that the Judiciary Committee will bring up the NICS bill, pass it this year, and get it over to to Senate so that we can pass it there and have the President sign it. The people spoke on November 7 and we here in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, will be working together. We have very large issues in front of us, but let us not forget about the small issues also, those quality-of-life issues for our constituents. Let us show America that we can do better. This Congress, this next Congress, will do better, and we will do a better job.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Higher Education extension. I am pleased to see that it includes bipartisan language that provides student loan forgiveness to the spouses of first responders lost or disabled in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This year marks the fifth anniversary of 9/11. I first introduced this bill in October, 2001; and I am pleased to see that we have worked together to finally pass this provision. This is long overdue and will provide welcome financial relief to families most affected by 9/11. Many of the heroes of 9/11 left behind families who had to contend with the loss of a loved one and tremendous financial obligations. The victims who died or were disabled on 9/11 had their loans forgiven, but that is not the case for their spouses. Anyone who loses a spouse faces severe financial challenges. This bill will help those who relied on their spouse's income to pay off students loans. This bill also works with parents who took out loans for their children's education. Mr. Speaker, I really would like to say thank you to Ranking Member Miller and his staff for the work they have done, as well as Chairman McKeon and his staff for the hard work they have done. I truly appreciate working with them and look forward to next year when we work together to pass the higher education bill. I also thank Mr. Kildee for helping me out on this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Again, working on the Education Committee, we have a lot of challenges. We always face a lot of challenges. But in the end I think we will hopefully work together again when we come back in January and pass some good legislation. I think everybody cares about the children of this Nation, and together we will make it even better.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the incorporation of Mineola, NY, my hometown. I've lived in Mineola for over 50 years and I am proud to be a part of its centennial celebration. The Village of Mineola was originally part of the land claimed by Henry Hudson for the Dutch East India Tea Company in 1609 and was settled by farmers in 1637. On June 12, 1858, the area was first called ``Mineola,'' derived from the Algonquin word ``Meniolagamika'' which means ``a friendly or pleasant village.'' Mineola has been the proud home of Nassau County's government since 1900, when New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt laid the comer stone of the county courthouse on the comers of Old Country Road and Franklin Avenue. Since its incorporation, Mineola has been a center of culture and commerce for people from all of Long Island throughout its history. Today, Mineola is home to more than 20,000 residents, a thriving local economy and a strong sense of history and community. Mineola has changed since my family arrived, but progress hasn't changed the spirit of its people. The fact that so many who grew up in Mineola end up raising their own children there is a testament to what a special place my hometown is. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the entire House join me in congratulating the Village of Mineola on its first 100 years of incorporation. Happy Birthday, Mineola.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, in my 10 years in Congress I have never seen a bill with a more misleading name than this legislation. Instead of modernizing or reforming the ATF, it makes it tougher for ATF to crack down on illegal guns. I know the vast majority of gun sellers are honest, and we know that. But why does Congress feel the need to protect the small minority who sell guns illegally? This legislation ties the hands of the ATF in its dealings with 1 percent, you have heard that figure before, 1 percent. Why aren't we going after that 1 percent? I know the mayor of New York has been trying to go after that 1 percent, because in New York that is where the illegal guns are coming from, this 1 percent, and they are killing our police officers, they are killing our citizens. And you wonder why some of us get so up in arms about this. We should be giving the ATF the tools to crack down on these illegal guns. The bill relaxes recordkeeping requirements by no longer requiring dealers to properly maintain the records. Not maintaining the records. Again, it was said by my colleague that we should be enforcing the laws on the books. All of us agree on that, and there is not one of us that is trying to take away the right of someone to own a gun. But, again, the NRA comes down here, and we hear on how many people have signed on to this bill. Actually, more than that will be there because they are petrified of the NRA. Why? Because the NRA will organize their members and basically just go after that Member if they dare to vote against them. But even if the ATF is able to revoke a corrupt unlicensed dealer, this bill gives the dealer 60 days to sell off the remaining inventory. How crazy is that? You know, we hear constantly that we are after DWI drivers all the time. And if a tavern is proven to be selling constantly to underage drivers, they lose their license. They don't have any time to sell off all their liquor. I mean, let's have a little common sense here. I mean, we seem to be going backwards constantly in going forward in trying to protect our police officers and certainly our front liners out there. Proponents of this bill will tell you that it is to protect honest gun sellers who are unfairly targeted by the ATF. I don't know why the gun dealers aren't standing up and saying let's go after these unscrupulous gun dealers. They are the ones who are giving them the bad name. The current law already protects honest dealers. In fact, while the ATF regularly uncovers illegal acts of gun dealers, it is very rare that it is able to revoke their license. In fact, and the last we have is from 2003, the ATF found violations at more than 1,800 gun dealers in 2003. The ATF found an average of 80 violations. That is not an overlook, 80 violations, that is someone that is committing a crime at these gun dealers, but only issued license revocation notifications at 54. The ATF is doing its job. It is looking at who the bad guys are and going after them. It is clear that only the worst violators lose their licenses. Every gun dealer who acknowledges selling a gun to a criminal reflects poorly on the entire gun industry. It is in the best interests of the gun industry that dishonest and negligent sellers are forced to shut their doors. This is a misguided piece of legislation that allows a small minority of corrupt gun sellers to continue to sell guns to criminals without penalties. You know, we are starting to see crime go up continuously in our small communities, in our cities. We are seeing guns flooding our streets; we see gangs being able to buy guns illegally. Where are they coming from? Where are they coming from? Our police departments are seeing statistics going up constantly, and especially from 2005 to 2006. We have seen more police officers die in the line of duty killed by illegal guns. Why aren't we doing something to crack down on the illegal guns? That is what this country should be doing; that is what this Congress should be doing, and not certainly backing down to the NRA because we have an election coming up. This is juice for all their members. It is crazy. You know, this debate on gun violence certainly since I have been here has gone backwards and backwards and backwards. We talk about how many people have died every year because of gun violence. A lot of that is accidental deaths, a lot of those are certainly guns that people have in their homes. No one even talks about the survivors, how it is costing this health care system over $1 billion a year because of gun violence. We can do a better job. We should be doing a better job.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional individuals at Baldwin School District, an institution which renders significant contributions to the educational development and social enrichment of youth. The future of this country depends on the hopes and dreams of its children, our community, and our Nation, and is enhanced by the contributions of those who serve as mentors and those who make mentoring programs safe and strong. The Baldwin School District and its leadership have promoted and supported mentoring programs through an innovative partnership which brings together dedicated teachers, businesspeople, and community volunteers with students. Baldwin's programs have been a bridge of understanding which have highlighted the talents and determination of its young people and the devotion of the teachers, businesspeople, and community volunteers who give their time and commitment to mentoring. The mentoring process brings benefits to youth, the caring adults who guide them, and by extension to the community, the business world, and the region, and Baldwin's innovative mentoring program is outstanding. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and admiration I offer my thanks and recognition to the Baldwin School District.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, yesterday this country certainly was there to remember 9/11. Back in my district on Long Island where I lost so many families, so many of the firemen and so many of the first responders, it was a sad day for all of us. The wonderful thing was that America again came together. The wonderful thing was that the communities came together to be there for the families. What I would like to talk about is that we have forgotten, though, the heroes. We have forgotten those that have physical injuries still today and certainly health care issues that they are facing. But I also would like to talk about the children, the children that lost their parents. I have a wonderful center in my district called the World Trade Family Center, and it has been a godsend for so many of my families that come there on a weekly basis that children, sometimes even more, receive psychological, friendship care, training for their parents on how to deal with grief, because I know a lot of times people don't know how to handle their grief. But I think the thing that bothers me more is that with the World Trade Family Center, they don't have any more money. I am scrounging around to try to find grants to keep this center open, because a lot of times people don't understand that when you go through a tragic event like 9/11, the first year, the second year, basically you are just on automatic reflex. It is the third and the fourth year that it starts to sink in on what's happened to them and their families and how their lives have changed forever. You know, everyone keeps saying we will never forget. Well, unfortunately, we are forgetting. When I see my first responders come into my office, they are having an illness that is taking them away from their job, and many of these men and women are very young. But because they were there for 9/11 and the weeks that followed, and a lot of my union workers that were down there, cleaning up with all of their heart and soul, trying to find survivors, and then just recovery, we as a nation say that we will always be there for you, and yet the money has run out. I think this Nation, this country, the American people who gave their hearts and souls after 9/11 by donating blood, donating their time, sending money into all the different organizations, and that money was used, and it was used in a very good way. But when I look at the World Trade Family Center, that looks like it is going to be closing its doors because it doesn't have the funding, and it is just starting to reach the children, you have to understand the children, and you have to understand victims. A lot of times they wear masks so that if somebody says how are you doing, they automatically say, I am doing fine, I am doing okay. If you ask a child, they will say, I am doing okay. I can tell you from experience they are not doing okay. But my concerns for the children, because they are just coming to grips now realizing that their father or their mother is never going to be there again. They do a lot of art therapy there, and I have, back in my district office, a number of paintings that our young children have done. I brought with me today three drawings by three children who lost their parents. I know it is hard to read, and even harder to see, but these children are still feeling pain, and they are going to be feeling pain for a long time. We as Americans must realize that what happened on 9/11 doesn't go away even in 5 years, and it doesn't. We as Americans have to come together to be there for most that, unfortunately, are suffering today under no fault of their own. We, as Americans, I know, keep giving, but it is also my opinion the responsibility of Congress to make sure that we take care of these people. Jerry Nadler, a colleague of mine from New York, and certainly Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, my Senators from the Senate, have been fighting to make sure that there are funds there to be taken care of, and yet we are seeing here in Congress we don't have enough money. We don't have enough money? We don't have enough money to take care of the children? We don't have enough money to take care of the firemen, the police officers, the first responders? Now we are even seeing those that went into the buildings to do cleanup are coming down with these lung ailments. Mount Sinai Hospital has been working with us here in Congress. When we first met with them years ago, and by the way, my background is as a nurse, we thought we would have 10, 15 years to take care of these problems. We see these illnesses taking place. We as Americans can do better. We should do better.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank my friend, the Reverend William A. Watson of St. John's Baptist Church in Westbury, New York, for offering the opening prayer before the House this morning. He is someone who is truly worthy of this honor. Reverend Watson is also the head of the Eastern Baptist Association. He is not only a leader in his congregation but an asset to all of Long Island and the entire New York region. Whether it is keeping young people from joining gangs, helping people gain job skills or improving access to health care, Reverend Watson is a tireless advocate for those in need. Mr. Speaker, I salute Reverend Watson for his great work.