Carolyn McCarthy

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking on the 109th Congress. There is not much time left to pass commonsense gun legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on anyone's second amendment rights. When it comes to commonsense gun laws, the Congress has a dismal record. Thus far, this Congress has given corrupt and incompetent gun dealers immunity from negligence lawsuits. This Congress will make it a crime for two police departments to share information from ATF's ballistics database. This Congress has tied the hands of law enforcement dealing with gun-wielding mobs during times of disaster, and it has made it possible for guns to be brought into hurricane shelters. But now this Congress has a chance to redeem itself a little bit. Last spring, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security approved H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act, and the full committee markup is scheduled for tomorrow. This is a bill that would increase the effectiveness of the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database used to check firearms buyers for any criminal record or any disqualifying criteria. Overall, NICS has been a success. Since 1994, more than 1.2 million individuals have been denied a gun 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 their guns legally. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that the States provide, and unfortunately, many States do not have the resources necessary to enter all of their disqualifying criteria into the NICS system. 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 record history. In 15 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not accessible through NICS. Those and other loopholes have cost countless people their lives. It is only a matter of time before the system's failings provoke more tragedies. We must improve the NICS system and allow it to do what it was designed to do. The responsibility for accuracy and effectiveness of the NICS system ultimately belongs to the States. However, many State budgets are already overburdened. This legislation would provide grants to States to update the NICS system. States would be able to update their system, their database, to include felons, domestic abusers and others not legally qualified to buy a gun. The bill's goal is to have all 50 States enter at least 90 percent of their disqualifying information into the NICS system. States that don't comply or fall short of these goals will be penalized with a 5 percent reduction of their Federal Department of Justice grant allocations. Also, the bill would provide grants for State courts to promptly enter information to the NICS system. For example, when someone is served with a restraining order stemming from domestic violence, an inefficient NICS system allows him or her to leave the courthouse and head right to the gun store. My bill would make sure all prevailing court records are entered into the NICS database before a crime of passion can be committed. It is important to keep in mind this bill does not infringe on anyone's second amendment right, which I support. It creates no new gun laws. It simply gives States the resources to better enforce the current laws. If H.R. 1415 becomes law, law-abiding citizens who want to buy a gun legally will not experience any delay at the point of purchase. This bill poses no new burden on gun sellers or owners. In fact, I first introduced this bill in 2002 with my friend and colleague Mr. Dingell of Michigan, who is well-known for his strong support of gun rights. This legislation passed in 2002. Unfortunately, the other body didn't have time to take it up. This is something that we can actually get passed. This is something that we should be passing. We see gun violence becoming more prevalent lately. I know. In my own Long Island district suburban area, over the weekend, we had many gun violence incidents. We are seeing more robberies with guns. These are illegal guns. We must enforce the laws that are on the books so we can save lives, and especially those that do survive these horrible tragedies so that we don't run up the medical costs of this country. Mr. Speaker, the debate on guns has been going on for a long time, and I understand that this body is nervous about the National Rifle Association, but we have to do what we can to protect the citizens of this country by making sure that illegal guns don't get into the wrong hands. It may not be a perfect bill. We are not going to be perfect in anything we do here, but we can certainly do better, and we should be doing better.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Big Oil has another great quarter while the consumers are gouged at the pumps. Mr. Speaker, the numbers are already pouring in. All week, Big Oil and Gas will tout their profits during the second quarter. The real question now is, will they break the records of the first quarter, more than $16 billion just for the Big Three. B-P announced its profits earlier this week, bringing in $6.1 billion during the second quarter. We will hear the rest of the numbers later this week. Mr. Speaker, America can do better. We have the technology. We have the willpower. But we have to work together. It is basically Democrats that actually have the answers on what we can do to reduce oil prices in this country. This isn't short term. It's long term. We need to work together. We need to get this done. Consumers at home are hurting. Middle-income families are hurting when you have expensive oil on Long Island where I live, $3.29, it has been that way for quite a while, and that is only for the economy fuel. It is raising our fuel prices. It is raising everything. And they wonder why the economy, which is supposed to be, quote, doing well, our middle-income families are not. They are hurting.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, once again, number one, I want to say that I stand by the remarks of my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), but once again, this Congress is waging a war on common sense. House leadership accuses the New Orleans Police Department of going door to door confiscating guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but the superintendent of the department states that this was not the case at all. Does anybody really think that after a disaster of that magnitude a police department's first priority is to go door to door and harass gun owners? Of course not. Police merely arrested people who were breaking the law on the streets of New Orleans. They were doing what they could to stop the looting and the sniper fire that slowed down the rescue workers. They never entered homes with the intent of collecting law-abiding citizens' guns, and by the way, we do not believe in that. We do not believe in going into someone's home without due cause on getting someone's gun. This latest scheme to appease the gun lobby will tie the hands of our police officers during times of crisis. The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense, and this bill does not do it, not even for the future. This bill allows guns in emergency shelters, provided the guns are legal. What if the gun owner does not have his license with him? Is the Red Cross official supposed to conduct background checks on gun owners to make sure they are legal? Can you imagine the chaos if loaded guns were allowed in the Superdome during Katrina? Again, it defies common sense. Everyone agrees that the government failed when responding to Hurricane Katrina; but instead of addressing the real shortcomings revealed by Katrina, the House chooses to make our first responders' jobs more difficult in the critical hours following a natural disaster or even a terrorist attack. This Congress has already cut funding to police officers and firefighters. Congress refused to make sure that the most at-risk communities received their fair share of homeland security funding, and now Congress is giving looters and criminals the upper hand in the aftermath of disaster. It is time for common sense. Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible bill. Madam Speaker, I now want to address some questions to the manager of H.R. 5013. To my colleague from New York (Mr. Kuhl) may I ask, Would this bill permit a person to bring a gun into a rescue shelter? I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Taking back my time, I understand that, but I know there are 17 States that already do not have any laws on the books. So the Federal law would not supercede what you are trying to do. May I ask another question. If a State law gives a Governor or mayor broad powers under a state of emergency, may that official order temporary confiscation in the name of public safety? Or must the State law be specific? I yield again to the gentleman from New Orleans.

Mrs. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for that answer, and one more question. Who is liable in any lawsuit authorized by this bill? Is it the officer who confiscates a gun or the city or the State? The language, even though I know you worked to change the language, is still a little bit confusing. I will state my question again: Who is liable in any lawsuit authorized by this bill? Is it the officer who confiscates a gun or the city or the State? Can the Federal Government be sued if the confiscation is made by a Federal officer? Can a person seek monetary damages in addition to the return of the gun? I yield again to the gentleman.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Reclaiming my time, and let me follow up with what you had just said. Because the language in the bill, as it stands right now, there is not really a clarification on that, and I hope that we can work on that.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today I want to honor Tim Friedman, who will be retiring after 30 years of service in the Democratic Cloakroom. My staff and I rely on the Cloakroom on a daily basis. The Cloakroom staff is reliable and knowledgeable and serves as the voice of reason during often chaotic times on the floor. Tim Friedman was a big part of the Cloakroom operations and I know my colleagues and I will miss seeing him everyday. But his retirement is certainly well-earned and I hope he enjoys the next chapter in his life.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 years, ago I voted against Medicare part D, and after the leadership held the vote open for 3 hours, it did pass. Since that day, part D has never failed to disappoint its supporters and its detractors. First, we learned that part D would cost almost twice as much as Congress was originally told. Next came the confusing enrollment process. So many seniors had no place to turn. In New York seniors had 46 plans to choose from. Seniors recruited their children and grandchildren and their Congress people to help them navigate the confusing on-line application process, but they had problems figuring out which plan was the right plan for them. While hosting town hall meetings on part D last year, I encountered many seniors who were thinking about not even enrolling in a plan because the process was just too confusing. Today, many seniors are locked into plans that offer too little or too much coverage. Part D's faults are compounded by the fact that seniors were locked into their plans for a year. But providers could drop certain drugs from their plans without consequences. Finally, after months of confusion, seniors are finally getting some relief on prescription drugs. But not as much as they could be. Medicare still isn't allowed to negotiate prices with drug companies like the VA can. And seniors can't reimport drugs from Canada to reduce costs either. But part D's biggest problem is about to emerge. Many seniors are about to discover the plan's doughnut hole. Mr. Speaker, the doughnut hole most people didn't understand, but it is the gap in the coverage that part D enrollees face when they purchase $2,250 worth of prescription drugs in a year. Once seniors hit the doughnut hole, they will have to pay for their next $3,100 worth of prescription drugs. Only after paying that money will their coverage continue. The saddest part of the doughnut hole is that a great many of the seniors aren't even aware that it exists. We thought, in my district anyhow, that it would be late August before people would start reaching the doughnut hole. Unfortunately, in my area, we are getting the phone calls now. And since Medicare isn't allowed to negotiate with drug companies, seniors will pay the usual inflated prices for their drugs while they struggle to come out of the doughnut hole. So soon many seniors will be back in the same predicament they were before part D. Some will have to decide whether to pay their bills or purchase prescription drugs. Others will put their health at risk by reducing their dosage in order to afford their medication. And many will have to spend their way out of the doughnut hole every year for the rest of their life. The doughnut hole isn't just the result of bad legislation, it is a threat to our public health. Seniors will take less drugs than they are prescribed to avoid falling into the doughnut hole. Part D penalizes seniors who take a lot of medication. Seniors essentially get fined over $3,000 for buying prescription drugs they need. It is absolutely absurd. It is time to fix part D. It is time for a prescription drug plan that puts the interests of our seniors and the disabled before the interests of big drug companies. Mr. Speaker, let's start listening to the seniors who attend part D town hall meetings on Long Island and across the country, instead of drug lobbyists. In the next few weeks, thousands of seniors will be getting an unexpected bill for more than $3,000 for Medicare. Let's fix part D. It is time for a simple, affordable and guaranteed prescription drug plan for our seniors. Part D has caused nothing but headaches for seniors since Day 1. And now it threatens to penalize them for taking their medication. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we couldn't have worked bipartisanly, because I actually do think that we could have solved this problem by working together. Unfortunately, politics got in the way of policy. I was hoping, as I held my seminars in my district, I did not come out and say anything negative. I said, I am here to help you get through it. It is the law of the land, and I will continue to do that. But to put our seniors through this is wrong. We should come up with a better idea. We should fix Medicare. We should make it easier for our seniors.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York for allowing me to speak on this, and I also want to thank my colleague from Florida, who has been a sponsor. We actually had a trip of women that went to Iraq and saw firsthand how important it is for the Iraqi women to have a voice. Historically, Iraqi women were extremely well educated, but the educational suppression brought on by Saddam Hussein led to the illiteracy rate of women rising to almost 75 percent. After Saddam was ousted, Bushra Jamil, an Iraqi who was living in Canada, saw an opportunity to empower the women of Iraq as it transitioned to democracy. Bushra returned home and created Radio Al Mahaba, the Middle East's only radio station for women. The station became so popular that they were broadcasting, as my colleague had said, 16 hours a day in three languages, Arabic, Kurdish and English. While we take radio shows that cater to women for granted, this was a revolutionary concept in the Middle East. Women who had been oppressed for years were finally able to hear their side of the story. The radio station provided a forum for women to make sure their voices were heard. The station received 100 calls a day from women asking questions, giving advice and voicing their opinions on the rebuilding of their country. The radio station had found an audience, and they were now financially sustainable through sponsorships. But last October, unfortunately, the radio station fell silent. The terrorist attack on the Palestinian hotel in Baghdad destroyed their transmitter. And while the station was not the target of this attack, many leaders in Iraq were not all upset that these women's voices were silenced. They found another transmitter, but it wasn't as powerful as the one they lost during the terrorist attack. This new transmitter could only reach about a third of their listening audience. Fewer listeners meant less sponsorship revenue for the station. Unfortunately, the rented transmitter broke down about a month ago, and they are in desperate need of funds to get back on the air. Once they receive this funding, they plan to expand their listening audience to include all of Iraq and its neighbors. They are also planning on broadcasting in Persian to reach the women of Iran, who have been oppressed for nearly 30 years. The radio station can be the place for women in Iraq and throughout the Middle East to learn about the issues that will affect their lives. The right to educate one's self and to be heard are cornerstones of our own democracy, and these characteristics should be carried over into the new Iraq. The station's 28 full-time and part-time staff risk their lives every day by going to work. These people are Iraqi patriots, and I am confident their sacrifices will be rewarded. Mr. Speaker, I recently had a chance to speak to President Bush about the station and he was very enthusiastic about the role it will play in a democratic Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this station and the resolution. I would like to thank members of the Iraqi Women's Caucus and the International Relations Committee. I would also like to thank Representatives Osborne, Tauscher, Granger, Solis, my colleague from New York, Mr. Ackerman and, of course, my colleague from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for their strong support of this station and this resolution. This has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I hope we can continue to work together. Mr. Speaker, with all the bad news that is coming out of Iraq, we must recognize those who are really trying to make a free Iraq. Democracy takes a long time. We can do this, but we all must work together.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, this body's war on common sense continues. Before the Independence Day recess, the House approved two amendments to the Science, Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill that promote irresponsible gun ownership and discourage police departments from working together to solve gun crimes. Last year the House passed legislation that would make sure that gun locks are included with all handgun sales. Last month the House stripped away that provision. Gun safety locks can save lives. I agree with the proponents of these measures that most gun owners are responsible and store their guns safely and securely. I am not worried about these gun owners. Many responsible gun owners already voluntarily equip their guns with safety locks. Gun locks are needed to prevent accidents with the minority of gun owners who are not responsible. And while the pro-gun lobby does not like to talk about it, yes, there are irresponsible gun owners out there. Last month in New Jersey an 11-year-old found his grandfather's gun and killed his 12-year-old best friend. A gun lock that you can purchase online for less than $7 would have prevented this tragedy. According to the CDC, 151 children died of accidental shotgun wounds in 2003. Mandatory gun locks would have saved some of those children's lives. Gun locks prevent stolen guns from being used in crimes. Opponents of mandatory gun locks cite that the cost of gun locks prevent gun ownership. That is truly nonsense. This is like saying the added cost of air bags and seat belts prevent people from buying cars. And, again, trigger locks are relatively inexpensive. Seven dollars could save a child's life. Mr. Speaker, is a $7 gunlock really infringing on second amendment rights? Of course not. I wish I could say that the amendment stripping away the gunlock provision was the only nonsensical amendment to the Department of Justice appropriations bill, but it was not. Once again, this bill would have made felons out of law enforcement officials who share ATF gun tracing information with police departments in other jurisdictions. The ATF's gun-tracing program helps local police solve gun crimes by analyzing the unique marks made on bullets and cartridge cases when guns are fired. The images of these markings can be compared with other images in more than 200 Federal, State, and local law enforcement laboratories. But this appropriation bill would have made it a crime, a crime, for a police department to share information from the database with another department. Say a police department in my district on Long Island obtains ballistic information from the ATF and a similar shooting occurs in New York City. The Long Island department could not share that information. In fact, an officer who did share this information would be arrested. This is absolutely insane. Instead of cracking down on criminals using guns, this provision would treat police officers like criminals. To paraphrase my friend, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, it is a god-awful bill. Again, some Members of this body put their allegiance to the NRA above common sense. The tracing program provides law enforcement agencies with valuable information about gun trafficking that can prevent crimes from happening. Tracing helps the public identify gun dealers and traffickers who are supplying illegal guns in our communities. But this provision would prevent the use of trace data as evidence in any State or Federal court or any nonATF administrative procedure. This provision cuts local law enforcement out of the loop. Without this tracing data, local law enforcement officers will not be able to pursue gun suppliers that have been implicated in crimes without the ATF's getting involved first. And we all know the ATF does not have the resources to get involved in every civil issue regarding gun crimes. We let our police departments go after taverns that serve underage drinkers, but Congress will not allow them to crack down on the 1 percent, 1 percent, of dealers in this country who sell guns involved in 57 percent of the crimes. Mr. Speaker, it is time for common sense. I hope the other body and the eventual conferees who will determine the final version of this appropriation bill will exercise more common sense than the House did last month. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 10 years. I have never put any legislation forward that would take away the right of someone to own a gun. I am here for gun safety issues. I am here to save lives. I am here to keep down medical costs. I am here to protect our communities. We can do better. And we can with commonsense laws.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will take up H. Res. 784, a resolution I introduced that honors Radio Al Mahaba, an Iraqi radio station that offers the Middle East's only programming for women. The station began broadcasting on April 1, 2005, as an educational tool for the women of Iraq. Historically, Iraqi women were extremely well educated, but the educational oppression brought on by Saddam Hussein led to the illiteracy rate for women rising to 75 percent. Saddam's regime drove women back to confinement and the extremists restricted them with harsh rules and practices, mostly imported from Iran and Saudi Arabia. After Saddam was ousted, the women of Iraq needed some way to reach out to all women nationwide, to talk to them directly and provide help. Bushra Jamil, an Iraqi who was living in Canada, saw this as an opportunity to empower the women of Iraq as it transitioned to a democracy. Bushra returned home and created Radio Al Mahaba. Once the station began broadcasting, the response from Iraqi women was astonishing. Radio Al Mahaba programs included news, call-in talk shows, covering various legal, health and educational topics, as well as music programs. The station became so popular that they were broadcasting 16 hours a day in three languages: Arabic, Kurdish and English. While we take radio shows that cater to women for granted, this was a revolutionary concept in the Middle East. Women who had been oppressed for years were finally able to hear their side of the story. And Radio Al Mahaba provided a forum for women to make sure that their voices were heard. The station received 100 calls a day from women asking questions, giving advice and voicing their opinions of how to rebuild their country. The radio station had found an audience, and they were financially in good shape as well from new sponsorships. But last October, Radio Al Mahaba fell silent. The terrorist attack on the Palestinian Hotel in Baghdad destroyed their transmitter. And while the radio station was not the target of this attack, many leaders in Iraq were not all that upset that these women's voices were silenced once again. But the women of Radio Al Mahaba were resilient. They found another transmitter, but it wasn't as powerful as the one they lost during the terrorist attack. The new transmitter could only reach about one-third of their listening audience. And less listeners meant less sponsorship revenue for the station. Unfortunately, the rented transmitter died about a month ago, and they are in desperate need of funds to get back on the air. Once they receive this funding, they plan to expand listening audiences to include all of Iraq and its neighbors. They also plan on broadcasting in Persian to reach the women of Iran, who have been oppressed for nearly 30 years. If democracy in Iraq is going to succeed, women will have to play a role, a vital role, in making sure that it goes forward. The radio station can be the place for women in Iraq and throughout the Middle East to learn about the issues that will affect their lives. It allows them place to be heard without often violent consequences for the first time in their lives. The right to educate yourself and to be heard are cornerstones of our democracy, and these characteristics should be carried over to the new Iraq. At this point in Iraq's history, the station is in the midst of a battle. But not just a military battle, but also in the battle for Iraqi women's rights against fundamentalists. The station's 28 full-time and part-time staff risk their lives every day to make sure that the voices are heard. Despite this terrible risk, they are all very dedicated because, in one of the staffer's words, ``they want to reach out and touch people's lives. They want to give hope and knowledge, empowerment support and the passage of freedom to Iraqi women.'' Mr. Speaker, I recently had a chance to talk to President Bush about this station and he was very enthusiastic about the role it will play in democracy in Iraq. It is my hope that the passage of tomorrow's resolution honoring the radio station will raise awareness and find funding for the station so they can continue their message of hope to the women of the Middle East.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, The Voting Rights Act was established to end decades of oppressive tactics used to deny millions of African- Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans from exercising their right to vote. Forty years later, it is clear that the Voting Rights Act was one of the most necessary and effective civil rights laws ever enacted. Without it, America would be a very different place. While great progress has been made since 1965, much work is left to be done. There are still people out there who want to suppress the vote of certain groups and this legislation will make sure no voter is disenfranchised. It will take more than 40 years of the Voting Rights Act to undo more than 100 years of Jim Crow. Prior to the law's enactment, members of certain communities faced countless impediments to voting such as poll taxes, harassment, intimidation, and even violence when attempting to participate in elections. It is important to remember that these shameful tactics were not exclusive to the South, but common throughout the entire United States. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, there are more than 9,000 African American elected officials in the United States today, as opposed to only 1,479 in 1970. These numbers would have been unthinkable 40 years ago. In order for democracy to thrive, everyone must have the right to vote, regardless of race, religion, or income. It is not only the responsibility of every American to vote, but also to ensure everyone is allowed to exercise to participate in the electoral process. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 worked, and Congress must allow it to continue to work for future generations.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing once again that there are rumors going around that in January, when we come back and there is a new Congress, depending on who is in control, that we are going to be looking at privatizing Social Security again. We understand that the Republican Party wants to make it their top priority. The American people have already said ``no'' to this shortsighted plan. The money and trust fund belongs to the people who put it there, and they are entitled to guaranteed benefits. They don't want to use this money to gamble on the risky stock market. Those in favor of the Republican plan say that privatizing is the only way to save Social Security. Granted, the fact that people are growing older does mean Social Security needs to be strengthened. But in reality, Social Security can be saved with small changes, and we have time to make sure we do it right. As it stands today, the Social Security trust fund will begin taking in less in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits in 2018. That is 12 years from now. But even if Congress doesn't act, the Social Security surplus won't be exhausted until the year 2040. That is 34 years from today. And the worst case scenario is that 74 percent of benefits would still be paid. If the Republican plan is enacted next year, they won't be able to guarantee benefits in 2008, let alone 2040. In addition, these projections are based on an anticipated lower rate of productivity and economic growth than the U.S. has experienced during the last 20 years. If the U.S. maintains its current economic growth or grows at a faster rate, the trust fund surplus will expire at a later date. While I believe Congress needs to act soon, we don't need to do it in haste. Instead of radically changing our retirement safety net, we should follow the lead of former President Reagan. In 1983, President Reagan appointed a commission headed by Alan Greenspan and saved Social Security for the next 60 years. I urge President Bush to put aside his dreams of privatizing and do the same. Many Republicans won't want to hear this, but President Reagan's commission raised payroll taxes to save Social Security. But I believe we can come up with a better solution today. There is a middle ground between raising taxes and privatizing. Let's put our experts to work on finding this middle ground and creating a stronger Social Security. Everybody accepts that Congress needs to act to strengthen Social Security for the next generation of seniors. But any plan that cuts guaranteed benefits is a nonstarter. It is a nonstarter because the centerpiece of the Republican plan, to privatize portions of Social Security does nothing to address the program's long-term challenge, which is to make sure Social Security can pay full benefits for future generations. Privatizing means less money going into the Social Security trust fund. The President's plan means fewer benefits for more retirees. The President has yet to disclose how he would pay for this plan. Conservative estimates price the plan at over $2 trillion, driving the country deeper into debt and burdening future generations with the bill. With our current national debt, a multitrillion dollar expenditure would almost certainly rely on selling bonds to foreign countries for financing. I am not comfortable with China, Japan and the European Union controlling the purse strings of our retirement benefits, and neither are the American people. We should encourage individuals to invest money for retirement, but this should be done outside of Social Security. Social Security was never intended as the only source of income for retirees. It was designed as a safety net to ensure no retiree or disabled person falls into poverty. We simply cannot bet the future of Social Security on a risky privatizing scheme. Mr. Speaker, let's not make a hasty decision on Social Security that we will live to regret. People have to understand that Social Security is a lifeline for so many of our seniors. When we look at today, the people that are working at minimum wage, when we look where we see pensions not really being there for the American people, we need to certainly make sure that Social Security is there. Widows with children, it is the difference between being able to stay in their home, feed their children or becoming homeless. People say, well, if we privatize, it will save the government money. In the long run, I honestly don't believe it will. I have too many friends, women friends that have been married or widowed, that never had to work. Now they find themselves with nothing but their Social Security. And it is not even enough to live on, especially in New York. We must save Social Security.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue a little bit on what my colleague from Illinois was talking about. We are seeing an assault on middle-income families across this Nation. Today I would like to join my fellow nurses across the Nation in standing up against another assault against our rights. The Bush administration National Labor Relations Board's rulings in three cases, known as Kentucky River, could strip nurses and thousands of other workers of their right to belong to a union. Two years ago, Congress stopped the Bush administration's efforts to classify nurses and other employees as supervisors in order to prevent them from receiving overtime pay. Those classified as supervisors do not have protected rights under Federal law to join or to form unions. Mr. Speaker, I spent 30 years as a nurse; and I can't tell you how many times I was appointed supervisor for the evening. Under the classifications that are coming down today, so many of our nurses would be losing their overtime. When we see our nurses, we are finally getting people to go into the health care fields, and now we are doing this to them, where they are not going to have the protections. As American families face record gas prices, rising interest rates and higher cost of living, the Bush Administration once again is trying to make people work harder for less money and for less benefits. In recent cases the National Labor Relations Board has taken away workers' protections, workers' rights including the rights of disabled workers, temporary employees, and graduate employees. This summer could bring more such decisions from the Bush labor board. The ``Kentucky River'' decisions could strip hundreds of thousands of workers of their rights under Federal labor law. These decisions could potentially affect workers in a wide range of industries, including health care, building, construction, energy broadcasting, and port shipping. Those at risk of losing these Federal law protections are skilled and experienced workers who, as part of their jobs, give instructions to lesser skilled and experienced workers. As I said, I had done that for many years. Nurses and others should not be penalized for helping those with less experience. If workers lose their protections as employees under Federal law, they may be fired or otherwise disciplined for union activity. They will lose the freedom to choose to join or remain a member of a union, and they will lose their ability to have a voice on the job. For example, for nurses, union membership provides a voice on the job and protections needed to be effective patient advocates. A nurse with a union works with confidence to make tough calls to be a strong patient advocate when patient decisions need to be made. Patients need a strong voice to stand up to those who put the bottom line before a patient's health care. But these decisions will not affect just nurses. Others affected include foremen on construction jobs like my brother, Tommy, or those who work with a team of workers who could lose their union rights under a broad definition of ``supervisor.'' Many a time I have seen people like my father, who became a supervisor to teach the younger workers on how to weld something. This is what teachers do. It does not matter what field you are in. The older you are, the more experienced you are, you want to take the younger workers under your wing. Thousands of painters, welders, sheet metal workers, plumbers, electricians, and others could lose their right to be in a union. Workers deserve to be heard on this issue, which is why tens of thousands of union members have asked their Members of Congress to appeal to the labor board for an opportunity to provide oral arguments. Uninterested in hearing from working people, the Bush-appointed labor board has refused since 2001 to hear oral arguments in any case. In fact, this is the only 5-year period in the last 25 years in which the board has not held any oral arguments. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to join hundreds of thousands of nurses and other workers to stand up and fight together for accountability from the Bush's labor board. Together, we can make sure these hard-working Americans can have the union representation they deserve and are entitled to. Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of people forget what the unions have done for this Nation. I think a lot of people forget that it was the unions that basically brought protections. When you think about our coal miners that have been killed in the past year, union representation could have protected them. We in Congress should have been doing that. We have OSHA to protect our workers where hundreds of thousands of people are injured every single year, and yet we see a total eroding of the middle-income families. Let me tell you what I fear the most: that we are going to have a two-tiered system, the very wealthy and the poorest of the poor. We as Americans can do better.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, with that being said, you have to remember, we are not forcing anyone to use the lock. We are trying to educate them to save lives. It is a commonsense law. Hopefully, everybody will oppose this amendment.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation was passed, it was passed with the help of 70 bipartisan Senators. With that, we had many strong certainly gun rights Senators voting for the amendment. We talk about gun safety. We talk about trying to certainly save and prevent as many injuries as possible. We talk about, you know, having it mandatory when you buy a gun. But we are not asking mandatory that the person use the gun lock. The whole idea was, hopefully, educational-wise, as we do with so many other products, we will have that gun owner use it. Many gun owners use storage locks. And that is great. We are trying to reach out to more. I have nurses around the country that actually go to gun stores and hand out gun locks like this. They are not expensive. They are $5 to $7. We have seen safety issues certainly at the forefront, helmets for kids when they ride their bicycles. That has saved a lot of head injuries. When we look at the health care issues on gun violence, unfortunately, especially to children, we see a lot of money in the health care system being used. It is just one other step to hopefully bring down certainly medical care costs in this country, but also more importantly than ever before, certainly work with children to save their lives. In this past week, we had an incident in New Jersey. A 12-year-old unfortunately got hold of a family gun. Playing with it with his friend, he shot and killed his friend. It was an accident. It was an accident that certainly could have been prevented. I happen to think that when the Senators on the other side voted, and by the way, this House also voted for the bill, to pass it with the gun safety locks mandatory in that legislation, it is one more thing. Is it a perfect answer? No. We do not have perfect answers. Since I have been here, I have been trying to convince people that I am not out to take anybody's right to own a gun. But I also talk to an awful lot of gun owners. And they understand the responsibility that they have. Now, if someone buys a gun and it is mandatory to have a gun lock with that gun, they can choose to use it or not to use it. I hope that if they choose not to use it, they would at least give it to someone that would. As I said, my nurses, they do not have large budgets. But because they work in the emergency rooms and because they are the ones on the front line when these young kids come in, we have done, in my opinion, a very good job on bringing down the number of deaths with children, especially those under 18. To take away something that this Congress and certainly the other body felt was important enough to put into legislation is something that I think that we should be fighting for. I hope that my colleagues will oppose this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think we are trying to change the debate again. Again, it is about gun safety. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, because of the storms in the Northeast and numerous flight delays over the past two days, I was not present for Rollcall No. 319, to prohibit consideration of the minimum wage increase, No. 320, the Coast Guard and Maritime Authorization Act, and No. 321, the Veterans COLA bill. Rollcall no. 319, ``nay''; rollcall No. 320, ``yea''; rollcall No. 321, ``yea.''

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, due to travel restrictions I was unable to vote on H.R. 4843, the Veterans Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006. If I were here I would have voted in favor of the legislation. A cost of living adjustment is the least we can do for our veterans. They, and their families, sacrifice a lot to protect our freedoms and rights. Our nation has a responsibility to take care of our veterans. Surviving spouses of veterans whose deaths were service-connected and their children will benefit from the increase. We must remember when a soldier dies it is our responsibility to take care of their family. It is our duty. I am hopeful that this is the first of other increases for our veterans. We would all like to see more funding for healthcare and other programs but unfortunately the House leadership doesn't place the emphasis on funding as strongly as I do.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I oppose the Rule, because it prevents an amendment offered by Representatives Obey, Hoyer and Mollohan to phase in over two years an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. Madam Speaker, millions of hard working Americans are barely earning enough to support their families on the wages they are being paid. Some of these people are single mothers, and some are working several jobs just to make ends meet. Madam Speaker, the proposal to raise the minimum wage is a modest one and it is phased in over time. Department of Labor figures show that the minimum wage was at its most valuable in 1968, and since then its value has fluctuated, but it has never been lower than it is now. In January 2006, it would have needed to be increased to $9.05 to equal the purchasing power of the statutory minimum wage in 1968. There has been no raise in the minimum wage in almost ten years, and minimum wage increases over the years have not kept up with increased prices. I have always, and will continue always to support a reasonable increase in the minimum wage, and since the Rule sought to prohibit an amendment to do this, I oppose this Rule.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today, Tuesday, June 27, I was delayed in my arrival for the week's legislative work, but had I been here I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 890, rollcall 319, approving the Rule for H.R. 5672.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4973 is necessary but not sufficient. It is necessary because the hurricanes and flooding in 2004 and 2005 have shown that the present flood insurance programs must be reformed. It is not sufficient because those same hurricanes, especially Hurricane Katrina, convinced me that flood insurance alone will not protect the millions of Americans who now live in harm's way along our Nation's coasts and rivers. I had the privilege of visiting the Gulf Coast earlier this year. I saw the devastating impact of wind and water on homes, on businesses, and on lives. I also heard the horror stories from people who were told that the damage to their lives was caused by water and not wind. In these cases, neither flood insurance nor homeowner's insurance protected them. Others indicated that officials told them they didn't need flood insurance because they were not in a danger zone. It is time for Congress to go beyond the traditional approach of distinguishing between flood and wind damage. We have to develop a comprehensive natural disaster program that will protect homes from hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural disasters that one day will affect 49 of our 50 states. Insurance companies know that a disaster can occur. Some companies already are refusing to insure homes on Long Island and in other communities where a ``big one'' is overdue. The hurricane of 1938--the so-called Long Island Express--killed 600 to 700 people, destroyed 75,000 buildings and caused $300 million in damage. At that time, Long Island was the home to 600,000 people. Today, 2.8 million live there. A category 4 hurricane could cause $100 billion in insured damage alone. Earlier this year, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) and I asked the Financial Services Committee to conduct hearings as soon as possible on the disaster insurance bills before the Committee. Our letter stated that ``We believe that Congress needs to pass a strong reinsurance program. Natural disasters can occur in any region at any time. Since the insurance industry appears unable or unwilling to provide protection for our constituents, then it is time for Congress to act swiftly and positively.'' The initial response indicated that we should wait until after the GAO completes its study of natural disaster insurance needs later this year. Fortunately, the real facts of Katrina, a number of extensive newspaper investigations, and the airing of several ``what if' programs on cable TV are opening eyes even here. The Housing Subcommittee is holding its second hearing tomorrow (June 28) on natural disaster insurance needs. This one will focus on ``The Housing Market and Natural Catastrophes.'' I am convinced that this country needs an insurance program that will cover all natural disaster risks. If properly crafted, this program, will reduce the amount of emergency funds that Congress will have to provide after the next emergency, whether it occurs in the Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, Southeast, or Gulf Coast regions. I want to encourage the administration, all financial services companies, state and local officials, and this body to work together and to develop a comprehensive and responsible natural disaster insurance program. The policy should be priced according to the risks of that state; it should cover all major natural disasters. It must be mandatory and cover both homes and businesses. States need to update and enforce building codes and to require mitigation both before and after a natural disaster. Finally, the federal program would be a backup for private reinsurance. These are the goals that I will pursue. The House should pass HR 4973 today. Then, we must turn our attention to the larger disaster insurance issue. The American people cannot afford to add another $20 billion or $50 billion or $100 billion natural disaster relief program to the deficit, not when a fiscally sound alternative may be within reach. Tomorrow may be too late.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a little while about retirement security. More and more when I am home on the weekends, I am having more of my seniors coming up to me and talking about their nervousness about the talk about changing Social Security next year in 2007. They are also concerned about Medicare because a lot of them are starting to reach that doughnut hole that is in the Medicare part D part. A lot of people are concerned. They have worked hard all of their lives, and they are basically saying why are you guys down in Congress doing this. We have worked hard, we have put our money into Social Security and Medicare. And I try to reassure them. Last year, Democrats from across the country, the congressional Democrats, came out to the districts and talked to people about why they needed to get out and have their voices heard. We believe in Social Security. I know certainly some of my friends who are on Social Security now, they need that money every single month. A lot of them are widowed, and the pension that they thought they were getting is not there any more. So Social Security is giving them that little safety issue. I think we have to bring back again why we have Social Security. It was basically to make sure that people would not go into poverty. It was not meant to be a retirement fund. It was never to be a retirement fund. It was supposed to be insurance to give you a little bump to make sure that you could pay the rent and heating. I can say we as Democrats are going to fight to make sure that we do protect Social Security. I think it is important that people remember people with disabilities also get Social Security. Or those who, unfortunately, have lost their husbands at an early age and have children, they will be getting Social Security and their children will be getting Social Security. I know that going back just about 13 years ago when my husband died, I couldn't imagine how was I going to make it. Well, we did make it and I was lucky that my son was able to recover and that we didn't have to ask for Social Security. But I know a lot of my friends had to because they had young children. This is what it is, a safety net. It is a safety net for all Americans. So I can say that I certainly pledge for all Democrats that we will protect Social Security. I think people have to understand the scare about taking away Social Security. We are good for Social Security for many, many years down the road. And we are probably going to have to tinker with it as time goes by to make sure that the next generation and the generation after that has Social Security. There are many that say let's have savings accounts. I am all for savings accounts. I think Americans don't save enough. Those that are old enough and have parents coming through the Depression learned at an early age, even if you put $1 a week away, or $2, it is something you have for the future. I happen to believe in saving. Even here in Congress, I try to put away money so when I retire one day, I will have the comfort of knowing I will be able to pay my monthly bills, and I think that is what most senior citizens want to know. But when we talk about and when you look at the stock market, certainly in the last couple of weeks, it has been up and down like a roller coaster. We all remember in early 2000 when people lost 35 percent of their holdings in the stock market, and many are just starting to recover now. We can't take that kind of chance with Social Security. Social Security is supposed to be something that is safe that the government is going to back. That is something that is extremely important for many of us. Certainly I know my mom and dad when they retired, and this is going back even 15 years ago, they needed that Social Security. That was the only thing they had to live on. Certainly their children helped them out, but it gave them dignity to be able to pay their own bills, and there are many parents that feel that way. They don't want to be a burden on their children. I have pledged that in 2007 when we all come back and this debate on Social Security starts again, I pledge that the Democrats will be fighting to save Social Security. But also pensions. We have seen so many of our people around this country losing their pensions. I know that some corporations say they can't afford it any more. They want to go into a 401(k). Well, I think a 401(k) is fine, but what is happening to us as Americans? What happened to the companies that basically backed us? If you were loyal to your company, you had benefits. I am going to continue talking about this in the next couple of weeks because I think it is important that Americans know about it.