Carolyn McCarthy

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to speak out of turn.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, with so many things going on here in the House, I think it is important to remind people a year ago Democrats, all Democrats from this House, went across the country to talk about why we needed to make sure that Social Security stayed the way it was. We are hearing rumors already that in January of 2007 that they are again going to try to attack Social Security. May I remind the American people how important Social Security is, not only to our seniors who need it to keep them out of poverty, but also to our widows who are taking care of children, for people with disability. Social Security is the one plan that has worked since it was conceived here in Congress. Democrats will protect it. I will fight for it. The American people have answered a year ago. We want Social Security. With everything that is going on here in the House, just remember, Democrats are keeping their eye on everything.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, you have heard many of my colleagues talk about the debate tomorrow on Iraq and the war that we are facing. We also have a war going on in this country that unfortunately is very quiet, and that is the shooting and killing of people throughout this country. Most people don't realize how many people die on a yearly basis because each newspaper reports it but we don't hear all that information nationwide. There are answers on how we can get there to stop this kind of killing. Last month the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security approved my bill, H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. This is a bill that would increase the effectiveness of the existing national instant criminal background check system, the database used to check potential firearms buyers for any criminal record or any other disqualifying criteria. Hopefully, the whole committee will take up this important piece of legislation soon so it can pass both Houses before the 109th Congress adjourns. Overall, NICS has been a very good 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 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 it contains. 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 history records. In 15 States, domestic violence restraining orders, which are a disqualifying offense, are not accessible through the NICS system. These and other loopholes, of course, have cost people their lives, including two of my constituents. On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle from a legitimate gun dealer in New York. He had a history of mental health problems, and his own mother had a restraining order against him as the result of his violent background. Mental adjudication and a restraining order are both NICS disqualifying issues. Yet Peter Troy's NICS background check turned up no red flags. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but like so many others, he simply slipped through the cracks in the NICS system because of lack information. Four days later Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, my district, and killed two of my constituents. Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him from doing so simply failed. It is only a matter of time before the system's failings provoke larger tragedies. We must improve the NICS system and allow it to do what it was designed to do. The responsibility for the accuracy and the effectiveness of the NICS system ultimately belongs to the States. However, many States' budgets are already overburdened. This legislation would provide grants to States and update the NICS system. States would be able to update their NICS database to include felons, domestic abusers, and others not legally qualified to buy a gun. The bill's goal is to have 50 States enter at least 90 percent of their disqualifying information into NICS. States that do not 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 into 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 relevant court records are entered into the NICS before a crime of passion can be committed. It is important to keep in mind that this bill does not infringe on anyone's second amendment rights, which I support. It creates no new gun laws. It simply enforces the laws that are on the books. 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. And this bill proposes no new burdens on gun sellers. In fact, I introduced this bill in 2002 and it was passed here in the House. I am hoping that we can pass this bill rapidly. We have the opportunity to stop this small war in this country, and we can save lives, which is the most important thing.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would eliminate funding for the IFI. The violence in Ireland has devastated families and too many men, women and children have lost their lives. The road to peace has been a long one with many bumps in that road. But, Mr. Chairman, we are making progress. By all indications we are on the verge of peace, which is nice for a change. Now is not the time to cut this important funding, as it has been critical in the peace efforts and it is still needed particularly in places like Belfast. Cutting U.S. funding now would send a message that the IFI is not internationally supported. It is important that the people in Ireland who are working toward peace know that they have the support of the United States in these efforts. I understand that my colleague will offer and withdraw this amendment. Having said that, I strongly oppose this amendment and will oppose any future similar efforts. Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to an amendment offered by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite to H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. The proposed amendment would effectively cut $10.8 million in funding for the International Fund for Ireland from the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for FY 2007. The Fund was created by the Irish and British governments 20 years ago to foster economic and social advancement and to encourage dialogue, contact, and reconciliation between unionists and nationalists throughout Ireland. The Fund appropriates its money to address the root causes of deprivation in the most vulnerable regions by using shared economic concerns as a platform for regeneration and cross-community activity. If the Fund was dissolved, its pioneering work with children and youth throughout the North and border counties would end just as there is progress towards the implementation of the Good Friday Accords. A termination of U.S. funding would undermine the perception of the IFI as an internationally supported body and may impede its ability to secure funding elsewhere. The IFI has been integral in the progress towards peace and prosperity throughout Ireland, acting in good faith to employ successful measures to alleviate areas of disadvantage. It is with our help that the IFI can continue to achieve these praiseworthy goals in the future. I hope my colleagues join me in opposition to this amendment so that together, we can move towards peace and prosperity for all of Ireland.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk for a moment about a radio station in Iraq called Radio Al Mahaba, which is giving Iraqi women a taste of freedom of speech. It is the first and only station for women in the entire Middle East and the only politically and religious independent radio station in Iraq. This station started in April 2005 using a $350,000 grant from the United Nations Development Fund for Women. As we know, under Saddam Hussein, women lost not only vast employment opportunities, but also educational opportunities. The illiteracy rate of Iraqi women rose to a high of 75 percent, according to UNICEF estimates. The recent changes in the social and political structure of Iraq have also been difficult on Iraqi women. The radio station was created in order to empower and educate women. When they started, they were broadcasting throughout Iraq, including in isolated areas discussing issues important to women, and also discussing the goals of freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, insurgent attacks knocked out their main transmitter. In spite of that and a shoestring budget, the people who worked at the station continued on broadcasting in Baghdad. Last week their remaining transmitter, which was rented, failed. However, with the help of the Iraqi Civil Society Program implemented by America's Development Foundation and funded by the U.S. Agency For International Development, it looks as though they may be able to rent another transmitter and get back on the air soon. Of course, a more permanent solution is needed. They need a transmitter so they can again broadcast throughout Iraq and have a goal of reaching places like Iran. Iraqi women are fortunate to have this radio station, and it plays an important role toward achieving a free and democratic Iraq.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for her willingness to engage us in a colloquy.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend a dynamic educator, Hilari Cohen, from my home State of New York. For the past 7 years, Ms. Cohen has served on the Jericho Board of Education, and is the longest serving school board president in the district's history. During Mrs. Cohen's tenure on the Board of Education, Jericho has achieved a great deal. Here are just some of the things she has accomplished: expanded the middle/high school complex, introduced an elementary school world language exploratory program, introduced a middle school intramural program, instituted anti-bullying and character education programs, implemented a Social Emotional Literacy program, created an Industry Advisory Board, began a Public Access Defibrillation program, which includes the training of all coaches and administrators in first aid and Automatic External Defibrillation, expanded guidance, psychologist and social worker positions on all grade levels, developed a District wide Safety Team, named among the 100 Best Communities in America for Music Education, implemented paperless communication between the school and home, and improved the Regent's Diploma rate from 80% in 1999 to 100% in 2005. She has been honored by the Council of Administrators and Supervisors for her outstanding leadership and contributions to the Jericho School District. Her colleagues have said her role as the Board President over the past 7 years has been pivotal to success of the district. Ms. Cohen has worked tirelessly and selflessly to ensure that students get an educational program beyond compare. She truly believes in success for every student. I am proud to honor this distinguished and accomplished educator, Ms. Hilari Cohen.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor mentor Charmaine Robin, and her mentee, Chris John Garcia, who have received as Spotlight Awards from MENTOR. This mentoring pair was nominated by Baldwin School District, in my district in Baldwin, New York. They were selected from nearly two hundred nominations from across the country. For more than a decade, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership has been working to expand the world of quality mentoring. The idea is that with the help and guidance of an adult mentor, each child can discover how to unlock and achieve his or her potential. The mentoring program provides an answer to the many students who feel that no one cares about them and that they are cut off from our economic system. Prior to being matched with Charmaine, Chris was not participating in activities in schools, and was not making future goals for himself. With the help and advice of his mentor Charmaine, Chris became involved in many school activities, such as Future Business Leaders of America and Varsity Track, and has challenged himself with honors and advanced placement courses. Chris plans to pursue a career in Physical Therapy. MENTOR determined Charmaine and Chris are a truly an outstanding match and that they demonstrate the positive impact mentoring can have on a young person's life. I agree, and I could not be more thrilled to commend Charmaine and Chris for receiving the Spotlight Award, and for their achievements.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Permission to speak out of turn.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, last week the Centers for Disease Control released a report on the economic burden of injuries in the United States. The results were astonishing. Every year injuries cost our economy $406 billion in health care, lost wages and lost productivity. The report goes as far as to list specifics on many different injuries; however, there is no listing on the costs of gun violence. The public might ask how could the CDC avoid gun violence when listing the causes of serious injury in this country? The answer is simple: Congress won't let them. That is right. Congress, in 1996, following the lead of their benefactors in the gun industry, refused to allow the CDC to report on the economic impact of gun violence. Independent studies show the cost to be nearly $100 million a year, but we can never be for sure because our government is prohibited from researching this public health issue. In fact, the report on the CDC's Web page has a section dedicated to fireworks injuries, but no space dedicated specifically to firearms injuries or deaths. So the CDC can release information on a cause of injury that kills an average of four people per year, but not on the cause of thousands that are killed by gun violence every year. However, the CDC cannot completely avoid the topic in its report. The report lists the top 10 causes of death among certain age groups, and, of course, homicide is prevalent, and of homicides of Americans more than 44 years of age, more than 10,000 were attributed to gun violence in 2003. In 1 year there were at least 10,000 people murdered with guns, and Congress won't allow the CDC to study how much these murders cost our economy. Again, this defies common sense. The CDC isn't allowed to reveal how many Americans survive shootings, like my son did, each year, which adds an additional billions in cost to our economy as well. Gun violence is an epidemic in this country, and Congress is trying to stop us from learning the true impact of this public health crisis. This is a case of our government controlling the flow of information to protect the special interest group. What are they afraid of? Is the congressional leadership afraid that if people know how much gun violence costs our economy, they would call for commonsense gun legislation? If people knew this information, would congressional leadership be forced to pass laws to keep military assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists? Would they be forced to stop passing legislation that protects the 1 percent of gun dealers who are responsible for selling 50 percent of the guns used in crimes? Mr. Speaker, the American people have the right to know this information, and let the record show that the release of this information will have no affect on the right of law-abiding citizens to be able to own a gun. But the release of this information might help pass commonsense legislation that will make sure criminals and terrorists cannot legally buy guns, or allow for law enforcement agencies to share information of ballistic evidence. Mr. Speaker, let's give the CDC the go-ahead to study this issue. The release of this information will make our Nation a safer, better place, and won't place a burden on the right of law-abiding American citizens to exercise their second amendment rights. This past week it has been 5 years since Columbine. In the last 48 hours, we have seen many schools come under attack. They were prevented because our police got the information. We should allow also the CDC to be able to study why our young people are going to violence to commit and murder, 14, 17, 20 of their friends in school. Mr. Speaker, gun violence is a health care crisis in this Nation, and until this Congress wakes up, until this country wakes up to be able to do something to reduce gun violence in this country, there are better ways that we could spend the money, certainly helping Medicare, certainly helping the poor get the health care that they need, looking at wellness centers instead of waiting too late until people are sick. We can do something about this, but the American people need to know the facts and figures. It is only right that we do that.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, women live longer and have more health problems associated with aging. They also tend to have less retirement income, which affects their ability to deal with rising health and energy costs. As a result of these factors, the cuts proposed by this budget will affect women especially hard. This budget would cut Federal healthcare programs aimed at those who need them the most. The burden for covering those who would otherwise be uninsured would be pushed to State and local governments who simply do not have the resources to provide adequate healthcare coverage. The proposed budget cuts Medicaid spending by $17.2 billion over the next 5 years, through shifting costs to beneficiaries and to State governments as well as cutting payments to healthcare providers. This budget will force those who rely on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to accept cuts in benefits or require State and local governments to raise taxes to pay for these new responsibilities. Medicaid is the vehicle for seniors to pay for long-term care and I fear that these proposed cuts will force many nursing homes and other facilities out of business because of their reliance on Medicaid reimbursements. Long Island has already seen hospitals close their doors because of cuts in Medicaid reimbursements. We cannot afford to have nursing homes suffer the same fate. The budget also proposes cutting the Medicaid reimbursements for generic drugs by $1.3 billion, school-based services by $3.6 billion, and funding for the disabled by $1.2 billion. I am committed to fighting these cuts. This budget places the burden for the Federal Government's fiscal irresponsibility on our children, seniors, and the disabled. I will work with my colleagues to restore funding to these critical healthcare programs.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to take the time of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, every week I stand here and talk about commonsense approaches to reducing gun violence in this country. And yet this body sees fit to chip away at existing gun laws. So tonight I want to talk about the effects of gun violence in terms that everybody in this body can understand, dollars and cents. Throughout America, our States are experiencing extraordinary budget problems, forcing them to cut spending on many important initiatives. A great deal of these budget woes are caused by skyrocketing health care costs, and the continued cuts to Medicaid aren't going to help the situation. Of course, Congress will not allow funding for the Centers for Disease Control to study the true economic cost of gun violence, so we have to use data from independent sources. Independent sources have shown gun violence costs our economy over $100 billion every year. In fact, each gun death costs our economy $2.8 million. Gun violence increases law enforcement spending. Gun violence costs the economy billions in lost productivity. And while Congress won't let us learn the exact amount, gun violence costs our health care system more than $2 billion every single year. Since gun violence plagues so many low-income communities, victims are often uninsured. And who picks up the tab for uninsured victims of gun violence? American taxpayers, that's who. So even if you don't think about gun violence as an important issue, you are paying for it. It is obvious something must be done, and it is also obvious that this body has no plans to intervene in this public health crisis. So it is up to our local communities and neighborhoods. Across the country people are fed up, but they are trying to make a difference in their own area. I have been to many events that have had politicians, school officials, law enforcement officers and others telling young people about the dangers of guns. But not once has anybody turned the microphone around and asked the kids what do they think. So many young people live on the front lines of the gun violence epidemic. The rhetoric on both sides of this issue must stop, and we must start to learn to listen. This isn't about the second amendment; this isn't about kids dying. Many of the people who disagree with my views on the gun issue will say, Guns don't kill people; people do. But what that doesn't mean is we can't take steps to make sure guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people. This isn't about taking away guns from law-abiding citizens who hunt or shoot skeet, nor is it about depriving law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families. In fact, we can save so many lives without affecting a single lawful gun owner in this country. This is about keeping guns away from felons and gang members. This is about making sure our police departments have the tools they need to track down illegal guns. This isn't about running honest gun dealers out of business. It is about cracking down on the 1 percent of corrupt gun dealers who sell 57 percent of the guns used in crimes. Gun rights advocates have as much stake in this as anybody else. Many see gun violence as an inner-city problem. But let's not forget that gang violence and drug crime also started out as an inner-city problem. We acted too late, and now gangs and drugs are commonplace in suburbs and rural communities. So as we head home for the spring recess, I ask my colleagues to do something we don't do very often or very well: listen. It is time to listen to the people being affected by gun violence. Listen to our young people in under-served communities. Listen to our police departments who are losing officers to illegal guns every week. And listen to the families who have lost loved ones due to gun violence. The answers to this epidemic of gun violence do not reside in this Chamber or on K Street, but in the hearts and minds of the people that we represent. It is time that they are heard. The vast majority of legal gun owners understand the need to stop gun violence. We must all work together, regardless of our interpretation of the second amendment, or whether we live in an urban, suburban, or rural area. Let us make a commitment to replace our rhetoric with action. Let us make our communities a better and safer place for all young people of all backgrounds. Together, we can stop this public health care crisis and save lives. I came to Congress to save lives. I will not give up on this fight. We can reduce gun violence in this country. We just have to find common ground on how we are going to do that.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for bringing this important legislation and resolution to the floor and I thank my colleagues that have been working on this for years. I have been in Congress for 10 years now and during that 10 years we have been working on peace in Ireland. Many of us that are Irish call it ``the troubles'' which have continued over these years. And every time there seemed to have been a little bit of sunlight and we actually thought that peace would finally come to Northern Ireland, and we certainly fought and worked for that. But the Good Friday Agreement is certainly an important piece of legislation and it gave the goal and certainly the hope to the people of Ireland, and I think that is probably the most important thing. There have been many bumps in the road over the years with the Good Friday Agreement, but it was the people of Northern Ireland, it was the people that basically said, let's go forward. So each time that we saw, as I call it, a bump in the road or a stop sign, it was the people of Ireland that said let's go forward. I happen to think we are at the crossroads now. And I happen to think that with all the people here in Congress especially, I support the things that have been said from my colleagues that we are honestly going to see hopefully peace come. Ireland economically has done very well and we will continue to support them to do that. But I have to say when the IRA agreed to give up its weapons last February, I think that was certainly the biggest step that we could have asked. The people remain cautious in Ireland, but I do believe the IRA is showing good faith. In February the Independent Monitoring Commission released a report. The report found that security forces believe that the IRA held on to weapons and is still intelligence gathering. In spite of that, the IMC stated that the IRA seemed to be moving in the right direction. It is important that the people in Ireland who are working towards peace know that they have the support of the United States in these efforts. I encourage the Irish people to continue their work in the peace process, and I am proud to support this legislation. We here in Congress carry a great deal of weight. The people of Ireland do trust us. They appreciate us being with them during the good times and the bad times. I would like to say thank you to my colleague, Mr. Walsh, for all the great work in bringing us over to Ireland to meet with all political groups so we can try to see peace in our lifetime. The Policing Commission has always been a stumbling stone, and yet when we have gone there and we have met and we have seen young Irish Catholic men and women joining the police force and the same on the Protestant side and learning how to be together, there is great hope in the future for all of us. But Northern Ireland and Ireland is going to win in the end, and the United States, I am happy to say, had a lot to do with that.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. I thank my colleague for yielding. I too would like to thank the chairman for his comments and support. We are fortunate to have a Project GRAD program in my district on Long Island. It is making a critical difference in the lives of many of the students. I appreciate all the help. I hope we can eventually get funding for these programs.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 5005, the Firearms Corrections and Improvement Act. But I don't want to let the name of this legislation fool you. This bill only serves to improve the chances of somebody getting away with a gun crime. This bill proposes changes that will undermine Federal law and endanger public safety. These are not mere technical corrections, but a blatant attempt to restrict use of the ATF's National Trace Center's database. Previously, the NRA's friends in Congress have inserted language into appropriation bills to restrict access to some important ballistic information. H.R. 5005 will make restriction access the law. The ATF's gun tracing program helps local police solve gun crimes by analyzing the unique marks made on bullets and cartridges and 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 H.R. 5005 would make it a crime for police departments to share information from the database of other departments. 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 wouldn't be able to share that information. In fact, the officer who did share this information could be arrested. That is absolutely insane. Instead of cracking down on criminals using guns, this bill treats police officers like criminals. Since 9/11, responders in New York and throughout the Nation have gone to great lengths to increase interoperability and information sharing, and now H.R. 5005 comes along and makes information sharing between police departments a crime. 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 legislation would prevent the use of trace data as evidence in any State or Federal court or any non-ATF administrative proceedings. This bill cuts local law enforcement out of the loop. Without this tracing data local law enforcement officers will not be able to pursue civil action on suppliers that have been implicated in crimes without the ATF's involvement. We all know the ATF doesn't get the resources to get involved in every civil issue regarding gun crimes, but H.R. 5005 does not stop at limiting access to tracing the database. The legislation also makes it more difficult for local police to receive reports of multiple gun purchases. Law enforcement can use these reports to discover whether straw purchasers or gun traffickers are replenishing their inventory. But if this bill becomes law, police will no longer be able to access this information. The bill also prevents the ATF from maintaining a database of firearm purchase information. This provision would hurt investigations by local law enforcement to determine the point of sale origin of firearms that can help locate an assailant. As New York City Mayor Bloomberg pointed out in his testimony yesterday, if police can crack down on taverns that serve under-aged drinkers, why can't they go after gun dealers who knowingly sell to criminals? And since 1 percent of the gun dealers sell 57 percent of the guns used in crimes, this information is vital for police to conduct investigations and root out dishonest gun dealers. This bill is the latest in a long line of misguided legislation that puts protecting the gun industry before keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. No other industry in the country has this kind of protection. The gun industry already has immunity from litigation resulting from its negligence over incompetence. The industry can now sell military assault weapons to the general public. But now this legislation would protect the 1 percent of dishonest gun dealers who are fueling gun violence throughout this country with their irresponsible business practices. This legislation does nothing to protect the second amendment rights. Nothing in this legislation makes it any easier to hunt or defend themselves using a firearm. Simply put, H.R. 5005 does more to promote gun crimes than gun rights. I hope yesterday's hearings showed the public what a bad bill H.R. 5005 really is. I would like to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his opposition to this legislation, and I would like to enter this testimony from yesterday into the Record. I will work with Mayor Bloomberg and others from both parties to prevent the bill from becoming law. I wish I had had the time to read the mayor's full testimony, but I will say that I will use the last sentence. ``On behalf of the members of the New York City Police Department, their families and all New Yorkers, I am urging you,'' and that is the Judiciary Committee, ``in the strongest possible terms to reject this God-awful piece of legislation.'' What we are doing here in Congress a little bit too often is taking away the rights of our police officers, taking away the rights of our criminal investigators to cut down on crimes. New York City has done an excellent job on cutting down on crime. We are actually one of the safest cities, and yet the guns that are coming from the outside of our city and being sold in our city that are totally illegal, we will be taking away that tool. That is wrong. We as Americans should be protecting each other. Whether you live in a city, whether you live in a suburban area, whether you live in a suburban urban area, we have to do more. We need to change the rhetoric that is going on here. We need to protect people. And I will bring up over and over again what we can do to bring down gun crime in this country, certainly by saving people from dying but also reducing the health care costs that are in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, the material I referred to previously is as follows: The City of New York, Office of the Mayor, New York, NY, March 28, 2006. Mayor Bloomberg Testifies Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and give testimony on H.R. 5005--the misnamed Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act. My name is Michael Bloomberg, and I am the Mayor of the City of New York. I want to be very clear that I am not here today to engage in an ideological debate. H.R. 5005 has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but it has everything to do with illegal guns and the dangers they pose to our police officers and citizens. That's why I am here--because the bill this Subcommittee is considering would explicitly impinge on our ability to fight illegal gun trafficking, and it would result in the shooting deaths of innocent people. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject it-- and I am submitting letters from mayors around the nation, as well as from the former Chief of the ATF's Crime Gun Analysis Branch, who join me in opposing this legislation. Why do New Yorkers care about illegal gun sales in other states? It's true that New York is the safest big city in America, and I'm very proud that we have reduced major crime by nearly 25 percent compared to 5 years ago. But the harsh reality is that far too many people continue to be killed with illegal guns--and nearly all of those guns are purchased outside of New York State. Last year, illegal guns were used to take the lives of more than 300 people in our city. To protect all New Yorkers, we must not only root out and punish those who possess, use, and sell illegal weapons--and we are doing that more effectively than ever--we must also do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of those criminals in the first place. This requires us to look beyond our borders, because 82 percent of the guns used in crimes in New York City were purchased outside of New York State. H.R. 5005 would make it immeasurably harder to stop the flow of illegal guns across our borders and into the hands of criminals by offering extraordinary protections to gun dealers who knowingly sell guns to criminals, and depriving local governments and their law enforcement agencies of the tools they need to hold dealers accountable. Specifically, these obstacles would take the form of severe restrictions on our use of ATF trace data, which is perhaps the most effective tool we have in combating illegal gun trafficking. Without question, the vast majority of gun dealers are law- abiding businesses--and we have no quarrel with them. Most dealers follow the law and take every precaution to ensure that their products do not fall into the hands of criminals. But there is a very small group of bad apples--about 1 percent of all gun dealers--who account for almost 60 percent of all crime guns nationwide. That's an astounding statistic. Imagine if 60 percent of all crimes in a city were committed on one block--would you pass a law that effectively prevented the police department from using every tool at its disposal to crack down on that block? Of course not! Yet H.R. 5005 would effectively prevent cities like ours from holding the 1 percent of bad gun dealers fully accountable for their actions. And that makes no sense. When rogue gun dealers break the law, and their guns cause injury or death to innocent people, they should be compelled to answer for their conduct in a court of law--just as any other lawbreaker would. And when they hold licenses issued by state or local authorities, they should be called to account in administrative proceedings to revoke their licenses. This is what happens to businesses in other industries when they act irresponsibly--think of a tavern that sells alcohol to teenagers and, as a result, loses its license. Why should an irresponsible firearms dealer--which poses a far greater threat to the overall safety of our citizens--be given special protections from state and local authorities? In non-criminal proceedings to revoke a rogue gun dealer's license, trace data is the single most powerful way to demonstrate unmistakable patterns of illegal conduct. It's pretty simple: Gun dealers with inordinately large numbers of traces to crime guns are gun dealers that make it their practice to sell to straw purchasers. Yet H.R. 5005 would ensure that this devastating evidence never sees the light of day. Studies show that when dealers are subject to enforcement efforts, or even if they suspect enforcement efforts, the number of crime guns later traced to those dealers falls off sharply. Yet by forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings, H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers, and far more difficult to bring administrative actions to revoke their licenses. And my question to you is--why? Why is this in the best interest of the American people? Why is this in the best interests of your constituents? Why would Congress protect the irresponsible gun dealers who help criminals get guns? Why is it good public policy to make cities fight the war against gun violence with one hand tied behind their backs? Is it to benefit special interest groups? Or the one-in-a- million person who is prosecuted for a purchase that is negligent but not criminal? Is it for these few ideologues and extraordinarily unusual cases that you are willing to facilitate the shooting deaths of thousands of innocent Americans across this country every year? I cannot believe so. Nor can I take those answers back to the parents of the slain members of the New York City Police Department, including the families of Detectives James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews, who were murdered three years ago this month during one of the hundreds of `buy and busts' that the NYPD carries out every year to take illegal guns off our streets. Finally, of the other retrograde provisions in H.R. 5005, the worst of all is the provision that would actually treat police officers like criminals. Under the terms of H.R. 5005, a detective who shares ATF trace information with another state government for use in a license revocation hearing against a rogue dealer would be committing a federal felony--a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. In other words, if an NYPD Detective talks to a New Jersey State Trooper about a problem gun dealer problem, that Detective could go to jail. I would not expect that I would need to remind Congress of the horrific consequences that this country, and particularly New York City, suffered as a result of the federal government's failure to share information among law enforcement agencies, and to work together to ``connect the dots'' in order to establish patterns of criminality and threats of danger. Yet incredibly, instead of demanding that our law enforcement agencies share information, Congress is considering making it a crime. As absurd as it sounds, this bill would not only erect new barriers to information, it could send police officers to prison in order to prevent them from holding the worst gun dealers accountable for their potentially dangerous actions. How in the world would you explain that to the public? Members of the Subcommittee, I have been to too many police officers' funerals to believe this bill actually has a prayer's chance in hell. But if it does pass, the next time an officer is attacked by an illegal gun--and I say `next time' because until Congress gets serious about illegal guns, more police officers and many more citizens will be murdered--there can be no denying that all who vote for this bill will bear some of the responsibility. That may sound harsh to you, but I'm not going to sugarcoat my words when discussing a bill that coddles criminals and endangers police officers and citizens--not only in New York City, but across this nation. On behalf of the members of the NYPD, their families, and all New Yorkers, I am urging you in the strongest possible terms to reject this God-awful piece of legislation. Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I came here to Washington to do everything I could to reduce gun violence in this country; and unfortunately, the atmosphere that is here is preventing me from doing that. There are many out there that say I am out there to try to take away the right of someone to own a gun, and yet I have never introduced any kind of legislation that would do any such thing. What I am trying to do is save lives. What I am trying to do is certainly try to keep medical costs down. We have come to an agreement, many Members in this Chamber, on legislation I introduced a couple of years ago. The reason behind this legislation was because, unfortunately, there was another shooting in my district and two of my parishioners were killed. And the sad story is it could have been prevented. Peter Troy, who is someone that had a very long mental health background, and he also had a restraining order from his mother against him because of his violent acts, was able to go into a store and legally buy a gun. He was able to do this because the State, my State of New York, did not put the information into the State system that was supposed to go into the NICS system. This is happening every single day across this Nation. We looked into it and figured how can we change this. So we started looking at the different States. We saw that some States hardly had any records in the NICS system that had anything to do with domestic violence. We saw also that many States did not put anything in on those that were convicted of felonies. So we came up with legislation that we thought would help to reduce crime in this country. We came up with legislation that we knew if we could keep guns out of illegal hands, those that should not be able to buy a gun, we could save lives. And if we could save lives, we are hoping also we could save injuries, and this way it is a win-win situation for everyone in our community. I am hoping before the Memorial Day recess that I will be able to get my legislation back on to the floor for a vote. It did pass in 1997, and we had it on a voice vote because everybody agreed with it. Now, I know our time down here is very short. We are going on another break this very week. For the 10 years that I have been here in Washington, we have never had a break in March. I wish we could be staying so we could continue to work to do the people's work. I guess what I want to talk about is that we could have reasonable laws that could help people, save people's lives and make a difference in someone's life. We can do this without certainly infringing on anyone's second amendment rights. The NICS bill that I am proposing would help our States bring their data up to speed. We all know that computers and the Internet are moving very rapidly, but a computer is only as good as the information in it. What I propose, and what had been accepted here in this House, would give the States the money so that when someone is convicted of a crime that would make them ineligible to be able to buy a gun, that would immediately go into the system. This is a win-win situation for everyone. Back in my State of New York we are seeing more and more illegal guns coming into my city. It is probably happening in a lot of other States. It is only a small percentage of those bad people that are buying these illegal guns that we can stop. Madam Speaker, there are so many things we could do to stop gun violence in this country, to make a difference. And I know it is not on the top of the list of everybody in this country. I know the majority of people are struggling to just get through their day, working, coming home, taking care of the family, doing everything that a family should be doing because they honestly feel that we as politicians are down here protecting them. We talk about homeland security. We talk about possible terrorists in this country, and yet we make it so easy for those out there to buy guns. Madam Speaker, I hope we can make a difference. I hope we can change the dialogue. I hope we can save lives. I hope we can prevent injuries.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, once again we are threatened budget cuts that affect our local law enforcement agencies' effectiveness. Not only is the COPS program facing cuts and the criminal background check system for firearm purchases underfunded, but now the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network program is also in jeopardy. The NIBIN is used by forensic experts to analyze 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. By tracing and comparing these markings, police can track the history of a gun used in a crime. They can determine which crimes are related and make sure the appropriate law enforcement agencies are working together to find the criminals responsible for these crimes. NIBIN makes law enforcement agencies more efficient by making sure that two agencies are not duplicating their work. In large part, NIBIN has been a success. Last year, the Los Angeles Police Department arrested a man for vandalism and possession of a firearm. The gun was tested and identified as being used in an attempted murder only a month before. If not for ballistics testing, this individual would have gone free and the attempted murder case would still be unsolved. In my own State of New York, an individual was arrested for unlawful possession of a weapon. The gun was entered into the NIBIN database and was discovered to have been used in an unsolved assault with a deadly weapon incident that occurred in a different jurisdiction. Again, a violent criminal was taken off the streets because of ballistics testing. This is happening on a daily basis. There are countless other success stories throughout our Nation; but, unfortunately, NIBIN's future is in doubt. Budget cuts are jeopardizing the future of this program. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administers NIBIN and may be forced to cut spending unless Congress acts. Cutting funding of this great program would be a tragedy resulting in more criminals getting away with horrendous acts of violence. ATF needs more, not less, funding for this particular program. A Department of Justice report last year said the ATF needs to better promote and improve NIBIN. Many law enforcement agencies do not participate in NIBIN simply because they do not have the resources to enter the information into the database. The Justice Department report suggests purchasing equipment for high-crime areas and developing a plan for lower-incidence areas to share ballistics technology. The report also states it is imperative that we deal with the backlog of ballistic evidence not yet entered into the database. A similar problem exists in the National Instant Background Check system, and I have introduced legislation to give States grants to make sure that data is entered. We must also fund new ballistic technologies that can provide matches on portions or fragments of bullets found at crime scenes. Mr. Speaker, since 9/11 our law enforcement officers have accepted new responsibilities in the war on terror. But this current budget wants to cut programs that staff local police forces and provides them with bullet-proof vests. Let us work together to make their jobs easier, not more difficult. Let us fully fund the ATF's National Integrated Ballistic Information Network. This will catch repeated offenders before they commit another crime and make sure our law enforcement agencies are on the same page when it comes to investigating crimes that have been related. A Visit to Areas Affected by Hurricane Katrina Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment or two to talk about the trip that we had with Speaker Hastert and Leader Pelosi on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. With grateful thanks to Speaker Hastert, he took us down to Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, mainly to see the disaster areas 6 months later and what is happening in those States. The American people, I know, tend to forget what is going on; but when you go to these States, they need our help desperately. I have been watching CNN and certainly have followed what is going on down there; but when you see it with your own eyes, it is more than anyone can ever imagine: to see whole trailer trucks just thrown into the wetlands due to force of this hurricane; to see the housing just collapsing on a daily basis; and to see our local government officials trying to make ends meets but without a budget because there are no businesses that provide a tax base. There are no homes there. And the people certainly have to come back to bring back the communities. In my opinion, it is up to the Federal Government. I know we are trying, but we have to do a little bit better. It is our moral responsibility to help these people. We never know when a disaster will happen in our own back yard, so I hope the American people do not forget the people of Hurricane Katrina. There is still much work to be done.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking on the 109th Congress and still we have done nothing to stop illegal guns from getting into the hands of criminals. I am not proposing anything new about laws or a ban on certain weapons, but helping our States enforce the current law that prevents criminals from buying guns. NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is the database used to check potential firearms buyers for any criminal record or history of mental illness. In large, NICS has been a success. Since 1994 more than 700,000 individuals were denied a gun for failing a background check. The background check goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and that would basically be what we are enforcing. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that the States provide. Twenty-five States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS system. That means that 40 percent of people are not in the system that should be denied guns. In these States many felons will not turn up on the NICS system and would be able to purchase guns with no questions asked. In 13 States domestic violence restraining orders are not necessarily put into the NICS system. Common sense would dictate that you do not sell a gun to someone who has been served with a restraining order. Thirty-three States have not automated or do not share mental health records that would disqualify certain individuals from purchasing a gun. Sadly, this particular loophole in the NICS system cost two of my constituents their lives. On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle. He had a history of mental health problems, and his own mother had a restraining order against him as a result of his violence. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but like so many others, he simply slipped through the cracks in the NICS system. Four days later Peter Troy walked into our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, opened fire and killed Reverend Lawrence Penzes and Eileen Tosner. Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him from doing so failed. It is only a matter of time before the system's failings provide larger tragedies. We must fix the NICS system. While we lay the responsibility for the NICS system on the States, many of our States' budgets are already overburdened and will have even fewer resources if the President's budget passes as is intact, which is why I introduced H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. This legislation will provide grants to States to update the NICS system. States would be able to update their NICS database to include felons, people with certain mental and emotional disabilities, and domestic abusers. We need the NICS Improvement Act to become law, and we need more bills like this to pass. These are ideas that impose no new restrictions open gun owners, but give the government the tools to ensure existing laws are enforced. In fact, the NICS Improvement Act already passed this House in the 107th Congress by a voice vote. It came through the Judiciary Committee with no dissenting votes. The bill had the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. Unfortunately, the other body never acted upon the bill. This is commonsense gun legislation we can all agree on. This bill will save lives while not infringing on anybody's second amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, I call Congress to act quickly on H.R. 1415. We can prevent tragedies throughout this Nation. Certainly we hear the NRA talking all the time about enforcing the laws on the books. We can do this if we enforce the laws on the books. If we bring up the NICS system the way it is supposed to be, we can save lives. One thing that people don't talk about, with the injuries and the deaths that we see in this Nation from daily gun violence, it is costing our medical system, our health care system over $2 billion a year. That is money that can certainly be better spent on other health care issues. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the House will see its way to take this important information, bring the NICS system up to where it should be, and let us save lives.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Girl Scouts of Nassau County for their work to promote health and self-esteem, to build courage, confidence and character in girls and young women. The Girl Scouts provide an extremely important service, always working to find new ways to address the key issues facing girls and young women. Recently, the Girl Scout Research Institute released a study which concluded that feeling acceptance and emotional health are critical toward achieving healthy habits. The study was quite timely, released just before National Eating Disorder Awareness Week, which is February 27 through March 3. The study brings everyday girls' voices to the forefront of discussions on health and self esteem issues. The Girl Scouts of Nassau County offer a range of healthy living activities that address the girl as a whole rather than just the food she eats, her weight and her exercise habits. Dove, the beauty brand, made that point by running a Superbowl commercial. The commercial aimed to widen the definition of beauty and inspire healthy, positive self- images among women. The talents of the Girl Scouts of Nassau County Chorus were recruited, and the young ladies provided the vocals for the commercial, singing the Cyndi Lauper song ``True Colors.'' Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I commend and honor the following Girl Scouts of Nassau County and their adult leaders for their achievements and dedication to improving the self image and health of girls and young women. Natalie Aiken, Kara Arena, Alice Azzara, Catherine Azzara, Jennifer Azzara, Chantice Barr, Emily Berger, Gillian Berkowitz, Emme Bih, Stella Bowles, Nicolle Bowman, Antoinette Burke, Tracy Carrella, Kara Curtin, Lauren Dash, Meryl Dickstein, Vicky Eberle, Emma Hood, Alexis Jacobsen, Emily Jacobson, Enrica Maccarone, Julia Marsh, Mykela Martinez, Carlie Mendoza, Christina Mendoza Emily Mervosh, Carly Mignone, Allison Monastero, Marrianne Monastero, Michelle Monastero, Tatiana Montano, Rosalita Morante, Casey Murphy, Laurie Murray, Melanie Pavlidis, Rachel Ruggiero, Katy Schwartz, Samantha Simon, Erin Stark, Megan Stark, Kristen Talbot, Gina Vollaro, Samantha Watterson, Angelica Weber, Amelia Weck, Brenda Weck, Jr., Elizabeth Woods, Courtney Wright, Crystalyn Wynter, Laura Bissett-Carr, Marie Rauch, Donna Rivera-Downey, Melanie Trainor.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Paul Lichtman, a science teacher from Uniondale High School. Teaching is one of the most honorable and important professions a person could choose. Dr. Lichtman is at the top of his profession, which his students have always known, and others realize as well. He has been honored by the New York State Assembly, the Nassau County Legislature, the Town of Hempstead Supervisor and the Town Board, and recently was named the Siemens Foundation's top mentor among those who helped 1,600 high school students enter its 2005 national competition. In typical Dr. Lichtman style, he has donated the $15,000 that comes with the award to purchase more equipment for the school's research room. Dr. Lichtman earned his Pharm.D. in 1990, specializing in toxicology and worked for several years as a manufacturing pharmacist. He was a science research coordinator and teacher at Massapequa High School and Hillcrest High School prior to making his way to Uniondale. Dr. Lichtman's program is one of only in three in the nation, other than in some magnet schools, where students do most of their research in a school lab rather than at a hospital or university. In just six short years, Dr. Lichtman has increased the number of research students from zero to over 80. His students, mostly minorities, have long credited Dr. Lichtman not just for his encouragement and mentoring in the classroom but also for teaching life lessons that can be used and applied throughout their lives. The students develop a full research proposal by conducting a complete literature search and designing the methodology, which is then approved by Dr. Lichtman. Students implement the projects in the school's research lab, present their results at science competitions and propose and carry out further studies. The students' projects have resulted in practical applications that have been implemented, such as reduction of storm water runoff contaminants. Many of his students have been nominated for science awards and have placed in various science fairs and competitions, which is a testament to Dr. Lichtman. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Dr. Lichtman, and all of our teachers, for their wonderful work, and their contribution to our leaders of tomorrow.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, in the last year the gun lobby has continued to defy common sense by pursuing a radical agenda in Congress and in State legislatures. Last year Congress passed legislation to give the gun industry unprecedented immunity from litigation and other legal action. Thanks to this new law, dishonest and corrupt gun dealers will be held accountable for their negligence. Almost 2 years ago, Congress let the ban on assault weapons expire, and this year's budget cuts bullet- proof vest grants for police departments. Congress is allowing criminals to better arm themselves, and now the budget is taking away protection from our police officers. But sadly, the gun lobby isn't done defying common sense with legislation. The NRA is currently lobbying for States to prohibit employers from banning guns on their private property. It does not matter if someone works in a school, day care center, bar, or even a facility that produces hazardous materials. The NRA wants to let them come to work with a loaded gun in their car. In fact, the NRA is suing companies who ban guns in the workplace. Let us set the record straight here. I have no problem for a legal citizen to be able to purchase a gun. But allowing loaded guns in day care centers, parking lots, that does not make sense. Right outside of chemical plants, again, makes no sense. This is a recipe for disaster. The NRA and its allies say that workers bringing guns to work and leaving them in their parked cars makes for a safer workplace, but they never explain how. Last month, an ex-employee of a post office in California opened fire at a mail processing plant, unfortunately killing six people. Having loaded guns in cars outside the facility has not saved one life. In fact, I cannot think of a single workplace shooting that could have been prevented by loaded guns being kept in company parking lots. But I can think of numerous scenarios that would make a shooting more likely with guns on the premises. What happens when a criminal learns that parked cars, often left unattended, contain loaded weapons? What is stopping them from breaking into cars and using those guns for crimes? Criminals break into parked cars to steal stereo speakers. They would not hesitate to take a loaded gun. What if an employee brings his or her gun into their place of work. A gun could be misfired or end up in the hands of someone else. Worse yet, somebody who isn't legally allowed to own a firearm could gain access to a co-worker's gun. Studies show that guns are already the third greatest workplace safety hazard, behind vehicles and heavy machinery. In fact, 17 people are killed by guns on the job each week. A study done by the University of North Carolina revealed that killings are five times more likely to occur at job sites where guns are allowed in workplaces than where they are prohibited. The NRA has targeted State legislatures for this ridiculous campaign. The Florida legislature is considering making it a felony for employers to ban workers from having guns on the company property. Similar laws have passed in Alaska, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. I fear it is only a matter of time before they bring their cause before Congress. Fortunately, the business community has rallied against the NRA on this matter, and for good reason. Businesses know that if they fire someone, who is to say that person is not going to go out into the car and get their gun and come in and try to do the mayhem against an employer. Are they going to have a safe room for someone that has been fired to go there? The liability costs are going to also be involved in private companies. Also, layoffs and firings are a tough reality in today's economy. How will companies handle giving employees bad news when they may have loaded guns in their cars? Seems to me the latest initiative of the NRA creates a lot more problems than it solves. Mr. Speaker, instead of being a rubber stamp for the NRA in 2006, let us focus on laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. It is time for common sense, not misguided extremism.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the observance of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. AIDS doesn't discriminate. It affects every race, age and gender but HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death among African Americans ages 25-44. It has become a state of emergency. In the United States, over 400,000 people were living with AIDS at the end of 2003 and African Americans accounted for half of these AIDS cases. The Center for Disease Control suggests that African Americans tend to be diagnosed later in life and at a more advanced stage. This explains why more blacks die sooner from AIDS related complications than any other group in the U.S. African American women are hit the hardest. Rates of HIV/AIDS diagnosis in African American women are almost 20 times higher than white women and 5 times higher than those of Hispanic women. African American men are diagnosed at a rate of almost 7 times higher than those of white men. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the future is much brighter. Today, people under the age of 25 account for half of all new HIV infections each year. Within that group, African Americans account for 56 percent of new infections. No matter what age group one focuses in on, blacks are most impacted. The President mentioned the AIDS epidemic in his State of the Union and the Federal Government must stay active in not just funding research initiatives but also in education and improving the lives of those in poverty. Nearly 1 in 4 African Americans lives in poverty. There is an association between higher AIDS cases and lower income. The socioeconomic problems associated with poverty, including limited access to high-quality health care and HIV prevention education, directly or indirectly increase HIV risk. If we can decrease poverty we can decrease the amount of African Americans with HIV/AIDS. The Nation must take ownership and reinvigorate the response to the crisis within the African American communities and beyond. There must be a partnership between local community organizations with Federal and state agencies. Together we can combat and defeat this disease.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that on November 3, 2005, Elmont Memorial Junior-Senior High School, which is in my district, was honored with the Dispelling the Myth Award at the Education Trust National Conference. Elmont Memorial is one of five schools recognized for ``dispelling the myth'' that poor and minority children cannot learn to high levels. At Elmont, 75 percent of the students are African American, 12 percent Latino, and 24 percent are low income. Most ninth-graders become seniors and almost every senior graduates, with a majority going on to attend 4-year colleges. In 2004, Elmont had the Nation's highest number of African-American students who received college credit on the Advanced Placement World History exam. The success at Elmont Memorial is due in no small part to its staff. Former principal, Al Harper, who is now the superintendent of the Elmont Union Free School District, has said ``Because a child is poor doesn't mean he can't learn.'' With the high standards set at Elmont, Principal John Capozzi takes pains to ensure teachers are carefully selected, and teachers are forewarned about the intense expectation at the school. Teachers at Elmont Memorial are considered to be part of a larger enterprise with a lot of support and encouragement, not punishment. Elmont Memorial's staff takes a coherent approach to both instruction and the building of personal relationships among adults and students which has led to high achievement. In addition to former Principal Harper, and Principal Capozzi, Elmont Memorial boasts many other superb staff members including: Alicia Calabrese, English chairperson; Karen Dunkley, social studies teacher; Russell Marino, math teacher; Baytoram Ramharack, social studies chairperson; Wendy Tague, English teacher; Chris Yee, art and technology chairperson. Elmont also has a hardworking, driven and determined student body. Many students are in the school building long after classes end, as part of clubs, sports, or getting help from teachers. Elmont Memorial's success can be attributed to school system unity, a supportive school board and superintendent, teachers, administrative staff and the students themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and admiration I offer my congratulations to Elmont Memorial.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, because of a family matter, I missed several recent votes. I would like the Record to reflect how I would have voted on those votes. Rollcall No. 639--Yea; Rollcall No. 640-- Yea; Rollcall No. 641--Yea; Rollcall No. 642--Yea; Rollcall No. 643-- Yea; Rollcall No. 644--Nay; Rollcall No. 645--No; Rollcall No. 646-- Nay; Rollcall No. 647--Yea; Rollcall No. 648--Yea; Rollcall No. 649-- Yea; Rollcall No. 650--Yea; Rollcall No. 651--Yea; Rollcall No. 652-- Yea; Rollcall No. 653--No; Rollcall No. 654--Yea; Rollcall No. 655-- Yes; Rollcall No. 656--No; Rollcall No. 657--No; Rollcall No. 658--No; Rollcall No. 659--No; Rollcall No. 660--Yes; Rollcall No. 661--No; Rollcall No. 662--Yea; Rollcall No. 663--Nay; Rollcall No. 664--Yea.