Carolyn McCarthy

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today I honor my friend and colleague, John Dingell. Mr. Dingell has been a member of the House for 50 years. He is truly an institution within this institution. Mr. Dingell has been a leader in passing legislation to improve people's lives. And he has an unmatched record of fighting corruption and waste in this body and throughout the government. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a good look at Mr. Dingell's record of accomplishment and cooperation. Mr. Dingell has demonstrated how well this body can operate and how much we can achieve by setting aside partisan differences and working together to do what's right for the American people. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether you are on the same side of an issue or have an opposing view, Mr. Dingell will work with you to make our country a better place. The ultimate tribute to the Dean of the House on his first 50 years of service would be to follow his lead and end the partisanship and politics of personal destruction that's going on now. Our country needs members of Congress to lead, not constantly question the motivation of those who do not agree with them. Mr. Dingell serves as the founding fathers intended us to serve. I am proud to call Mr. Dingell a colleague. And I am honored to call him a friend. And I look forward to working with him in coming years to help make America stronger and better place.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, when I am here in Washington I hear the administration and the House majority brag about how great our economy is, but when I go home to Long Island, I hear a different story. My constituents know the state of our economy is nothing to brag about. Prices at the pump are still alarmingly high. Home heating costs are skyrocketing. Corporations have stopped paying into their employees' pension plans. Taxes on student loans have increased. Despite rising health care costs, Medicaid faces deep and painful cuts; and American companies are closing plants and cutting jobs. In fact, almost 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the administration took office. The American people deserve better than lip service. The American people need an administration in Congress that will put their concerns first. We have seen over the last couple of years certainly the middle income families, which is the great portion of this great country, suffering. It is time that we look at them, help them and do a better job. America can do better.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded on rollcall No. 614 on H. Con. Res. 196, honoring the pilots of United States commercial air carriers who volunteer to participate in the Federal flight deck officer program. I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, for months, I have been discussing how Congress can improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by passing H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. People who now are barred by current law from possessing a firearm can purchase guns because NICS data is incomplete. The attached article provides more information on why the 109th Congress must pass H.R. 1415. I want to comment on patient privacy or the stigma of mental illness. The bill contains language directing the Attorney General to work with Federal, State, and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish protocols for protecting the privacy of information sharing. My bill does not change current law. The 1968 gun act already bars guns to people ``adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to mental institutions.'' That is how the law now reads. H.R. 1415 does not change the law. It is important to remember how the NICS process works. If a NICS search determines that a prospective buyer is barred from getting a gun, then NICS tells the gun dealer that the sale must be ``Denied.'' NICS does not tell the dealer why the purchase is denied. The stigma, if any exists, is that a prospective gun purchaser is denied the gun. Why he was denied does not come into the NICS process. [From the Hartford Courant, Nov. 27, 2005] Gaps In Records Allow Mentally Ill To Buy Guns (By Mark Sherman) Washington.--In Alabama, a man with a history of mental illness killed two police officers with a rifle he bought on Christmas Eve. In suburban, New York, a schizophrenic walked into a church during Mass and shot to death a priest and a parishioner. In Texas, a woman taking anti-psychotic medication used a shotgun to kill herself. Not one of these names was in a database that licensed gun dealers must check before making sales--even though federal law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns. Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement. Legislation pending in Congress that has bipartisan support seeks to get more of the disqualifying records in the database. In addition to mandating the sharing of mental health records, the legislation would require that states improve their computerized record-keeping for felony records and domestic violence restraining orders and convictions, which also are supposed to bar people from purchasing guns. Similar measures, opposed by some advocates for the mentally ill and gun-rights groups, did not pass Congress in 2002 and 2004. The FBI, which maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, has not taken a position on the bill, but the bureau is blunt about what adding names to its database would do. ``The availability of this information will save lives,'' the FBI said in a recent report. More than 53 million background checks for gun sales have been conducted since 1998, when the NICS replaced a five-day waiting period. More than 850,000 sales have been denied, the FBI reported; in most of those cases, the applicant had a criminal record. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., says millions of records are either missing or incomplete. ``The computer is only as good as the information you put in it,'' McCarthy said. In the Alabama case, police say Farron Barksdale ambushed the officers as they arrived at the home of his mother in Athens, Ala., on Jan. 2, 2004. Barksdale had been committed involuntarily to mental hospitals on at least two occasions, authorities said. Facing the death penalty, he has pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease and defect. The shootings led Alabama lawmakers to share with the FBI the names of people who have been committed involuntarily to mental institutions. But just 20 other states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968. Shyla Stewart had been hospita1ized five times in Texas, twice by court order. Yet Stewart was able to buy the shotgun that she later used to kill herself at a WalMart in 2003 because Texas considers mental health records confidential. The same is true in New York, where Peter Troy was twice admitted to mental hospitals but bought a .22-caliber rifle that he used in the shootings inside a Long Island church in March 2002. Troy is serving consecutive life terms for the killings. As a result of the church shootings, McCarthy and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., introduced legislation that year to close the gaps in the background check system. The bill would have required the states to give the FBI their records and provided $250 million in grants to cover their costs. The bill passed the House without opposition but stalled in the Senate. In 2004, the measure again had the support of lawmakers who support gun rights, but it did not pass Congress. McCarthy, whose husband was among six people shot to death on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, has introduced it again this year, but it has not yet been taken up by a House Judiciary subcommittee. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a National Rifle Association board member, was a sponsor of the bill in the last Congress and continues to support it, spokesman Dan Whiting said. The NRA supports the concept, but it has not taken a position on McCarthy's legislation, spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said. Michael Faenza, president and Chief executive of the National Mental Health Association, said forcing states to share information on the mentally ill would violate patient privacy and contribute to the stigma they face. It's just not fair. On the one hand, we want there to be very limited access to guns,'' Faenza said. ``But here you're singling out people because of a medical condition and denying them rights held by everyone else.'' The states that provide some or all mental health records are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is December 7. Many people remember it as Pearl Harbor Day. I remember it as the day that I lost my husband and my son was hurt. The members of our community will always remember the Long Island Massacre. It is at that point in my life that I decided to devote it to try to reduce gun violence in this country. On November 29, we lost Dillon Stewart to gun violence. Dillon Stewart was a New York City police officer and a constituent of mine. He was killed in the line of duty by a convicted criminal with a stolen gun that had been used in another crime earlier this year. This gun was stolen from Florida, a State with much weaker gun laws than New York. While Congress no longer allows the ATF to disclose data gathered when tracing weapons used in crimes, older data reveals most guns used in crimes in New York come from out of State dealers. I agree with my Republican mayor of New York when he says we need to pass tougher Federal gun laws. But while more and more police officers are killed by gun violence, Congress seems intent on making their jobs more difficult. For a variety of reasons, our Nation's police departments are understaffed and overworked. For example, New York City is losing 1,000 police officers per year. The State of Ohio has the same amount of State troopers that it did in 1970. Oregon has let go 20 percent of its State troopers. Part of the problem is that State and local government budget cuts have caused many departments to lay off police officers. And many police officers are also reservists in our armed services. Since September 11, 2001, over 4,000 police officers have been called to service in Iraq and Afghanistan. And to make matters worse, the COPS program that has helped put well over 100,000 police officers on the street is cut nearly every year. Our police officers are working longer hours with more responsibility, but what have we in Congress done? Congress has let the assault weapons ban expire, allowing street gangs and other criminals to legally buy cheaper and more lethal weapons. Congress has given the gun industry unprecedented immunity from liability lawsuits. Congress will not allow the Centers for Disease Control to reveal how much gun violence costs our health care system every single year. Congress will not even ban the sale of guns to individuals on terrorist watch lists. And we have done nothing to fix the hole in the national instant background check system that allows many convicted felons to buy guns with no questions asked. In half of our States, less than 60 percent of felons are entered into NICS databases. This has resulted in thousands of convicted felons being able to walk into a gun store and make a purchase. Many honest gun sellers may be selling guns to murderers, rapists or even terrorists with no way of knowing. The system put in place to protect us is failing and police officers are being forced to work even harder. I have introduced legislation, the NICS Improvement and Enforcement Act, to stop felons from buying guns. The NICS database is only as good as the information that the States provide, so my bill would require that States enter all disqualifying information into the NICS system. And since so many of our States are experiencing budget problems, my bill would give grants to States to ensure they comply. This legislation would prevent gun violence without infringing on second amendment rights. This bill passed the House in 2002 via voice vote, but time ran out in the 107th Congress before the other body could consider the matter. But the bill had the support of several Members of Congress who are well known for their support of gun rights. Mr. Speaker, our police officers are already overburdened. With a simple voice vote, we can help them out by making sure felons aren't able to buy guns. We owe it to Dillon Stewart and the rest of the brave men and women who have lost their lives protecting their communities. Let's bring up H.R. 1415 and pass it as quickly as possible. This bill will save lives and relieve the already heavy burden placed on our police officers. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to listen to their fellow Republican, Mayor Bloomberg, and start passing commonsense gun legislation. We can do a better job. We are fighting wars around the world. We are also fighting wars here in our own country. Every single day someone dies of gun violence. We can do a better job. We can make sure that the criminals have a harder time getting the weapons that are on our streets. We must have uniform Federal laws to protect our citizens.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am very happy to hear from my colleague from California explaining the move last night on not allowing my amendment to be put forth; and I hope that, working with him and certainly Mr. Sensenbrenner on the Judiciary Committee, we can move this bill forward. H.R. 1751 goes to great lengths to punish those who commit violence in our courthouses, and rightly so. However, this bill falls short when it comes to preventative measures that would stop these senseless attacks from happening in the first place. As was mentioned, last night I offered such an amendment in the Rules Committee. It would automate the court records into the National Institute Background Check System so recently convicted individuals could not buy a gun. The reason we want to do that, basically, is if a person is convicted and still not going straight to jail to prevent them from going out and buying a gun and coming back and doing harm, whether it is to a judge, a family, or a court officer. Many State courts fail to enter this data into the NICS System in a timely manner, if at all. For example, the subject of a restraining order stemming from spousal abuse can leave the courthouse, go to a gun store, make a purchase, and seek revenge on the court officers. My amendment would require that court rulings be immediately entered into the NICS System. It would provide grants to State courts that do not have the resources to comply. But my amendment was the only amendment not to be accepted by the Rules Committee, and we heard that wrong information had been given to Mr. Dreier, and I accept that. Those things happen. All of us here want to save lives. I mean, that is what we want to do. We want to protect our men and women in uniform. We want to protect our court officers, our judges. This amendment certainly could have helped that. It would have made a good bill, in my opinion, a better bill. So with that I hope that we will be here down the road soon, be able to offer my full bill because, again, this does not infringe on second amendment rights. It is there to protect people. It is there to save lives, and that is my goal.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, this year, Governing.com, a leading online publication for and about State and local governments and a subsidiary of Congressional Quarterly, announced their list of the 2005 Public Officials of the Year. Only eight State, county and local leaders from throughout our Nation received this most noteworthy award. It is an honor for me to bring to the attention of my colleagues and this House one of those eight outstanding public officials, the Honorable Thomas R. Suozzi, County Executive of Nassau County, New York. Tom Suozzi is a true leader. He has led Nassau County for the past four years with common, practical sense; with an approach toward running government as a business; with a vision to the future while not forgetting our past; all the while making paramount the needs of the people of Nassau County. He has established a record as County Executive, and before that as mayor of his home town of Glen Cove, New York, that can serve as a blueprint for governments at all levels, and yes, even the Federal Government, to follow. Upon his election as County Executive, Mr. Suozzi inherited a county that had amassed a debt of $3 billion, had a junk bond rating and was ready to be taken over by State intervention. County facilities such as parks and public buildings were insufficient to meet the needs of the people. It has been said that `Nassau County was not just on the brink of disaster, but rather had toppled over and was nearing terminal velocity.' Today, Nassau County has not only turned the corner on its financial woes, it is a national leader with its innovative ideas to governing. Since 2001, under the guidance of Mr. Suozzi, the County has had a balanced budget every year; it has a $200 million surplus; it has had ten upgrades in its bond rating to an A+ level currently, and most significantly, this has all been achieved without a tax increase in the last three years. It is important to point out, too, that during his tenure as mayor, Mr. Suozzi had very similar problems and very similar results. Tom Suozzi is a visionary, looking to the future for ways to grow an economy and to make Nassau County and suburbs in general more affordable and livable for everyone, including seniors and our young people. But at the same time, he understands the benefits of suburbia and combines his vision for the future with the heritage of our past. Mr. Speaker, Tom Suozzi has demonstrated to all of us that governmental problems of our past do not need to be transferred to future generations. They can be resolved with logical and brave initiatives. On behalf of this Congress, and Nassau County, New York that I proudly represent, I congratulate Tom Suozzi on being named Public Official of the Year 2005.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, every week I stand here and I talk about common-sense approaches to reducing gun violence in this country, and yet this body sees fit to chip away at existing laws. So tonight I want to talk about the effects of gun violence in terms that everybody in this body understands, 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 proposed cuts for Medicaid are not going to help the situation. Among the initiatives being neglected because of State budget crunches is the National Instant Criminal Background Check. NICS is the database used to determine whether an individual is legally allowed to purchase a gun or not. Since its inception in 1994, NICS has been a great success. More than 700,000 individuals have been denied a gun for failing a background check. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that is in it, and because of tight budgets, updating the NICS database has fallen off the radar for many States. But as Congress continues to weaken our gun laws, we increasingly rely on the National Instant Background Check System to assure our constituents that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. But, unfortunately, the NICS database has become dangerously incomplete. For example, half of all States have entered less than 60 percent of their convicted felons into the NICS system. Thirteen States have failed to enter the subjects of restraining orders stemming from domestic violence into the NICS system. And, of course, in all 50 States, people who are listed on the terrorist watch list cannot get on a plane, but they can buy a gun. This defies common sense. I have introduced H.R. 1415, legislation that will require States to enter in all NICS information as quickly as possible. My bill would also provide grants to States that do not have the resources needed to update their databases. These grants will not only keep guns out of the hands of felons, but will reduce the States' out-of-control health care costs as well. Of course, Congress will not allow funding for the Centers for Disease Control to study the economic impact of gun violence, so we have to use data from independent sources. Independent sources have shown gun violence costs our economy over $100 billion a year, $100 billion a year. In fact, each gun death costs our economy $2.8 million. And much of the cost is picked up by the State and local governments. Gun violence increases law enforcement spending. Gun violence costs the economy lost productivity. And while Congress will not let us learn the exact amount, gun violence costs our health care system billions each and every year. And 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 is who. Passage of H.R. 1415 would serve as preventive medicine for the public health care system in many States. This legislation would prevent gun violence without infringing on anyone's second amendment rights. Nobody in this body believes convicted felons should be able to own guns. In fact, H.R. 1415 passed the House by a voice vote in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the other body did not have time to pick the bill up. But the bill had the support of several Senators who are known for their strong support of gun rights. We have an opportunity to reduce health care costs and save lives by improving the NICS system. Mr. Speaker, let us pass H.R. 1415, the NICS Enforcement and Improvement Act, before the end of the year. Let us give the States the help that they need.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, last week the Washington Times ran an editorial stating that people who advocate responsible gun laws are disappointed that there has not been an increase in killings since the assault weapons ban expired last year. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. That the crime rate has not increased dramatically with the end of the ban is not a surprise. Nobody thought the end of the assault weapons ban would create new criminals, but we feared it would give existing criminals better tools to do their jobs. The fact that sales of these weapons are not skyrocketing does not surprise me either. Law-abiding gun owners have no practical need for these weapons. Why would a responsible gun owner want an AK-47 or an Uzi? They cannot hunt with them. There would not be much animal left after one pull of the trigger. Assault weapons are not even practical for self-defense. Innocent bystanders would be injured or killed by the spray of the bullets released. But I want to reduce gun violence in this country, not to keep the status quo. The Washington Times might be satisfied with 30,000 Americans dying from gun-related deaths every year. I am not. The Washington Times might think it is acceptable that 5,200 American kids die because of gun violence each year. I think it is deplorable. But I am a realist; and I know that this Congress, this Congress, will not reinstate the assault weapons ban. But we can make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to get their weapons. As we continue to weaken our guns laws, we increasingly rely on the National Instant Background Check System to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. However, the NICS database is dangerously incomplete. For example, half of all States have entered less than 60 percent of their convicted felons into the NICS system. Thirteen States have failed to enter the subjects of restraining orders stemming from domestic violence into the NICS system. And, of course, in all 50 States, people who are listed on terrorist watch lists certainly can go out and still buy a gun. The same people whom we do not trust to board a plane can buy one of those AK-47s or Uzis the Washington Times editorial page raves about. This defies common sense. I have introduced H.R. 1415, legislation that will require that States enter in all NICS information as quickly as possible. My bill will also provide grants to States to make sure that their databases are kept up to date. This legislation poses no restrictions on law-abiding and responsible gun owners. It poses no infringement on second amendment rights. In fact, it passed the House during the 107th Congress via voice vote. Unfortunately, time ran out before the other body could take up the bill. But the bill had the support of several Senators on the other side who are known strongly for their support of gun rights. Nobody believes criminals and terrorists should be allowed to legally buy guns in this country. So before the Washington Times and others begin to celebrate maintaining the status quo for gun-related deaths, let us pass legislation to enforce the gun laws on the books. Nobody wants to see crime reduced more than I do. H.R. 1415 can fix the loopholes in our background checks. Thirty thousand deaths a year is nothing to turn a blind eye to no matter what the Washington Times says. We can do better, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, last week in this House, we passed a gun liability bill, and we gave immunity to the gun manufacturers and gun dealers that have never seen the likes of before. With this passage of the bill and with the President being there to sign it, we are going to be counting on the NICS system more than ever to make sure that those that should not be able to buy guns should not be able to get them. It is going to put added responsibility onto the NICS system, and the NICS system is not ready. People know that a computer is only as good as the information that is given to it. I want the Members to look at this sign. In 25 States, 40 percent of felons can buy guns, no questions asked, mainly because 25 States have entered less than 60 percent of their felons into their computer systems. When we talk about trying to prevent gun violence in this country, I have offered numerous solutions that are common sense certainly to try to protect the American people; and yet this House, unfortunately, has not done anything to try to reduce gun violence in this country. In 13 States, subjects of restraining orders can buy guns, no questions asked. Thirteen States do not list restraining orders, and yet certainly it is part of what we know that those that are under restraining orders are not supposed to be able to buy guns. This month we are also talking about domestic violence awareness; and yet we see constantly that we do not list those that have been served with restraining orders, that there is no protection at all. All States sell guns to those on terrorist watch lists. All States sell guns to those that are on a terrorist watch list. The majority of us here in Congress fly a couple of times a week. We go through the search. We take off our shoes. At one point some of us are actually on that watch list, and we are able to get off it when we find out when a mistake is made. And yet we do know that there are terrorists that are not allowed to fly on our planes; yet they can go into any one of our States and they can buy a gun. Where is the common sense in that? Terrorists cannot fly, but they can buy guns in any State in this country. H.R. 1415 is a bill that I introduced a couple of years ago. It actually passed here on the House floor by voice vote. Unfortunately, the Senate did not have enough time to pick it up. I think the time is really now to look at the NICS Improvement and Enforcement Act and it is time to pass it again. If we are going to give gun immunity to our gun dealers and to our gun manufacturers, we still should be doing something to make sure that the people of the United States have the best protection possible. This bill is actually good for gun dealers. It saves lives. It is time for common sense. It is time for us to try to change the way we talk about gun violence, the second amendment, here in this Chamber. I honestly do not know that many people that want to take away the right of someone to own a gun. What we are trying to do is put common sense into our gun laws to prevent people from dying, prevent accidents, and also try to save the taxpayers money. When we talk about spending over $200 billion, $200 billion, a year associated with gun violence, health care related to gun violence in this country, I think that is quite a bit of money. When we are talking about sometime this week possibly having a budget reconciliation, and I am going to be in the Committee on Education and the Workforce tomorrow and I understand that we are going to be cutting anywhere from $3 billion to $4 billion on top of the $13 billion we have already cut out of higher education, I think $200 billion a year could help us. But the House still does not have the will. I am hoping that people will listen. I am hoping that people will understand that this is common sense; that if we do the background checks, we can certainly prevent an awful lot of people from buying the guns who should not be buying the guns. Maybe we could save some lives. Maybe we could have education for the parents that buy the guns, that they should be buying child safety locks to make sure that their children do not get ahold of a gun. There are so many common-sense things that we can do. I hope now that the House has passed their major legislation on blocking any kind of tort reform or passing tort reform for the gun industry and the NRA has got their number one issue done for the year, that we can start talking about how we are going to save lives, how we are going to prevent injuries, how we are going to save money in the health care system because of needless killings and accidental deaths and suicides. These are things that affect so many families in different parts of our country on a daily basis. I will be talking about this over the next several months. I am determined to get this passed. I hope my colleagues will be there with me.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland for doing such a wonderful job on handling this issue. Let me first say something. The legislation in front of us, as far as I am concerned, is frivolous. When we think about the millions and millions of lawsuits that have been filed over the last 10 years, only 57 have actually involved the gun industry, 57, and for that we are taking time up here in Congress. We hear constantly that this is a good bipartisan bill, that over 200 of our Members, Republicans and Democrats, basically support this legislation. May I remind many of my colleagues that the NRA has put extraordinary pressure on Members, and certainly even in the States. With that being said, there are people out there that need to protect our victims, and they should be protecting our victims. My family went through a terrible tragedy years ago, and it was because of gun violence. Now, they are saying that the gun industry has nothing to do with the person that buys the gun. Well, I say they do have a purpose. We know that the gun industry, when they ship the guns to gun dealers, and then a gun is used in the commission of a crime, through the tracing it goes back to the gun dealer to say that this store bought the gun from here. They keep statistics on this. In New York State, over 60 percent of the guns used in crime are traced back to the manufacturers. With that being said, the majority of our gun stores are legitimate owners. But again, 1 percent is causing over 60 percent of the harm in this Nation. With this bill that is going to be passed today, and it will be passed today and will be signed by the President, is not doing any favor for the citizens of the United States. Our courts are working, and they should continue to work. But again, it comes down to where the victims should be allowed to have their day in court. What we are doing to the gun industry is allowing them to have a blanket, a blanket. My colleagues say that we can have our day in court. The hoops that they will have to go through will make it near impossible. The States that have the right, through their attorneys general, to sue the gun manufacturers should have their day in court. We are not looking to put anyone out of business. We are not looking to take the right of someone to own a gun, but the gun industry and these bad dealers are costing this country over $100 billion in health care every single year, and here we are going to give them blanket immunity. I do not understand this. This is not common sense. This is not protecting the American people. And when the American people and my gun owners hear exactly what should be done, they agree with us. It is up to the American people to have their voices heard. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation. It is not good for the American people, it is not good for the health care system.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me this opportunity to speak out against this rule. I have been here about 8\1/ 2\ years now, and I came here without any political experience. But history had taught me that we, as Americans, certainly fight for our democracy all of the time. Yet over the years, I have seen democracy, especially in this great House, deteriorate continuously. I have seen where we go up to the Rules Committee continuously, because I always thought that when you came down to this great House, the whole idea was to have debate. And yet I see debate being challenged constantly. Important issues that come on to this floor, the minority is not allowed to debate them, nor are we allowed to offer any kind of amendments to hopefully make a bill better. Our voices are being shut constantly. This is not the democracy that I learned about when I was in school or the democracy that I believed in as I became an adult. Last night in the Rules Committee, the majority voted against protecting police officers and voted to make it easier for felons to get guns. The committee rejected my amendment that would ban all armor- piercing ammunition. Let me tell you about armor-piercing ammunition. That was used in the shooting back in 1993 that killed my husband and wounded my son. And it is only by the grace of God that my son survived. I can go into how many millions of dollars have been spent to make sure that my son could have a productive life. I can talk about his hand that was operated on, because once the bullet hit it, it shattered. We were lucky that we had anything to work with. And because he raised his hand, it only took off a little bit of his head. And these are bullets that we want to have on our streets? But that amendment was not allowed. You cannot even hunt with them. Come on. I am hearing this debate on the second amendment. I believe in the second amendment. I will protect the second amendment. But that does not mean that we cannot enforce the laws that are already on the books. You know, I have the bill, that would be the NICS system, that would bring the National Instant Checks System up to where it should. You know, this is the month that we are supposed to be talking about domestic violence. And yet because of the way the States do not keep records, we have people that are not in the NICS system. So if you want to talk about let us enforce the laws on the books, then let us pass a good NICS system that would enforce the laws that are already on the books. Too many of our felons are slipping through the cracks of the NICS system. What I want to do is make sure that every State can come to the speed that they should be, when someone is found guilty in court, and they are being adjudicated to prison, that their rights of being able to buy a gun are taken away. You want to talk about that we have terrorists in this country, and we have a terrorist list, but they are allowed to buy guns. Now, again, we keep hearing the rhetoric that goes back and forth in this Hall all of the time that we are trying to take away the right of people to own guns. That is nonsense. But we can have gun safety issues put out into place so that we can bring down the number of 30,000 people killed in this country every year, so we can bring down the $100 billion that is spent every year on health care, loss of productivity, and using our police. Think about what this Hall and what this great House could do with $100 billion. Maybe we could protect Social Security. Maybe we could protect our health care system. Maybe we can improve our educational system. You know, again, I am disappointed because I came here as an average citizen, honestly believing that a debate was good, whether people agreed or disagreed, made no difference. You had a debate and hopefully people would then make up their minds. Let us not think that this bill is going to solve the problems that they are talking about. In a decade we have had over 15 million lawsuits. Fifty-seven of them were against gun manufacturers. Fifty- seven of them. And for this, and every other issue that we are taking away the right of victims to be able to have their day in court. Our court system is working. Our court system is set up the way the Constitution wanted. And yet this body, with our Republican friends, wants to take away the rights of people to have their day in court. I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule, to protect the integrity of this House, and not to protect the NRA.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will take up the National Rifle Association's top legislative priority for the 109th Congress. We will vote on legislation granting the gun industry unprecedented immunity from liability lawsuits. Nearly no other consumer product manufacturers or sellers have this kind of protection. The NRA says this bill will prevent frivolous lawsuits that may bankrupt the gun industry, but a closer look reveals this bill tries to fix a problem that actually does not exist. Over the past decade, there have been over 10 million lawsuits filed here in the U.S. and only 57 involved the gun industry. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, no lawsuit against the gun industry has ever been dismissed as frivolous by a judge. Some of these suits have been dismissed for other reasons, and some have been successful. The point is the current system does work. Unworthy cases are not coming to trial so why do we need to close the courthouse doors to those who were legitimately victimized by gun industry negligence or incompetence? Do not let the NRA rhetoric fool you. This legislation is not about protecting an honest gun dealer who legally sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime. This legislation protects cases of gross negligence that lead to the injuries and death of unsuspecting victims. For example, the owner of the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store in Washington State was successfully sued because he could not account for over 239 guns in his inventory. One of these guns was the Bushmaster used in the D.C. sniper killings. The D.C. sniper murderers were allowed to get their hands on a gun because of a gun seller's negligence. But now, House leadership thinks the D.C. snipers' victims should not have their day in court. We should not let negligence and incompetence that results in death or injury go unpunished in any industry. Stripping away the threat of legal action will seriously jeopardize efforts to make guns safer. Without the threat of liability suits, the gun industry will have no financial incentive to incorporate gun locks, smart gun technology, and safety triggers into their products. Imagine if similar legislation were passed 40 years ago to cover the auto industry. Today our cars would not have seat belts, air bags or antilock brakes. Mr. Speaker, instead of stopping nonexistent frivolous lawsuits, we should be protecting the public from gun violence. I submitted amendments to this bill to the Committee on Rules. One amendment will allow liability lawsuits against those who negligently sell cop killer bullets. These are bullets that are similar to the ones used in the murder of my husband and critically wounded my son in 1993. I will also seek to continue negligence lawsuits against those who irresponsibly sell large-capacity clips. Large-capacity clips were used in the Long Island shooting which took down my husband and son and many other family members. If we had smaller clips, we would not have had as many killings on that train. If we did not have the cop killer bullets out on the streets, maybe my son would not have been injured so severely, and there is a possibility my husband might be alive. These clips represent a serious homeland security threat if a terrorist were to use them. Without the threat of lawsuits, guns may end up in the hands of people who should not have them. Mr. Speaker, we already have lost 33,000 Americans a year to gun violence. We lose 5,200 children per year. Independent studies show that gun violence costs our health care system over $100 billion a year. The average cost of each firearm fatality, including medical care, police services, and lost productivity is over $1 million. I can testify because my son's bills are over that. But the Department of Justice says only 2 percent of Federal gun crimes are prosecuted, and 20 of the 22 Federal gun laws on the books are not effectively enforced. We need to give our law enforcement agencies the tools to do their jobs efficiently. We cannot proceed with this legislation unless we can ensure the National Instant Background Check is fully effective. Currently, half of the States have entered less than 60 percent of the felony convictions into the NICS system. In 13 States, and my colleague just talked about domestic violence, restraining orders are not accessible through the NICS system. Too many of those not allowed to buy guns slip through the cracks of our background check system. That is why I submitted an amendment to permit negligence lawsuits against the gun industry until 90 percent of the felony convictions and other disqualifying criteria are included in the NICS database. I have introduced H.R. 1415, a bill to give grants to help the States keep their NICS information current and accurate. Honest gun sellers do not want to sell criminals guns. My amendment would give them the peace of mind that all of their sales are to responsible gun owners. However, we still should not give breaks to dishonest and incompetent gun sellers by giving them immunity from lawsuits resulting from their negligence. But if the gun lobby and its faithful servants in leadership insist on taking up this bill, we must make sure safeguards are in place to protect the public. Mr. Speaker, our priorities are misplaced when it comes to preventing gun violence. We need to change the dialogue.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Linda Leonard, a dedicated member and Executive Director of Long Island Crisis Center, LICC. On October 10, 2005, Ms. Leonard will celebrate 30 years of service to the citizens of Nassau County and Long Island. Long Island Crisis Center was created in the 1970s by students of Adelphi University to promote counseling for students by students via telephone or face-to-face appointments. Since then, the Center has expanded to help countless Long Islanders with a wide array of programs. Ms. Leonard has been in charge of the Center since 1979. She has brought support to numerous groups on Long Island and has brought the LICC from its very humble beginnings to an established multi-service agency. The people of Long Island are in debt to the work of this committed woman. There have been many groundbreaking programs established by Ms. Leonard in her 30 years of service. For example, in the late 1970s runaway and homeless youth had no where to turn to for support. Ms. Leonard changed that in conjunction with the Nassau County Youth Board. She established the Runaway and Homeless Youth Hotline along with housing for these young people. She further led the way in the creation of Nassau Haven, a shelter for these same youth. While this shelter was not opened until 1980, the LICC continued to help these young members of the Long Island community. Ms. Leonard is also responsible in creating support lines for people from stigmatized populations of Long Island. She had led the fight to create peer counseling and assistance programs for gay and lesbian youth. She pursued this fight through the 1980s, a time where this policy was viewed as highly unpopular. In 1993, LICC formed Pride for Youth with a grant from the Paul Rapoport Foundation. Pride for Youth's mission is to enhance the health and wellness of these youth through education, supportive services, and youth development. It is the strong leadership of this woman that has allowed the LICC to be an effective organization in helping those members of the Long Island community most needing help. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in congratulating Linda in her 30 years of service. Best wishes, Linda, and I can only hope you continue serving Long Island in the exceptional way you have for 30 years.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with no questions asked. The seller ran his name through the Federal background check system and nothing came up. However, Peter Troy had a history of mental health problems and his own mother filed a restraining order against him because of his violent background. It was illegal for him to purchase a gun, but he, like so many others, he simply slipped through the cracks in our background check system. Four days later, Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook in my district, 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 has failed. It is only a matter of time before the system's failings provoke larger tragedies. Earlier today, I submitted an amendment to the Department of Justice authorization bill that will help ensure that others will not be victimized because of our flawed background check system. NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, is the database used to check potential firearm buyers for any criminal record or history of mental illness. In large, NICS has been a great success. Since 1994, more than 700,000 individuals have been denied a gun because of a felony conviction or other qualifying item on their background check. However, the NICS system is only as good as the information that it has. 25 States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS system. In these States, many felons will not turn up on the NICS system and would be able to purchase guns with no questions asked. For example, if someone is convicted of a crime in Texas, that disqualifying offense might not appear on a background check conducted in New York. In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not accessible through NICS. Common sense would tell you and dictate to you that you do not sell a gun to someone who has been served a restraining order. Thirty-three States do not have automated or do not share mental health records that would disqualify certain individuals from purchasing a gun. This amendment is similar to the stand-alone legislation that I have introduced. This amendment would require all States to provide the FBI with all of the relevant records needed to conduct effective background checks. It is the State's responsibility to ensure this information is current and accurate. However, I recognize many State budgets are already overburdened. This legislation would provide grants to States to update their NICS system. States would get the funds they need to make sure records relevant to NICS are up to date. 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 on gun owners, but give the government tools to ensure existing laws are effective and enforceable. In fact, the NICS Improvement Act already passed this House in the 107th Congress by a voice vote. The bill had the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. Unfortunately, the other body never acted on the bill. This is common-sense gun legislation we can all agree on. This bill will save lives while not infringing on anybody's second amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Committee on Rules accepts my amendment and we pass it on the floor tomorrow by a voice vote. If we can prevent another tragedy like the one that occurred at the Our Lady of Peace church, and those that are happening around this country, with a simple voice vote, we should do it right away. We can make a difference in this country in reducing gun violence for over 30,000 people that are killed a year and for those that are injured, not to say how much it would save on our health care costs. We have the laws on the books. We must enforce them, but we need the tools to do so.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina took an enormous personal toll on thousands of families across Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, many of whom are now relocated in neighboring states and need to begin rebuilding their lives. Congress' first priority must be to ensure the evacuees have the necessary resources. We must also determine why the Federal response, led by FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security failed to recognize the urgency of the situation. Americans may have died because of the Federal Government's slow response. This is unacceptable. Last Thursday, the House passed legislation in support of a bipartisan committee to investigate the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately the committee will not truly be bipartisan because it will be selected and led by the Republican leadership, which may be inclined to place blame on local officials while overlooking mistakes made by the Bush Administration. This will not give us the objectivity that we need. We must have an independent panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission. It is not a question of Members being capable of serving on a committee, but I fear their political affiliations will cause many Americans to doubt the validity of their conclusions and findings. Americans no longer trust their elected officials to set aside politics and develop objective conclusions identifying personnel and policy that failed us during Katrina and what can be done to remedy our emergency infrastructure failures. The 9/11 commission put politics aside and delivered concise and direct conclusions about failings in our intelligence infrastructure. We need to again appoint a similar non-partisan commission to ensure what happened in New Orleans never happens again and this begins with the response and actions of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. I was pleased that Congress acted quickly to appropriate funds for the states and victims of the disaster. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security use this aid appropriately to help those harmed by Katrina. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security there have been detailed instances of contracting fraud and waste. In an effort to prevent this practice in the future, I have cosponsored legislation that calls for the creation of an Inspector General for Natural Disaster Response and Reconstruction within the Department of Homeland Security. The Inspector General will have one responsibility, to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment and handling of Federal funds by any organization providing relief to Katrina. This will ensure the funds are reaching those most in need and ensure tax dollars are not wasted. On a positive note, I congratulate my Long Island colleague, Congressman Peter King, for being named Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. With his experience working with Federal and local in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and serving on the Committee since its inception, Peter is more than qualified to lead. I am confident he will show the same dedication for rebuilding the Gulf Coast that he has demonstrated for rebuilding his hometown and trust he will work bipartisanly when deciding how to use Federal resources in response to Katrina as he has in the fight with the war on terror.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, Congress allowed the Federal ban on assault weapons to expire without a floor vote. The ban was allowed to die despite the support of two-thirds of the American people and the support of nearly every police organization in the country. And although he did nothing to help, President Bush even said he supported the ban. But Congress refused to listen to common sense and allowed weapons such as AK-47s and Tec-9s to be available throughout the United States. Since then, the NRA and its allies in Congress have pursued a radical agenda to weaken our gun laws. In July, the other body passed legislation giving the gun industry unprecedented protections from negligent lawsuits. This legislation will see that negligence goes unpunished. It will also give the industry no incentive to pursue safety innovations for their products. Had these protections been in place for the auto industry 40 years ago, cars would not have seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes. The NRA says this law will prevent frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry. But it is a problem that does not exist. Over the past 10 years, over 10 million lawsuits have been filed in the United States. Only 57 have involved the gun industry. And only 12 of those have been ruled frivolous by judges. The current system works. Frivolous lawsuit against the gun industry are not coming to trial. Also, the NRA has begun a lobbying campaign to convince State legislatures to overturn workplace gun laws. Whether it is at a day care center or school, church or hazardous material plant, the NRA wants employees to come to work armed. Again, it defies common sense. Guns are already the third greatest hazard in the work field. Seventeen Americans die in the job because of guns each and every week. Instead of dismissing irresponsible business practices and allowing guns in day care centers, Congress should focus on legislation that keeps illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. We need to give gun law enforcement the tools to enforce current gun laws. According to the Department of Justice, only 2 percent of Federal gun crimes are enforced. I have introduced legislation to improve the National Instant Background Check System, or NICS, to make sure people who are not allowed to own guns cannot access them. NICS is a database used to make sure potential gun buyers are legally permitted to own firearms. But the system is only as good as the information States provide. Twenty-five States have entered less than 60 percent of their felony convictions into the NICS database. In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not entered into the NICS system. My bill will require States and Federal agencies to provide the FBI with all relevant records necessary to conduct effective background checks. The bill estimates a nationwide grant program to allow State law enforcement agencies to update and transmit records for inclusion into NICS. Another step towards reducing the threat of gun violence is to include individuals on the Federal terrorist watch list in the NICS system. That individuals with known terrorist ties are allowed to buy guns, with no questions asked, represents a serious threat to our homeland security. Earlier this year, the United States Government Accountability Office issued a report revealing 44 instances of persons listed on Federal terrorist watch lists attempting to purchase firearms from gun shows during a 4-month period in 2004. Thirty-five of these transactions resulted in a successful purchase of a firearm. Our current law allows our enemies in the war on terror to arm themselves within our own borders. I have introduced legislation to place persons on the Transportation Security Administration's no-fly list into the NICS system. If we do not trust an individual to board a plane, common sense dictates that we should not allow them to buy guns. Both sides of the gun issue have a vested interest in reducing gun violence. In 2002 alone, guns killed over 30,000 Americans. Each year, gun violence kills more of our children than cancer, pneumonia, asthma, AIDS, and the flu combined. Studies show gun violence costs our health care system more than $100 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, we must work together to achieve commonsense solutions to violence, without infringing on the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, Congress allowed the Federal ban on assault weapons to expire without a floor vote. The ban was allowed to die despite the support of two-thirds of the American people and the support of nearly every police organization in the country. And although he did nothing to help, President Bush even said he supported the ban. But Congress refused to listen to common sense and allowed weapons such as AK-47s and TEC-9s to be available throughout the United States. Since then, the NRA and its allies in Congress have pursued a radical agenda to weaken our gun laws. In July, the other body passed legislation giving the gun industry unprecedented protections from negligence lawsuits. This legislation will see that negligence goes unpunished. It will also give the industry no incentive to pursue safety innovations for their products. Had these protections been in place for the auto industry 40 years ago, cars wouldn't have seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes. The NRA says this law will prevent frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, but it is a problem that doesn't exist. Over the past 10 years, over 10 million lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. Only 57 have involved the gun industry. And only 12 of those have been ruled frivolous by judges. The current system works, frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry are not coming to trial. Also, the NRA has begun a lobbying campaign to convince state legislatures to overturn workplace gun bans. Whether it is at a daycare center, school, church, or hazardous materials plant, the NRA wants employees to come to work armed. Again, it defies common sense. Guns are already the third greatest hazard in the workforce and 17 Americans die on the job because of guns each week. Instead of dismissing irresponsible business practices and allowing guns in daycare centers, Congress should focus on legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. I have introduced legislation to improve the National Instant Background Check System or NICS. NICS is the database used to make sure potential gun buyers are legally permitted to own firearms. But the system is only as good as the information States provide. Twenty-five States have entered less than sixty percent of their felony convictions into the NICS database. In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not entered into NICS. My bill would require States and Federal agencies to provide the FBI with all relevant records necessary to conduct effective background checks. The bill establishes a nationwide grant program to allow State law enforcement agencies to update and transmit records for inclusion in NICS. Another step towards reducing the threat of gun violence is to include individuals on Federal terrorist watch lists in the NICS system. Earlier this year, the United States Government Accounting Office issued a report revealing 44 instances of persons listed on Federal terrorist watch lists attempting to purchase firearms during a 4-month period in 2004. Thirty-five of these transactions resulted in the successful purchase of a firearm. Our current laws allow our enemies in the War on Terror to arm themselves within our borders. I have introduced legislation to place persons on the Transportation Security Administration's No Fly List into the NICS system. If we do not trust an individual to board a plane, common sense dictates that we should not allow them to buy guns. Both sides of the gun issue have a vested interest in reducing gun violence. In 2002 alone, guns killed 30,000 Americans. Studies show gun violence costs our health care system more than $100 billion per year. Mr. Speaker, we can work together to achieve common sense solutions to gun violence without infringing on anybody's 2nd Amendment Rights.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to those affected by the tragic events of Hurricane Katrina. This disaster has presented challenges we could not imagine only a few weeks ago. A major American city needs to be rebuilt and hundreds of thousands of Americans need to find new homes and jobs. While this is a massive undertaking, this does present a unique opportunity. I happen to think that we should always look for a silver lining in any tragedy that we come across. We can build a better, stronger New Orleans without losing the character and charm that made the city so great and alive, a New Orleans that can serve as a model for other communities throughout the country. We can build a housing infrastructure that can help end the awful poverty cycle that entraps too many Americans. The rebuilding of this greet city will provide jobs to people who desperately need them. However, the administration has already adopted policies that will hurt those that need our help the most. The administration has suspended the law requiring Federal contractors to pay employees prevailing wages. By suspending the Davis-Bacon Act, the President is shortchanging newly unemployed Americans who are looking to rebuild their lives. Meanwhile, Government contractors can take advantage of cheap labor and drive up profits. The prevailing wage for construction in the gulf region was among the lowest in the Nation before Katrina. Without Davis-Bacon enforcement, residents of the gulf region will be working for less than a living wage. Paying working families less per hour saves taxpayers nothing. All the money earned from shortchanging workers goes into the profit margins of Government contractors. The people who are affected by Katrina deserve the same competitive wage protections as every other American worker. These people are willing to work hard to rebuild their beloved cities and their lives, and it is an insult to pay them a substandard wage. The rebuilding of our gulf coast has the potential to be the greatest economic development project of our time. We can create 21st century transportation, housing, communications and energy infrastructures for the region. Some might remember during the Depression when we had the WPA work program. The people of New Orleans want to work. The people of New Orleans want to put their lives back together. Let us give them their pride. Let us at least give them a wage that they can live with. The rebuilding of the gulf coast should create economic opportunities for its residents, not an opportunity to take advantage of people desperate to rebuild their lives. Mr. Speaker, we have already put the interests of Government contractors before those of the people of Iraq. It would be a travesty to do the same for the people of New Orleans.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Hurricane Katrina has devastated children, parents, teachers and schools from all over our country. The school year has just started, and now thousands upon thousands of students have been displaced. Those which are lucky enough to have been able to begin school in other locations are still dealing with the turmoil of being uprooted not only from their homes but also their community, friends, and classmates. The instability of their situations must be incredibly difficult and painful to deal with. Education is one of the most important things we can provide our students with, and it is so important to take care of our young people in this horrible time. Yesterday we passed a bill which would provide a waiver for Pell Grants. Today we are going to pass a bill which will waive other Title IV requirements to other programs such as TRIO, Academic Achievement Incentive Scholarship, Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CAMPIS), Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP/SLEAP), High School Equivalency Program (HEP), College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), and the Robert Byrd Scholarship Program. These are good first starts, but in the coming days we need to do even more.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding educational leader, Carl Riccobono. Today, The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers honor Mr. Riccobono with a 2005 Spotlight Award for Teaching Excellence. The Creative Coalition is the leading nonprofit, nonpartisan, social and public advocacy organization of the arts and entertainment community. Founded in 1989 by prominent members of the creative community, The Creative Coalition is dedicated to educating and mobilizing its members on issues of public importance, primarily public education, the First Amendment, arts advocacy, and runaway production. Headquartered in New York City, The Creative Coalition also has offices in Washington, DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Creative Coalition's partner in presenting this award, The American Federation of Teachers, represents 1.3 million teachers, paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel, higher education faculty and staff, healthcare workers, and state and local government employees. Joining Mr. Riccobono in Washington, DC, to accept his award is one of his former students, actor and member of The Creative Coalition, Steve Buscemi. Mr. Buscemi was a student in Mr. Riccobono's fourth grade class at Shaw Avenue Elementary School, a public school in Valley Stream, New York, over 30 years ago. Mr. Riccobono profoundly influenced Mr. Buscemi as well as countless other students over the past three decades. He has shown a tremendous commitment to the field of teaching. I join Mr. Riccobono's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him today on this achievement and wishing him well. I also recognize both The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers for their dedication in promoting public education. Public schools and the teachers in them play an essential role in the guidance of our children and shaping of our future. As such, I commend The Creative Coalition and The American Federation of Teachers for their support of public schools and for honoring the achievements of educators like Mr. Riccobono.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill because it will result in preempting State laws and in a reduction in health care. AHPs would be exempt from having to provide certain critical services, preempting State laws which require coverage. Mr. Speaker, this Nation spends millions and millions of dollars on cancer treatments. We also spend millions of dollars just on research and development. This bill would take away a tool that is used to save lives. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and I offered an amendment to this legislation both in committee and again last night in the Committee on Rules. The amendment would have prohibited employers from joining AHPs if it would mean a reduction in coverage for breast and cervical cancer services. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted. Almost every State has recognized the need to cut health care costs and still provide quality services to their citizens. The States know that without guaranteeing these services, patients will not receive the health care they need. Members have to remember the attorneys general fought in their States to make sure that women would have this care. Why did they fight for it? Because the insurance companies would not offer it. According to the American Cancer Society, over 211,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in the United States in this year alone. In New York State, there will be 14,000 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed this year alone. Breast cancer is a potentially fatal, but very treatable, disease. However, early detection is the key to proper treatment. Mammogram screenings are essential for the early detection of breast cancer. Timely screening can prevent 15 to 30 percent of all deaths from breast cancer among women over 40 years old. Currently, New York and 48 other States require insurance companies to cover mammogram screenings. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has stated that mammograms save women's lives. Former Secretary Tommy Thompson stated, ``The Federal Government makes a clear recommendation for women over 40 to have mammograms, get screened for breast cancer with mammograms every 1 to 2 years. The early detection of breast cancer can save lives.'' Preventive screening for cervical cancer is also vital for women's health. Over 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer will be diagnosed this year, and nearly 1,000 of those cases are residing in my home State of New York. Nearly 4,000 women will die in 2005 from cervical cancer. Preserving the coverage of mammograms and cervical screenings will help save the lives of our wives, mothers and daughters, and also keep down the cost of health care in this country. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported similar measures while in their home States as legislators. They have shown commitment to their home State, and now it is time to show commitment to the Nation. As a nurse, I know first hand the importance of early detection. I have seen the hardships cancer patients endure. Since I have been here, I have done outreach within my district to get women in for their cervical exams and women over 40 in to get their mammograms. This is very important, and we should not miss this opportunity to save lives. For this reason, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, as we worked on this on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, we tried to put our thoughts into it. People have to understand, if the main bill is passed, health care for our small employers is not going to help the majority of those employees seeking coverage. The recommittal goes back to what the States have already done, mainly because in the beginning the insurance companies would not give health care to women that needed to have a mammogram or to have a pap smear to make sure they do not have cervical cancer. This House spends money constantly on cancer research, and here we are using a tool that we can prevent cancer and make sure that women are treated earlier. With this bill, the mainline bill is taking that away. I ask my colleagues, do not be fooled, stand up for your State. Stand up for the health care of your constituents. That is what our job is.

Mrs. McCARTHY

Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate a colleague of ours, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who is actually having her 100th 5-minute Special Order, and we are very proud of her, the country is very proud of her, on bringing issues that certainly affect her constituency and all of ours. So I congratulate her. The leadership of Congress is constantly preaching about responsibility. Individuals should accept the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, this culture of responsibility does not extend to the gun industry and negligent gun sellers. The other body is planning on taking on legislation to grant the gun industry unprecedented immunity from litigation and other legal action. Under this legislation, dealers and manufacturers of guns would receive immunity from any legal action. The gun industry would be unlike the sellers and makers of nearly every other consumer product. These industries must face the consequences of their negligence and misjudgment. In fact, manufacturers and sellers of toy guns are more liable for their products than the makers and sellers of assault weapons and handguns. The NRA has named this issue as their number one legislative priority this year. They say this bill will end frivolous lawsuits, but not a single, not a single suit against the gun industry has ever been deemed frivolous by a court of law. This legislation is not about protecting an honest gun dealer who legally sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime. This legislation protects cases of gross negligence which has led to the deaths of unsuspecting victims. For example, the owner of the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store in Washington State was sued because he could not account for 239 guns in his inventory. One of those guns was the Bushmaster used in the D.C. sniper killings. The D.C. sniper killers were allowed to get their hands on a gun because of a gun seller's negligence. But this legislation would get the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store off the hook from any legal action. Fortunately, a lawsuit was already filed against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster. Part of the settlement was Bushmaster agreeing to work with its dealer to promote safe sales practices to prevent continued instances of negligence. But the bill being taken up by the other body would have forced the immediate dismissal of the lawsuit against Bull's Eye. The gun industry must be subjected to the same laws that govern every other American business, and courthouse doors must remain open to those injured or who have lost loved ones because of the gun industry's negligence. This bill would allow gun dealers to knowingly sell large quantities of guns to a single customer intending to traffic the guns to criminals without any legal repercussions. Stripping away the threat of legal action would seriously jeopardize any opportunity to make guns safer. Without the threat of lawsuits, the gun industry would have no incentive to incorporate gun locks, safety triggers, and smart gun technology into their products. Imagine if this bill had been passed 40 years ago to cover the auto industry. Today cars would not have seatbelts, airbags, or antilock brakes. Instead of giving the gun industry never-before-seen levels of protection, I support giving the industry Federal research and development money. This money will be used to develop reasonable safety measures for their products. Congress has not been responding to the threat that gun violence poses on our safety and homeland security. So I will speak in a language the congressional leadership understands: dollars and cents. It is unfortunate Congress will not allow the Centers for Disease Control to study the economic impact of gun violence, so we have to use data from independent sources. Independent studies have shown gun violence costs our health care system over $100 billion a year, $100 billion a year. The $100 billion- a-year cost includes premiums paid for private health insurance and tax dollars used to pay for Medicaid. These costs often are not reimbursed and cost the States vital health care money. Victims who survive and suffer years of rehabilitation costs run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The average cost of each firearm fatality, including medical care, police services, and lost productivity is almost $1 million per person. Researchers found taxpayers finance 48 percent of health care costs resulting from gun violence through Medicaid and other government programs, which means the American taxpayers are footing the bill for the destruction gun violence causes. Mr. Speaker, why are we spending time helping the gun dealers and manufacturers? We should be investigating technology that will make guns safer. Safer, smarter guns prevent lawsuits against the gun industry, but more importantly prevent the tragic, unnecessary loss of life that the gun industry's negligence provokes. We should be giving them research and development money. We should be doing everything we can to prevent the injuries. People do not understand when gun violence hits home, it is a whole disaster to the family and to the community. We can do a better job. We should be doing a better job. But protecting the gun industry, or certainly the gun dealers from not being able to be sued, is wrong. We should not be closing the courts for anyone.