Carolyn McCarthy

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on November 14, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: rollcall No. 837--S. 1412 (Sen. Kerry), ``aye''; rollcall No. 838--H.R. 298 (Rep. Carter), ``aye''; rollcall No. 839--H.R. 2422 (Rep. Grimm), ``aye''.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for working with me on this issue. I rise totally in opposition to H.R. 822. It saddens me, but it does not surprise me, that we're here having this debate today. H.R. 822 is an unnecessary and seriously flawed piece of legislation. This bill overrides the decisions of States and forces them to recognize concealed-carry gun permits from every other State. Almost every State currently allows carry permits, but States differ substantially in regards to their permitting requirements. They have different minimum age requirements. Some States require safety training before receiving a permit, and some States bar people convicted of certain crimes. These different requirements have been put in place by the elected legislatures of the States who did so with an understanding of the specific needs of their communities. H.R. 822 erases all of that and creates an unworkable system. Under this bill, States with strong gun safety laws, such as New York, California, and Massachusetts, would allow out-of-State visitors, potentially as young as 18, to walk down our streets armed and dangerous. There are States in our Nation that don't require a background check before issuing a concealed-carry permit. There are States in our Nation that don't require any firearm training before letting people walk around with a concealed weapon. These are decisions that those States made for themselves. I don't want those decisions imposed upon the communities I represent, and neither should anybody else. Also, police officers would be faced with the task of attempting to determine the authority of permits from 48 other States on the fly and in potentially tense situations. Simply put, this bill is anticommunity, antisafety, and antipolice. And, finally, the bill attempts to solve a problem that simply does not exist. Many States have chosen to enter into these agreements with other States to honor each other's concealed-carry permits. Nothing is stopping a State from recognizing a permit from any other State. The fact that States have not done so represents a deliberate choice to only enter into agreements with States that they feel have the proper approach to issuing concealed-carry permits. The Federal Government should not be second-guessing the decision of the States in this matter. It saddens me but does not surprise me. We are here today discussing not how to make Americans safer and reduce gun violence, but, instead, we're talking about how to weaken our gun laws and considering a bill that takes local decisions out of the hands of local officials. The gun manufacturing lobby will try to say otherwise, but I fully support the Constitution, as my colleague mentioned before. I believe in the rights afforded in the Second Amendment, and I support law- abiding gun owners. In the absence of a perfect, nonviolent society, however, we must make laws to protect the public. I know this firsthand. After all, it was a man with a concealed handgun that took the life of my husband and gravely wounded my son on the Long Island Railroad back in 1993. Now, you may hear arguments today about interstate commerce as a justification for this bill, but this bill has nothing to do with interstate commerce. This bill is simply about the Federal Government overriding the States' laws about who can carry a concealed weapon. You may also hear comparisons to State-issued driver's licenses, which are recognized nationwide. But if we want to compare guns to cars, as the gun lobby often likes to do, let's have this conversation. Cars and their use are among the most heavily regulated consumer products and activities in the United States due to the safety risk they pose. One thing that does surprise me, though, is why so many supporters of this bill who have been so vocal about defending States' rights in the past are now choosing, in this instance, to trample on States' rights. Federalism dictates that some things should remain with the States and some things should be addressed at the national level. Going back to the matter of interstate commerce, I'm sure all Americans would love to see the House address interstate commerce in a more direct way, which is getting Americans back to work and growing the economy. We should be talking about how to create jobs and prepare the next generation to succeed in the global economy. Instead, we're talking about how to trample on States' rights, weaken gun laws, and make America less safe, all to please our country's powerful gun lobby. So, as I said, it saddens me, but it does not surprise me that we're having this debate today. I have an amendment under which States would be required to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. The intent of this amendment is to require that States affirmatively pass legislation enacting the provisions of H.R. 822 before the bill can go into effect in that State. This would restore States' rights, something I believe in. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose H.R. 822. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 822. As you know, this committee voted down a motion to consider the bill under an open rule. This is such an important issue that we really need to have the entire Nation hear about it and have all of us have our voices heard. I want to make sure that I get to speak on an amendment of mine that is going to be considered. Under my amendment, States would be required to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. This would restore the critical decision of who should be able to carry a concealed handgun in our communities back to where it belongs--to the local governments that have to deal with the policing and other consequences such as this provision will do. We also will hear about other amendments that would restore rights back to States and safety back to our communities and some sanity back into this debate. Madam Speaker, I think it's extremely important that we look at this as a States' rights issue. My State has concealed weapons laws. We allow people to have concealed weapons. But there are other States that do not come up to our standard, and we don't want them coming into our State and telling us what to do. I suggest that we really look at this very carefully, and hopefully my colleagues will definitely vote for my amendment tomorrow when it comes up. We can deal with this. The Supreme Court has said people have the right to own a gun. They also said localities have the right to make the laws safe for their constituents. I happen to believe that H.R. 822 and the way this rule is written is not good for the United States of America, it's not good for the people of America, and I know it's not good for my State of New York.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for stroke survivors and caregivers. Although World Stroke Day has passed, support for stroke victims and caregivers must never end. As a long- time nurse, I have seen first-hand the effects of debilitating diseases. I understand the hard work and dedication of many of our caregivers in helping these victims get back to health. Awareness is integral in reducing the occurrence of a stroke. According to the American Stroke Association, one in every six people worldwide is expected to die from a stroke. This disease is also the number three cause of death in United States. These numbers are alarming, and I believe Congress must do all that it can to raise awareness and provide policies to address the needs of stroke victims. Last Congress, the Democratic House passed H.R. 1032, the Heart Disease Education, Analysis Research, and Treatment for Women Act, which would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on the quality of and access to care for women affected by a stroke. In this report, the HHS Secretary would have been required to include guidance on reducing these disparities in improving treatment for women suffering from a stroke. While this legislation did not become law, I hope Congress can continue in its efforts to reduce the occurrence of and effects of a stroke. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of stroke survivors and their caregivers. Congress must continue to fight for research and quality healthcare, so that all Americans affected by a stroke can live healthy, productive lives.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the observance of October as National Work and Family Month. Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed with unanimous support H. Res. 768, a resolution that I introduced supporting this same goal and requesting the President to issue a proclamation calling for the observance of October as National Work and Family Month. Now that October has arrived this year, I want to call our attention once again to this effort to strengthen America's families, improve our work environments, and create a stronger economy and society. It is an unfortunate fact that many Americans are unhappy with both their work environments and, even worse, their lives in general. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, an ongoing research project to measure Americans' perceptions of their well-being, has found that 53 percent of Americans are unsatisfied with their work environment. Even more disturbing, the Well-Being Index found an equal percentage of Americans states that their lives as a whole are ``suffering'' or ``struggling,'' as opposed to ``thriving.'' In this time of economic hardship, Congress cannot delay any longer. We must work together to find solutions to help rebalance the family and work responsibilities of American workers. Such a rebalancing would create a healthier and happier workforce, likely resulting in higher worker productivity and a stronger economy overall. In addition, American families will be strengthened as parents spend more time at home with each other and their children. Countless studies have documented the positive effects that more engaged parents have on their children's development, particularly in terms of education and health. Moreover, studies suggest that children with cohesive and supportive families are less likely to do drugs or commit other crimes, and more likely to excel in school. Ultimately, this is the type of America we must foster and leave for the next generation. Our workers should be as happy as they are productive. Our parents should be as successful in the home as they are in their careers. Our children should grow up in families that are as nurturing as they are cohesive. Recognizing and celebrating October as National Work and Family Month is the first step to reinvigorate the American worker and family.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2587, a bill I call the ``Outsourcing Bill of Rights.'' Especially during these difficult economic times, we have come together to do the patriotic thing--protect and create jobs here at home. This legislation eliminates the NLRB's already limited authority to order an employer to restore work taken away in a wrongful way. By passing this bill, we are telling our Nation's workers we cannot and we will not help them. Plain and simple, if this bill passes, it will lead to increased outsourcing of jobs. Further, the bill will make certain that employers will not be held accountable. My colleague on the other side just mentioned that 93 percent of American workers are not unionized, and I also would like to bring up the point that we have seen wages across this country going down and yet we have seen the profits in corporations going up. That's why we are in the situation we are in right now. I come from a union family, and I am proud of that. It was able to give us the education that we needed, for my father and mother to be able to buy us a home. That, we're not seeing today. Why? Because we're hitting the workers. Why did we have unions in the first place? To give them a voice. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. In my opinion, the corporations should be a little bit more patriotic and start hiring people so we can get this economy going and make this great country what we are. America can go forward, but not without good pay for our workers.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of U.S. Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener, and honor his memory through the dedication and renaming of the Lynbrook Post Office. Jeffrey, a native of Lynbrook, NY, dedicated his life to public and volunteer service as a volunteer firefighter, AMT and Navy Corpsman. Jeffrey joined the Navy shortly after September 11, 2001 and immediately volunteered to be assigned to a fighting Marine infantry company. Jeffrey trained as a fighting infantryman who also provided medical services to those who had been wounded. In February of 2005, Jeffrey arrived in Iraq and shortly after, was assigned to a Marine Mobile Assault Platoon (MAP). On May 7, 2005, while serving with his team in Al-Anbar Province in Iraq, Jeffrey was killed while attempting to help another platoon involved in combat. Jeffrey made the ultimate sacrifice while serving and defending our country and it is for this reason that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to dedicate the Lynbrook Post Office in his honor. As of Friday, July 22, 2011, the Lynbrook Post Office will be known as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building.'' This is a fitting tribute to Jeffrey's honor and memory. Jeffrey and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and this is a small gesture to thank them and honor the memory of such a brave and dedicated hero. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and appreciation that I acknowledge the accomplishments of HM2, Jeffrey L. Wiener, USN and pay tribute to him and his family through the dedication of the Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on July 11, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: rollcall No. 534--on agreeing to the amendment (Tierney)--``aye;'' rollcall No. 535--on agreeing to the amendment (Graves)--``nay;'' rollcall No. 536--on agreeing to the amendment (Scalise)--``aye;'' rollcall No. 537--on agreeing to the amendment (Woodall)--``nay;'' rollcall No. 538--on agreeing to the amendment (McClintock)--``nay''.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for yielding me this time. It has been a pleasure working with her. I would also like to thank Chairman Bachus and Subcommittee Chair Biggert with whom we have worked. This is something that is important to both of our districts. I also thank Ranking Member Barney Frank. Madam Chairman, H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, but it also provides much needed reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program. My district in Long Island, especially the community of Valley Stream, was included in the early rounds of FEMA's implementation of the flood map modernization process, and we have experienced much of the frustrations associated with the process. The whole idea of redoing what we're doing in this flood map is hopefully to prevent other Members of Congress from being frustrated as much as I have when they're trying to help their community. Since our maps were enacted in the fall of 2009, I hear daily from our frustrated homeowners who are required to purchase flood insurance because of the updated maps and who feel they did not have the time or the tools necessary to understand and respond to the maps' results. H.R. 1309 contains provisions to better inform homeowners who are required to purchase flood insurance because of updated maps. For example, the bill requires FEMA to notify federally elected officials when there are changes to a flood zone or a map directly in their district. The bill also requires FEMA to create a method for flood insurance policies to be paid for with installment payments, to ease the burden of having to pay the up-front full payment which can cost thousands of dollars. The bill also allows for homeowners who are in the reduced cost preferred risk policy program to enter into the 5-year phase-in for full actuarial rates when the extended rate expires in 2013. To ensure the accuracy of the data and process FEMA used in creating the updated maps around the country, H.R. 1309 also creates a Technical Mapping Council made up of agency employees and experts in the field of mapping to develop new mapping standards for future map modernization activities. We need to use every tool available to bring relief to homeowners who are being burdened by FEMA's map modernization process, and the bill before us is a good start. I would like also to say, once again, working with my colleague Mrs. Biggert, working on the subcommittee has been a really good process. We have been able to bring our experiences, what happened in my community in Valley Stream and the frustration that homeowners have gone through. This legislation, although it doesn't cure everything, it will help constituents. And those who have not had their maps done yet, this is a good way for going forward.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as a nurse of many years, I rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to the Hospice and Palliative Care Nurses Association (HPNA) on the occasion of its 25th anniversary (1986-2011). Representing nearly 10,000 members across the United States, HPNA is now the nation's largest and oldest professional nursing organization dedicated to promoting excellence in hospice and palliative nursing care. Since 1986 HPNA has played an important role in promoting excellence among palliative nursing professionals through evidence-based educational tools, specialty resources, visionary collaboration, and professional networking. The important role that these nurses play in the lives of individuals and their families is worthy of celebration, and I add my voice to those honoring the organization's 25 years of service. As my colleagues may know, nurses now comprise the largest group of health professionals with approximately 2.9 million providers offering essential care to patients in a variety of settings, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, community or public health areas, schools, workplaces and home care. Nurses represent the public interest and not a special interest. The contributions made by the practice and science of nursing are significant, and in collaboration with other healthcare professionals, significantly improves the quality of our nation's health care system. Simply put, nurses are involved in every aspect of health care, including end of life care. The field of hospice and palliative care nursing is instrumental in treating the person and taking into account the medical, social, psychological, and spiritual needs of a patient and their family at the end of life. This key field of nursing emphasizes quality of life at life's end, and for that I am grateful. Hospice is a covered benefit under Medicare, Medicaid, and most private insurance plans. I applaud HPNA,for educating families and the public regarding these important considerations and care options. Again, I commend the work, dedication and commitment of the hospice and palliative care nurses and the HPNA to improve the quality of life for individuals and their families at the end of life. I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow nurses in this important field as well as the critical patient population and families that they serve.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent because of a family illness on May 26, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: Rollcall No. 354--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Mica No. 38)--``no'' Rollcall No. 355--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Flake No. 40)--``no'' Rollcall No. 356--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Smith No. 42)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 357--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Buchanan No. 43)-- ``no'' Rollcall No. 358--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Maloney No. 47)-- ``no'' Rollcall No. 359--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Mack No. 48)--``no'' Rollcall No. 360--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Langevin No. 49)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 361--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Amash No. 50)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 362--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Campbell No. 53)-- ``no'' Rollcall No. 363--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Campbell No. 54)-- ``no'' Rollcall No. 364--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Chaffetz No. 56)-- ``no'' Rollcall No. 365--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Polis No. 60)--``no'' Rollcall No. 366--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Conyers No. 61)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 367--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Flake No. 62)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 368--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Ellison No. 63)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 369--On Agreeing to the Amendment (L. Sanchez No. 64)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 370--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Jackson Lee No. 111)--``aye'' Rollcall No. 371--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Turner No. 148)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 372--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Cravaack No. 152)-- ``no'' Rollcall No. 373--On Agreeing to the Amendment (McGovern No. 55)-- ``aye'' Rollcall No. 374--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions (H.R. 1540)--``aye'' Rollcall No. 375--On Passage (H.R. 1540)--``aye'' Rollcall No. 376--On Passage (S. 990)--``aye''

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on May 24, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: Rollcall No. 333--On Ordering the Previous Question--``nay.'' Rollcall No. 334--On Agreeing to the Resolution--``no.'' Rollcall No. 335--On Motion that the Committee Rise--``no.'' Rollcall No. 336--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Tonko No. 2)-- ``aye.'' Rollcall No. 337--On Agreeing to the Amendment (Cardoza No. 9)-- ``aye.''

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent because of a family illness on May 23, 2011. If I was present, I would have voted on the following: H.R. 1627--rollcall No. 330: ``aye''; H.R. 1383--rollcall No. 331: ``aye''; H.R. 1657--rollcall No. 332: ``aye.''

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent because of a family illness on May 13th 2011. If I was present, I would have voted on the following: H.R. 754--rollcall No. 323: ``nay''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 324: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 325: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 326: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 327: ``aye''; H.R. 754--rollcall No. 328: ``aye''; and H.R. 754--rollcall No. 329: ``aye.''

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. on May 12, during rollcall vote No. 316, I mistakenly voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``nay.'' I ask that the record reflect my opposition to this amendment. With respect to energy production-related legislation, I support an all-of-the-above strategy, as long as it is responsible and meets proper safety standards.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Israel's Independence Day. For 63 years and counting, Israel continues to be a valuable ally and friend. From fighting global terrorism, to containing the threat of Islamic radicalism, to impressive scientific research, Israel and the United States have developed a unique bond that is based upon shared visions, democratic values, and foreign policy goals. Still, significant challenges remain for our close ally. Citizen uprisings in nations such as Egypt, Libya, and Syria have changed the political landscape of that region. While there is potential for positive political change, as citizens speak out and demand their rights, there is also increased uncertainty that threatens the stability of the already volatile region. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Israel's independence this year, let's give them a gift they surely deserve--the full-faith assurance that this Congress will continue to robustly aid and assist its most trusted ally in the region. I wish President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel all the best on this very important occasion.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to share my thoughts this morning about how the Republican budget is a blow to our American ideas and priorities, I would be remiss if I didn't use this opportunity to praise our men and women in uniform, our President, and his advisers for the extraordinary courage and capability they all demonstrated in the mission that put an end to Osama bin Laden on Sunday. Being from New York, we know firsthand of the consequences of this horrible, horrible action that Osama bin Laden took on September 11, 2001. I can't tell you how many families in my congressional district were hurt, lost their loved ones, children becoming orphans in ways that it is going to take them years, if forever, to recover. That is why Sunday was so important. It was a moment in history, our history. We told the world as Americans, we're going to fight not only for each other but we're going to fight for our rights, our ideals that are at the core of our very being. I would hope that, in the aftermath of Sunday, we would be able to come together in the way that we did after September 11. We need to find more ways to come together. We need to work together for the good of our constituents, for the good of our country. But that doesn't mean that we don't have extraordinary differences of opinion, and that's what I'm here to talk about today. I'm here to talk about the budget that the House Republican majority just passed--and I voted against--on April 15. I believe that that budget is a document that lays out the wrong priorities. Trust me when I say that I'm as anxious as anyone about our Nation's fiscal policies, but we also need to make sure that, in the process, we do not kill thousands of jobs and hurt millions of American families. A budget, as far as I'm concerned, is a moral document. It should be a declaration of our country's priorities. But the Republican budget does anything but that. It hurts our most vulnerable citizens while giving tax breaks to our oil companies. I spent over 33 years as a nurse before I came to Congress, and let me tell you, the one thing that strikes me every week when I come down to Washington is the disconnect that I see between a lot of the politicians here and the people who are back home struggling in their districts. The budget that was passed by Republicans is absolutely out of touch with the people back in my district. How in the world can you undermine the health and well-being of our seniors at the same time that you continue to give the richest companies on the planet tax breaks? That's not what the people in my district want. The seniors, and all the people in my district, want health care. They feel like that as they get older, they want the peace of mind to know that they have access to the greatest health care system in the world. They've paid for that right. As they worked throughout their life, they paid into the Medicare system. They believe that they have the right to Medicare, and I agree with them. Yet the Republican budget fundamentally undermines that right. The Republican budget ends Medicare as we know it. It eliminates guaranteed coverage for our seniors and turns the program into a voucher program. This is a drastic, drastic concept. Let's not try to pretty things up here. Republicans are essentially pushing seniors into the private marketplace where they will pay more and get less. As health care keeps rising with inflation, these vouchers will not keep pace. As the Congressional Budget Office has said, Medicare beneficiaries would bear a much larger share of their health care costs. The result would be absolutely awful for our seniors. We are going to see our parents and our sisters and our brothers faced with awful choices: Are they going to pay higher premiums? Are they going to have to get health plans that cover less? Or, even worse, will they drop out and have no health care at all? Cutting our health care system isn't the only way that families are being hurt. The high price of gas is hurting families across this country and certainly in New York. Across the country and definitely on Long Island, the price of gas has climbed way above $4. Yet in what is an absolutely mind-boggling position, Republicans in Congress still refuse to allow a vote to repeal the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that oil companies are getting. Exxon, for instance, just took in $10.7 billion during the first 3 months of the year alone. That's a 69 percent increase over the same time frame from last year. Other companies have enjoyed the same increases, all while continuing to receive $4 billion annually in subsidies. Mr. Speaker, we're Americans. We can disagree, but we're supposed to be fighting for this country. We need to make sure we protect our seniors. We need to make sure we have jobs. We need to make sure that we keep this country safe. God bless America. The oil companies aren't struggling companies in need of a helping hand. They're companies with huge profits receiving billions of dollars in wasteful government spending. I'm not a person who is against drilling. I believe that we need a comprehensive energy policy that takes advantage of clean energy, but also takes advantage of the natural resources that we've been blessed with. I also believe that we need to be aggressive in taking on the oil speculators who are profiting from the ballooning price of oil. But what I find particularly abhorrent is that, at a time where Republicans are claiming that our country's fiscal problems are an excuse for us to undermine the needs of our seniors, many of whom live month-to-month, we are at the same time giving oil companies $4 billion in tax breaks. Those are not the priorities that I believe in. And those are not the priorities that my constituents believe in. A budget is a moral document of our priorities. It should say something about a country's values. That's why, to turn back to Sunday for a second, that heroic rescue said so much about our country. Americans persevere, Americans fight for their values, and Americans are unrelenting in their efforts. But we do those things because we want safety and security for our families. We want to see our children and grandchildren grow up in a country where fairness and equity is the order of the day. The Republican budget is not about fairness and equity. It is about hurting our seniors--and doing so in order to give oil companies, who are wealthy beyond belief, additional tax breaks. That's not just. That's not fair. That is not what I came to Congress to fight for.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I am, in its current form.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit to this misguided bill. It is important to note that this motion is simply a final amendment to the bill and will not kill the bill as the majority may claim. School-based health centers are on the front lines of preventative care, and preventative care saves lives and saves money, and school- based centers are on the front lines of preventative care. As a nurse for over 30 years, I know that prevention can keep people out of the emergency rooms that taxpayers help fund, and it keeps them from needing expensive procedures and medicines that drive up insurance costs. Patients seen at school-based centers, for example, cost Medicaid an average of $30 less than comparable nonschool-based health center patients. School-based health centers play an important role in treating sports concussions and halting the spread of infectious diseases like the flu. School-based centers also have a positive effect on our educational system. They have been shown to increase academic performance and reduce absenteeism. For example, a recent study found that students who use high school health centers had a 50 percent reduction in absenteeism and 25 percent reduction in lateness. Many students also increased their grade point averages over time compared to students who did not use school-based health centers. Finally, the sad fact is sometimes these centers are a student's only source of health care. So, we are faced today with legislation that attacks the preventative health care work done by our school-based health centers. H.R. 1214 is an upsetting piece of legislation, but that's not surprising at all. After all, this bill is coming from the same conference that just voted to end Medicare as we know it. Both the Republican budget and this legislation today are penny-wise and pound-foolish approaches that cut preventative care for those Americans who need it the most. And the worst common denominator? Both measures go against the most honorable Americans: the elderly and the children. The Republican majority passed a reckless budget before the recess, and they are poised to pass this reckless piece of legislation today. I offer this motion to recommit today to highlight the terrible impacts of the Republican approach in this legislation. This motion to recommit is simply, again, a final amendment and will not kill the bill. My motion to recommit requires the names and locations of each school-based health center that has applied for a grant under the program that the Republican Party would end today be posted on a publicly available Web site. This way, we will be able to all see very clearly the damage that this Republican proposal will cause. Like many of my colleagues, a school-based health center in my district would be denied funding under this bill. One of my hospitals in my district, Winthrop University Hospital, has been partnering with Hempstead High School to run a school-based health center. This school- based health center has 1,500 students enrolled and has 6,000 visits from students each year. Winthrop University's partnership operates in one of my most underserved communities. About 50 percent of students who use this school-based health center are uninsured. Let me say that again: Nearly half of all students who use this health center are uninsured. Hempstead High School is the only access to medical care that they have. The grant that this center applied for will help them serve this population who has nowhere else to turn. I am going to stand with those students and their families and protect the Winthrop-Hempstead High School health center. I hope that other Members will choose to stand with their constituents as well. Should this bill become law, those Members who voted for this bill will have to answer to their communities who would have a vital link to health care cut off. I should also note some misinformation that's being spread by the supporters of H.R. 1214. They claim that these grants aren't needed because they are readily available in other sources, but that's not true. The evidence is that SBHC construction and renovation needs have not been met through other funding. My colleagues across the aisle also claim that construction funds would be provided to centers that aren't sustainable. That's also not true. Guidelines have been developed by the Health Resources and Services Administration to ensure that no construction funds will be provided to any school-based health center that cannot document that they are sustainable now and into the future. As I said, ladies and gentlemen, school-based health centers work. They keep our young people healthy and successful in school, and they do it in a way that saves our taxpayers money. It is just common sense to support school-based centers. Again, this amendment will not kill the bill. This motion to recommit is simply a final amendment to the bill that will provide transparency to the process. I urge all Members to support this motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I also am part of the New York delegation, and I want to talk about Geraldine Ferraro. My good colleague, Carolyn Maloney, basically laid out her life and all the good things that she did. I guess I want to talk about what she meant to so many of us that weren't even in politics back then. I think the first time that I ever saw Geraldine or heard of Geraldine was when she was announcing that she was going to be running for Vice President. So all these things from last week, when we were notified that Geraldine had passed away, many of us wanted to go back to New York for the funeral. Unfortunately, our business here kept us here so we couldn't go back. We're kind of used to that. A lot of times it is said you can spend a lifetime here in Congress, but 2 minutes after you die they will say, ``Who was that?'' But that's not Geraldine. Geraldine was someone that was a force. Again I say in 1984, like most Americans, I took notice of Geraldine Ferraro when she did accept the Democratic nomination for Vice President at the national convention in San Francisco. She struck me as a unique figure on TV, a woman in a male-dominated profession. She had a smile. She had confidence. When she got onto that stage, you just knew this radiance that came out of her. For myself, I was not in politics, didn't follow politics too well, but she certainly gave a strong impression to me. Her message was also full of hope. I happen to believe that, especially when we say to people, ``If we can do this, we can do anything.'' I am one of those people that believe that. I am here in Congress. Everybody said I couldn't do that. Somehow I got here. Somehow I have stayed here. Somehow I keep fighting for my constituents back at home. She inspired women to get involved. She inspired them to get involved in politics, whether at the staff level or as a candidate. And while I understood the importance of the event, I had no idea that I would be standing here praising this woman that I first saw on TV. As I said, I had no political ambitions. I was a nurse, just several miles away from the city where Geraldine was. Like most Americans, I did vote and I followed the news, but I never thought I would get involved in politics. Fast forward 12 years, it's mid 1996, and I'm still a nurse in Nassau County and still not thinking about politics whatsoever. Something happened to my life, as it does to so many other lives. An event happens, and all of a sudden you change and become an activist. Gun violence was unfortunately the issue that hit my family and many families on the Long Island Railroad. My husband was killed. My son was seriously wounded. I decided that I was going to do something about it. Geraldine Ferraro, the person that I saw on TV, called me. She said, ``Carolyn, you should really think about running for Congress.'' There were other people calling me, too. And I'm thinking, ``I'm a nurse. What do I know about politics?'' But you know what? If I was going to try and do something, then I had to run. Everybody told me I was going to lose. Maybe I would have. But I didn't. I won. But Geraldine was always there to give advice. Just because you're a woman doesn't mean you can't be tough. Just because you're a woman, you can be tough and you can be gentle, and you have to use that to get legislation done. Well, here I am in Congress, and I am proud to be following in the footsteps of Geraldine Ferraro. I wouldn't use the words, the kind words that people use for her on myself like ``pioneer'' or ``trailblazer.'' I actually followed Geraldine and her advice to come to Washington and try to make a difference. Like so many women in New York politics today, Geraldine helped me as I went through from private citizen to candidate to public official. She opened so many doors for me, introducing me to people that I needed to meet. She was well known for this, for spending as much energy helping lift up others and having another woman follow. We will all remember you, Geraldine. I will always remember you. God bless you. We do remember you. Thank you. Again I thank my colleagues, Charlie and Carolyn and Peter, for arranging this moment we could pay tribute to Geraldine. With only 17 percent of members of Congress being women, we still have a long way to go when it comes to equality in representation. But certainly we couldn't be where we are today if it weren't for Geraldine. I for one am looking forward to making a living tribute to Geraldine, to take her philosophy of helping others, of lifting people up the ladder behind you, as I continue my career here. Thank you very much.

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me say something first. In the beginning of this program, we didn't have any service. That means there were no people out there to help those that were trying to apply. But we have seen encouraging signs in the economy; yet we are still on a long path towards economical recovery. Many of my constituents are still facing hardship, including trying to keep their homes. When the housing crisis hit, the private sector responded by turning their backs on those that needed the help. As a result, Congress stepped in and created housing programs to hold the industry accountable and to help these families weather the worst housing crisis that we have seen in generations. Now, thanks to the leadership of the President and the Democratic- controlled 111th Congress, we are seeing more and more servicers adopting their own programs, largely based on the eligibility criteria within the programs such as HAMP. The past few weeks my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought bills to the floor to terminate these programs, claiming they have done more harm than good to the homeowner and that struggling homeowners are in better hands with the private companies that contributed to the housing crisis in the first place. Most of the homeowners got in trouble because the private sector is the one that got them in the problems. I disagree with that and point to constituents who have reached out to my office for help because their servicers were not being responsive. The bill before us totally terminates the HAMP program; however, it protects assistance to the homeowners in a trial or a permanent modification. My amendment, which was not made in order, would have expanded that provision to include homeowners who, on or before March 1 of this year, submitted required paperwork for HAMP or had made a verified request to their servicers seeking that modification. My district office has heard from dozens and dozens of my constituents who have been waiting for up to 16 months, 16 months for a response from their servicer regarding the eligibility for HAMP. They reach out to my office at the point of total frustration due to the lengthy response time when they have submitted the required paperwork. I shudder to think what the response rate would have been without this program in place. It's very disheartening that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to shut down these distressed homeowners before they have even a chance to qualify for the assistance. The HAMP program was by no means perfect. Everybody agrees on that. Nor was it meant to be permanent. We all agree on that. Instead, it was meant to hold the mortgage service industry accountable and responsive to those that needed the assistance. At a time when our housing market is still very fragile and foreclosures continue to occur in record numbers, instead of terminating these programs, we should be trying to improve them. During the markup in committee, when we were trying to improve, we asked our colleagues, all right, let's not terminate it; let's try and fix some of the things that are not right.