Janice Hahn

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Monsignor Felix S. Diomartich, the oldest priest in the City of Los Angeles and the Sibenik region of Croatia, who is celebrating 75 years of service in the priesthood. Monsignor Diomartich was born on November 2, 1914, in Zlarin, Croatia. He began his life's journey at the parish of Vodice as the Associate Pastor. Soon after, he was named Secretary to Bishop Mileta. He later earned two doctorate degrees in theology and church law at the Gregorian University in Rome, Italy. Before leaving for the United States, he obtained the title of the lawyer of the Sacra Romana Rota. After arriving in the United States, Monsignor Diomartich served at three parishes in the Archdiocese of New York before he was invited to serve at St. Anthony Croatian Church in Los Angeles. Monsignor Diomartich served for 36 years as an administrator and as a pastor. He supported such organizations as the St. Ann's Altar Society for women and the Holy Name Society for men. He founded two new societies for American-born young adults called the Anthonians and the St. Anthony's Women's Guild. His other accomplishments at the parish include the St. Anthony's Annual Picnic Festival, building of a new rectory, and remodeling and expanding the original parish hall. In 1978, Pope Paul VI awarded him the title of Monsignor. The Croatian National Association and Foundation awarded him with its Lifetime Achievement award in 2008. Though he has retired from its administration, Monsignor Diomartich continues to reside at the St. Anthony Croatian Church, helping with masses and confessions. Through his passion of spreading the word of God, he has inspired and guided the residents of Los Angeles and has brought unity and pride to the Croatian community. He has truly made a difference in the lives of so many people. It has been a privilege to call him a friend and to celebrate this significant milestone.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Accountability Office revealed that the debt ceiling crisis Republicans put this country through last August cost us taxpayers $1.3 billion. Now, Americans are hearing that they may be put through that wringer again. I hope my Republican friends would agree with me that the middle class families are the backbone of our economy. Keeping their taxes at their historically low rate is the best way to get our economy back on track. Unfortunately, that middle class tax cut extension is under threat. My friends on the other side of the aisle are demanding, instead, that the superrich get their tax breaks. This isn't the way forward. We tried tax breaks for the rich and tax giveaways for the corporations during the Bush years. It didn't work. Let's keep tax rates low for the middle class Americans and move this country forward.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. HAHN. Today is actually my 1-year anniversary of being sworn in to this Congress. It's hard to believe it's been a year. One of the things I came to Congress to do was to really move us toward ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we look toward the 11th anniversary of Operation Enduring Freedom, I believe it's necessary to reflect on the staggering human and economic costs this country has endured over the past decade. Since 2001, we've spent nearly $635 billion on the Afghanistan war. Under FY 2012 figures, this equates to an average of $8.8 billion a month, $2 billion a week, and nearly $300 million a day. With what it takes to keep this war going for a week, we can hire 45,000 more construction workers to help repair and build our own crumbling infrastructure. With what it costs to keep this war going for 1 more month, we can hire over 250,000 new teachers, nearly enough to hire back all of the teachers and public school officials who've lost their jobs during this great recession. While these figures seem astounding, they don't begin to compare to the human toll that this war has taken on our active servicemembers and military families. Last October, on the weekend of the 10th anniversary of this war in Afghanistan, I visited Arlington West in California--an incredible memorial to the men and women who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's truly a moving experience walking through row after row of crosses in the sand at Santa Monica Beach. As of today, 2,041 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, and over 12,000 have been wounded. While many of us talk about these figures here on the House floor, I know many of us have even more personal experiences with families who have suffered loss or illnesses or injuries of their loved ones. Unfortunately, I had reason to visit Walter Reed twice in the last 6 months, and I've seen the evidence of the sacrifice that we're asking these young men and women to bear. I think all of us should take the time to walk the halls of Walter Reed and see the full cost that this war has taken. My own cousin, a young man of 26, was only in Afghanistan 3 months and was shot in his leg. It's unclear whether or not he'll get full recovery of his leg. Last week, I visited one of my former employees in the City of Los Angeles whose son, Ben, was in Afghanistan. He reenlisted three times to go back. Unfortunately, this last time, he's now lost both of his legs. His future and his family's future has changed forever. When you walk the halls at Walter Reed, you're made to remember the mothers bearing the crosses of their children, armed with only the memory of the love lost and unique responsibility that we all have to the fallen. You're reminded of the men and women who are still here and of the battles that they're going to have to fight long after they hang up their fatigues and come home. You're reminded of the struggles shared by the families--the mothers, the fathers, the sisters, the brothers, the sons, and daughters--of these veterans who bear the seen and unseen scars of four, five, even six tours of duty. These scars are most evident in the recent news that 154 Active Duty servicemembers have committed suicide in the first 150 days of this year. This is nearly 1 per day. This is a heartbreaking statistic that brings into stark relief the terrible toll of nearly 11 years of war. Mr. Chairman, we need to bring these troops home. That's why I support this amendment that provides for the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and to help bring this war to an end. A decade at war is too long. I want to thank Congresswoman Lee for raising this incredibly important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort and help bring the troops home. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I think it's worthwhile to remember why Congress passed health care reform in the first place. It's because our system was broken; it wasn't working. But just this morning, Speaker Boehner said that we needed to repeal the Affordable Care Act because we didn't need it because we had the best health care system the world has ever seen. Well, I don't think that was true for 17 million children who were being denied health insurance for preexisting conditions. I don't think that was true for about 3.1 million young adults who were denied coverage because they were kicked off their parents' insurance plans. And I don't think that was true for 40 million Americans who couldn't get coverage and for every family threatened with losing their coverage because of rising costs. If we need to tweak the law, let's work together to fix it, but let's not repeal it. I think that would be bad for our health.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mrs. Kay A. Calas, who passed away on Monday, June 18, 2012 at the age of 88. We often hear the term ``founding fathers'' used to describe the framers of this country. Kay Calas was one of the founding mothers of the City of Carson, California, and as a 29-year member of the Carson City Council, she was truly a legend in her own time. Kay Calas was not only one of the longest tenured elected officials in Los County's history, she was also one of the most effective and revered council-members of her time. She is credited with helping to shape a thriving city from what was once a collection of waste dumps, vacant land patches and oil production facilities in the eastern section of Los Angeles County's South Bay region. The creation of the City of Carson happened during the time that my father, L.A. County Supervisor Kenny Hahn, presided over that previously unincorporated area. My father's great respect for Kay Calas and her husband John, himself a great community leader and former Carson Mayor, stemmed from their shared vision of an ideal city in which people from all walks of life could live and do business harmoniously. That shared vision made Kenny Hahn a John and Kay Calas ally for life. Once the loftier goal of incorporating Carson had been accomplished, Kay Calas relentlessly pursued her passion: that is the business of serving the people. Kay was always a champion for the senior citizens, and she had a deep love for fine arts. The Carson Symphony Association had a yearly concert for 3,000 school children, and Kay would routinely pay for the buses to bring the children to the event. She spearheaded the effort to extend Del Amo Boulevard over the San Diego (405) Freeway creating an important throughway to ease rush hour street traffic in the middle of town. The bridge now bears her name, while a park on East 220th Street in Carson is named after her late husband John Calas. Above all else, Kay Calas was a public servant of the highest possible integrity. Current Carson Mayor James Dear, who served as Mayor with Mrs. Calas during two of her eight terms in office, described Kay Calas' character as ``above reproach''. I extend my deepest condolences to her three surviving sons, Frank, James and Thomas, and Kay's numerous grandchildren and great- grandchildren. Though Kay Calas is no longer with us, her legacy lives on in the lives of her family and in the community that she served so tirelessly throughout her remarkable life.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Los Angeles Kings, the 2012 Stanley Cup Champions. In 1967 the city of Los Angeles was awarded a National Hockey League team. 45 years later, the L.A. Kings have finally been crowned champions, having defeated the New Jersey Devils in the Stanley Cup Finals. The Kings began the Stanley Cup Finals ranked 8th, going on to defeat the top three ranked teams in their conference while breaking numerous records along the way. Under the leadership of team coach Darryl Sutter and Captain Dustin Brown, the team beat the odds and became the only 8th seeded team to ever win the Cup. The Kings stand as a symbol of determination and perseverance for the city of Los Angeles. Congratulations to Coach Darryl Sutter, Captain Dustin Brown, Conn Smyth winner Jonathan Quick, the players, staff and all of their dedicated fans who in 45 years, never stopped believing.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. My motion to instruct the conferees would be in favor of the Senate language as it relates to freight and goods movement. It would authorize a national freight plan, national surface transportation and freight policy, and a port infrastructure development initiative. We have all heard that the conference report is close to being filed. I have also heard that the Senate freight provisions are not in the final agreement. I want to come to the floor tonight and make one last attempt to ensure that our country has a national freight policy. Madam Speaker, the Port of Los Angeles is in my backyard; and when I was on the city council in Los Angeles, I focused on transporting the goods that arrive in the port to the rest of the Nation. When I came to Congress almost a year ago, I was surprised that there was not enough attention on our ports, and I was surprised that we didn't even have a ports caucus. So I cofounded the bipartisan Ports Caucus with my good friend, Ted Poe from Texas, to educate the rest of our Members on the importance of our ports and goods movement to our Nation's economy. So first, for those who don't know what ``goods movement'' is, I would like to talk about why it's crucial for our Nation. We are a consumer economy. Whether it is a mom-and-pop store on the corner or a large retailer like Target, we don't think twice when we go to these store to purchase groceries, toys for our children or clothing. When we go to the store, we expect that the milk and the Barbie dolls are on the shelf. Simply, goods movement is transporting products, whether they are made in America or imported through our Nation's ports to retail stores. The goods that are transported throughout the country are transported by freight rail, trucks and, in some cases, waterways. The efficient transportation of these goods is crucial for our economy. We need to invest in all modes of transportation for freight, including roads, rail, and grade crossings to reduce bottlenecks. But, Madam Speaker, this Nation does not focus enough resources on freight policy and goods movement. We don't have a national freight plan to guide us. According to Robert Puentes at the Brookings Institute: The Nation has no comprehensive strategy or plan for the maintenance and development of transportation assets related to international freight movement. The country's freight transportation industry is highly decentralized, with private operators owning almost all of the trucks and rails, and the public sector owning the roads, airports, and waterway rights. And unlike our international peers, such as Germany, Canada, and Australia, the United States doesn't have a unified strategy that aligns disparate owners and interests around national economic objectives. Madam Speaker, without a national plan, we have bottlenecks transporting our goods. For example, goods that leave the Port of Los Angeles take 48 hours to arrive in Chicago and take another 30 hours to travel across the city. What does this bottleneck and others like it mean? It means higher costs for consumers, more congestion, more pollution, and fewer jobs. We need to stop this piecemeal system and develop a national plan. It's so crucial that we develop this plan now because the amount of freight will increase drastically in the next 20 years. In southern California, it is expected to triple. In addition, this administration wants to double the exports by 2014. And I think we need to have an efficient system to export our products overseas. This will provide opportunities for our small businesses. And we need to prepare for that increase. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. surface transportation network, which includes rail and highway, is reaching or has reached capacity in many areas. The congestion largely stems from the lack of capacity to meet traffic demand and lack of infrastructure. A U.S. Department of Transportation report, ``Freight Transportation Improvements and the Economy,'' estimates the cost of carrying freight on the highway system at between $25 and $200 an hour. Unexpected delays can increase the cost of transporting goods by 50 to 250 percent. Because the supply chain is a ``network of retailers, distributors, transporters, storage facilities, and suppliers that participate in the sale, delivery, and production of a particular product,'' congestion resulting in unreliable trip times and missed deliveries can have major business implications, which adds cost at every link of the supply chain. If the transportation function is efficient, manufacturing and retail firms can carry less inventory because they can rely on goods being delivered when and where they are needed. If the transportation system is congested and unreliable, a firm must carry more inventory to ensure production processes are uninterrupted and the availability of goods is maintained. Carrying inventory is not free. Not only is a firm's capital tied up in the inventory, but it must be stored and insured. This model of business carrying more inventories to buffer transportation unreliability costs money to the companies and ultimately to the consumer. One of the reasons that I like working on ports and freight policy is because it's a bipartisan issue. It's something we can find common middle ground on. For example, Bob Poole of the libertarian Reason Foundation stated: Goods-movement infrastructure has not gotten enough attention in recent decades, either at the Federal level or in the transportation plans of urban area Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The larger question before us is what the Federal Government's direct role should be. Mr. Poole continues: Despite my general decentralist leanings, I agree that facilitating free flow of commerce--with the world and among States--is one of the tasks the Constitution gives to the Federal Government. I'm favorable to the idea of the Federal Government making strategic investments in critical corridors and key nodes in the goods-movement system. And obviously, this needs to involve all the modes that make economic sense for shippers to move cargo. What organizations support a national freight plan? In addition to many transportation and port organizations, a national freight plan is supported by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation. The Chamber of Commerce recently sent a letter this month to the conference committee stating: The reliable and timely movement of goods is critical to U.S. economic health. Unfortunately, the condition and capacity of the transportation system has failed to keep up with the growth in trade volume and freight movement. Congestion caused by bottlenecks threaten to choke future economic growth. The Chamber believes the Senate-passed bill includes strong provisions to establish a freight program that would improve regional and national freight movement by targeting investments and improvements that would demonstrably facilitate the movement of freight, such as truck-only lanes, railway-highway grade separations, and improvements to freight intermodal connectors. As part of the Freight Stakeholders Coalition, the retailers stated: Substantial investment in the Nation's freight transportation system must be given a high priority. Without the ability to quickly and cost-effectively move goods into, out of, and through the United States, America will not be able to maintain our high standard of living and high employment levels. I also have letters of support from the American Trucking Association and the American Association of Port Authorities in support of this motion, as well as many other supporters. We all know that congestion--especially truck congestion on our highways--causes air pollution. In my part of the country, South Coast Air Quality Management District said that diesel emissions are responsible for 71 percent of the major pollutants in the region. This means more asthma in our children and more cancer. Eliminating congestion will help improve air quality and our Nation's health. Also, America's farmers would benefit from a national freight policy. Not only do America's farmers provide food in our grocery stores and on our table, but they feed the world as well. America is the world's bread basket. The U.S. is the world's top wheat exporter. And all that grain needs to be transported from America's heartland to our ports. It is crucial that we have the infrastructure to transport our goods from California or the Midwest to export them. In conclusion, last week, the PORTS Caucus met with Transportation Secretary LaHood. He said the Department was beginning to plan a national freight policy but that Congress needed to prioritize goods movement. This is our chance. The last transportation bill was passed 7 years ago. We cannot wait another 7 years before we make a national commitment and a priority for a freight policy in this country. I urge my colleagues to vote for my motion, and I reserve the balance of my time. American Trucking Associations, Arlington, VA, June 27, 2012. Hon. Janice Hahn, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Hahn: The American Trucking Associations would like to express our strong support for your motion to instruct conferees to support MAP-21's freight provisions. In particular, ATA believes that full funding for the National Freight Program in Sec. 1115 is an essential step toward addressing the nation's most critical freight transportation bottlenecks. Approximately 60% of the U.S. economy moves on the back of trucks, and inefficiencies in major truck routes will negatively affect economic output and job creation. We are pleased that MAP-21 recognizes the critical importance of efficient freight networks by focusing a portion of available funding on highway freight projects, and we join you in urging the conference committee to retain the Sec. 1115 program and other important freight-related elements of MAP- 21. Thank you for your support of these provisions. We hope to be of continuing assistance throughout the reauthorization process. Sincerely, Bill Graves.

Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Ms. HAHN. I appreciate my colleague from California saying that. But, again, I have letters of support from major organizations who felt like the freight policy language was not as good as the Senate bill. Just to make clear, the freight policy in the Senate bill does not increase the total cost of the bill. And by leaving the provisions that I talked about out of the final bill, we're not reducing the cost of the bill, and we're not reducing the deficit. I just think the Senate language really sets forth something that I think we've never done in this country, and that's really to prioritize and to understand the importance of moving forward and being competitive in this global economy and establishing once and for all a comprehensive freight policy that will put goods-movement at a level that I think it should be. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAHN. I am ready to close, too. The hour is late. For those of you watching C-SPAN, it's nearing the final hour of the day. It's past 11 p.m. But I really did feel like one of the reasons I did come to Congress was to raise the level of importance of our ports, of goods movement, of cargo, what it means to this economy, what it means to jobs, and I just wanted to give it one last shot that we might instruct the conferees to include what I think is the better language in the final transportation bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing and thanking Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson for their continued leadership on this incredibly important issue. The lessons of 9/11 have taught us we must be continuously vigilant and proactive in seeking out and preventing our country's most pressing threats. That's why, after 9/11, this Congress strengthened what proved to be one of our Nation's biggest security threats up to that point: aviation security. And while I applaud the great strides we've made in aviation security, we have not made the same level of improvements in port security. This was such a priority for me when I came to Congress last summer that, at my very first Homeland Security hearing focusing on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to Congress, I asked Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, What should Congress be doing to improve security at our Nation's ports? He responded by saying, My judgment would be that we have not focused enough on ports. This lack of focus on our ports not only jeopardizes our national security, but our economic security as well. The U.S. ports remain one of our country's greatest economic resources, as they provide our Nation with the link to the rest of the world and the global economy. Each day, U.S. ports move both imports and exports, totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods, through all 50 States. Additionally, ports move 99 percent of overseas cargo volume by weight and generate $3.95 trillion in international trade. However, port security does much more than protect American commerce; it also protects American jobs. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, the U.S. port industry supports 13.3 million jobs and accounts for more than $649 billion in personal income. That's why I was pleased to cofound the bipartisan Congressional PORTS Caucus with my good friend and fellow alumnus, Ted Poe, in order to ensure that Congress recognizes the vital role ports play in our national economy and the importance of keeping them competitive and secure. Despite all this, ports have failed to garner the attention I think they deserve. For instance, in the U.S., tens of thousands of ships each year make over 50,000 calls on U.S. ports. The volume of traffic gives terrorists opportunities to smuggle themselves or their weapons into the United States with little risk of detection. According to a recent CRS report, a 10- to 20-kiloton weapon detonated in a major seaport would kill 50,000 to 1 million people and would result in direct property damage of $50 billion to $500 billion, losses due to trade disruption of $100 billion to $200 billion, and indirect costs of $300 billion to $1.2 trillion. Congress attempted to address this issue by passing the SAFE Port Act in 2006 and the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which specifically required that 100 percent of the cargo coming into our ports be scanned by this summer. Unfortunately, DHS has made little progress in achieving this goal and does not plan to implement it. In fact, we've recently learned that DHS has only been scanning about 3 percent to 5 percent of all the cargo imported into our United States. Now, while the feasibility of scanning 100 percent of incoming cargo may be a legitimate concern, there certainly needs to be improvement from where we are now. Whether it's increasing the number of Customs and Border Protection officers or investing in proven cargo scanning technology, there needs to be a plan for effectively and efficiently scanning our Nation's cargo. Another major vulnerability is the threat posed to vessels during their voyage at sea. For example, cargo is often checked either before it's shipped or after it reaches our shore. However, there has not been much light shed on the specific threats that exist between a vessel's point of origin and its point of destination. We also need to know more information about how fast a port could recover in the event of a terrorist attack or a national disaster if that did occur at one of our ports. Without resolving these issues, we risk putting our economy and the safety of the American people at risk. As a Member whose district borders one of the largest port complexes in the country, I understand the unique security challenges that ports pose to our economic and national security. My district borders the port complex of Los Angeles-Long Beach, which is responsible for approximately 44 percent of all the goods that flow into this country and 20 percent of the Nation's GDP. During a 10-day lockout in 2002, which arose because of a dispute between labor and management officials, closure of the west coast ports cost the United States between $1 billion to $2 billion a day. If an attack were to occur there, it would be economically debilitating not only for my district, but for the entire country, as well. While DHS has made a number of positive steps in strengthening port security and resiliency, the lack of attention on these vital issues creates a huge problem for securing our ports. We cannot begin to come up with an effective solution without first knowing the extent of the actual problem. The economic importance of our Nation's ports, combined with the existing port security loopholes, is why I introduced the GAPS Act. This bill will require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a classified study of the potential gaps in port security and ensure that the Department develops a comprehensive plan for addressing these vulnerabilities. By focusing on the specific dangers that threaten our port security, we can begin, I believe, to develop effective solutions to ensure that our Nation is prepared. Again, I want to thank Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson for their leadership on this issue, my Congressional PORTS Caucus cofounder, Ted Poe, for recognizing the importance of our ports. I would like to point out that this bill went through regular order and is supported by both Democrats and Republicans on an issue that I know we all care about. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348, the transportation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Hahn moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to agree to the freight policy provisions in Sec. 1115, Sec. 33002, Sec. 33003, and Sec. 33005 of the Senate amendment.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Captain Stancil George ``Stan'' Jones who passed away on June 17, 2012. Captain Jones was a Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) Captain who spent more than 55\1/2\ years serving the citizens and the communities of Los Angeles. He was the longest serving firefighter in the history of the United States. The last 37 years of his career were at fire stations serving the communities of San Pedro and Wilmington, where he served at Fire Stations 49, 53, 112 and 38. In his honor, there is a monument outside San Pedro's Fire Station 112, where Stan spent many years. The towering column engraved with his picture overlooks the newly named Stancil G. Jones Fire Plaza. Stan Jones was the second of three children and was born on August 3, 1926 to Sadie and Stancil Jones in Los Angeles. He graduated from Mt. Carmel High School in Los Angeles in 1944. Shortly after graduation, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Stan trained as a radar technician and while stationed on Guam Island repaired and refurbished the electronics of many ships. Stan was awarded the World War II Victory Medal, American Area Campaign Medal and the Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal. Upon his honorable discharge, he returned home and enrolled at Northrop Aeronautical Institute. He entered the LAFD on November 1, 1948, where he served for 55 \1/2\ years, a tenure of service unprecedented to this day. He was promoted to Auto-Fireman, Engineer and Fire Captain, attaining 43 years of seniority as a Captain. Stan retired from the LAFD on May 14, 2004. Stan responded to some of Los Angeles' most historical fires and disasters, including the 1961 Bel-Air Fire, the Sansinena tanker ship explosion and fire, the Mandeville Canyon Fire, and the Northridge earthquake disaster. Stan was a caring man actively involved in the raising of his children. He provided support and guidance for all his children, right to the last remaining days of his life. He was also quite the runner, winning events in high school track, the Firemen's Olympics and the World Senior Olympics. I extend my deepest condolences to Stan's wife, Mary; his sons, Dory, Stancil (George) III, William, Gregory, Jeffery, John and Westlie; five daughters, Janine, Mary, Elizabeth, Stacey, and Laura; two step children, Sheila and Rob; and his 40 grandchildren and 11 great- grandchildren. He will be dearly missed by his family and friends.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I grew up in Los Angeles in the fifties, which was when the smog was so bad that we actually had to stay inside the classroom during recess; and when you tried to inhale deeply, the pain in your chest was so severe from the pollution and the smog. Thanks to government intervention, we have made huge strides, not only in Los Angeles but throughout this country, in cleaning our air for the health of our children. We've made progress, but we need to make a lot more. Unfortunately, to continue to combat this problem, Congress should take bold steps to invest in clean-energy technology, including in new electric vehicles and in the infrastructure to charge them. But with H.R. 4480, my Republican friends are denying not only Los Angeles but all cities in this country the tools they need to continue to improve our air and improve our health. This bill would rob the EPA of the ability to effectively enforce clean air laws, and it would deepen our dependency on dirty fossil fuels.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would increase $10 million in funding to the Customs and Border Protection salaries and expense account and decrease funding of the National Bio and Agro- Defense Facility by S&T for $24,250,000 in order to increase the staffing of CBP agents in our Nation's airports. This amendment is intended to strengthen security and improve the American business advantage by putting more CBP agents in our airports so that they can handle the continuously growing number of travelers to this country. My own district in California is book-ended by two great economic engines of the Los Angeles region--the Port of Los Angeles at the southern end and the Los Angeles International Airport at the north. One of the common complaints I hear from LAX airport is that there are simply not enough Customs and Border Protection agents to effectively and efficiently process the amount of foreign visitors that enter this country every year. In fact, the delays at our country's airports have resulted in losing nearly $100 billion in economic output over the last 10 years. If we want to continue being a top destination for immigrants, foreign visitors, and businesspeople, we need to establish a welcoming presence to people who wish to visit this country. This means ensuring we have an efficient CBP staff that can continue to handle the growing number of people who visit this country. In a letter sent from the L.A. World Airports to the United States Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, it states that: Insufficient CBP staff has triggered alarming delays for LAX international passengers waiting to be processed through customs and immigration. And while this shortage referred to LAX airport, delays due to personnel shortages are prevalent throughout our entire country, and I think this is extremely disconcerting. These delays are weakening our competitiveness in the global market, slowing the pace of business, and impeding the commerce we need to fuel our economic recovery. This adds costs to our Nation's airlines and businesspeople. What's more, we know if we overextend and overwork our already overheroically overperforming CBP personnel guarding the gateways to our Nation, they are more likely to miss things--something or someone is more likely to get through. They deserve support and numbers equal to the scale of the task that we are charging them with. While I understand the intended purpose of the National Bio and Agro- Defense Facility, the reality is that this facility was appropriated $75 million even though the President did not need nor request these funds. Additionally, DHS is still waiting for the recommended design modifications made by the National Academy of Sciences and for the administration to review the cost and scope of the project, which isn't anticipated to be completed until 2020. I think these funds are better spent on increasing the security and promoting American commerce through our country's airports. The commerce that flows through our international airports powers our economy and keeps the United States a global leader in business. We need to preserve that commerce while protecting our homeland from those who would try to sneak through and do us harm. I urge my colleagues to support what I think is a very important and crucial amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HAHN

Mr. HAHN. Yes.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAHN. My amendment would increase funding for port security grants by $75 million. I came to Congress to really bring the issue of our ports into our national dialogue and how important they are to our economy, to our jobs, to our national security. I've been the cofounder, with my friend Ted Poe, of the Congressional Ports Caucus. As a Representative of a district that borders one of the largest ports in the country, this issue is very important to me. The lessons of 9/11 have taught us that we must continuously be vigilant in proactively seeking out and preventing our country's most pressing threats. The Port Security Grant Program helps address these threats by providing key funding to port areas for enhancing maritime security. We have millions of tons of cargo shipments coming into ports across this country, and they provide viable entry points for terrorists who seek to use weapons of mass destruction. When people ask me what keeps me up at night, it's the thought of what could happen at one of our ports and what that would mean not only to our national economy but to the global economy. An attack at our Nation's ports could severely damage our own fragile economy right now and cause a ripple effect across the global supply chain. This requires us to take proactive steps and invest in critical detection and response operations and equipment. Each year, port security officials attempt to address these many threats that exist at our Nation's ports by applying for these port security grants. Unfortunately, the irresponsible cuts to preparing these grants this last year resulted in huge gaps being left unaddressed and security officials unable to build and sustain capabilities needed to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from a potential attack. While I commend the chairman and ranking member's efforts in bolstering funding for State and local homeland security programs this year, this amendment will ensure that the ports receive the funding they need in order to address the lingering gaps in port security of which there are many. And even though I understand the intended purpose of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, the reality is that this facility was appropriated $75 million even though President did not need or request these funds. Additionally, Department of Homeland Security is still waiting for the recommended design modifications made by the National Academy of Sciences and for the administration to review the cost and scope of this project which isn't anticipated to be completed until 2020. I think this money could be better spent on providing critical support for our American ports and inland waterway system which is provided through this Port Security Grant Program. I have no doubt that all of us recognize the urgency of this threat and the importance of having safe and secure maritime facilities in order to protect our critical borders, moving goods, and our American citizens. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAHN. I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. HAHN

Ms. HAHN. I think it is time that we begin to allow Americans to ease off their dependence of oil and give them a real alternative. Every day, we see the damage done by our dependence on oil. We see high gas prices threatening our economic recovery and burdening families already struggling to make ends meet. We see higher respiratory disease rates. And we see any number of distant regimes holding our foreign policy hostage, weakening our ability to stand by our principles and our friends. I think it's time for us to throw off these burdens and step into the future, not double down on the dependencies of the past. Yet somehow this bill allocates almost five times more funding to deepening and extending our relationship with fossil energy than it does on advancing energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy technologies. One of the most promising and necessary things we can do to give Americans an alternative to oil is to speed our transition to electric vehicles. Passenger cars alone use more than 40 percent of the oil consumed in this country. By 2020, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates Americans will spend $260 billion a year on gas. Just think of what we stand to gain from helping Americans switch to electric vehicles. The technology is here, and all we need to do is implement it. My amendment would help us begin to make the kind of investments the scale of the opportunity before us requires, giving $50 million to the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy section. I drive an electric vehicle back in Los Angeles, and I haven't been to a gas station since last September. Unfortunately, I don't get to drive as far as I want to because we haven't yet built the electric vehicle charging infrastructure that would help electric vehicle owners continue to drive as far as they want. The ``range anxiety'' of not being able to find a charging station when the battery goes low means that many EV drivers don't drive as far as they can and that many prospective electric vehicle owners are scared off. That's why we need to get serious about addressing the barriers to the adoption of electric vehicles. Later this year, Nissan will be making the LEAF, their electric vehicle, right here in America, in Tennessee. Just last month, the Department of Energy announced they were offering $5 million to spur electric vehicle adoption, seeking proposals that address barriers to the adoption of these vehicles and that drive market development and transformation to make Alternative Fuel Vehicles and fueling infrastructure widely available. We need to be bolder. We ought to have 100 times that much here, but I know my friends on the other side are a little timid about electric vehicles, so I am only proposing 10 times as much. I've even reduced the budgetary authority of this bill by $50 million because I know how much my Republican friends like to cut spending. With the right investments and electric vehicle infrastructure, we can clean our skies, free our foreign policy, strengthen our hand with regimes like Iran, and put money lost at the pump back into the pockets of American consumers. Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues on the other side will meet me halfway on this, will meet Americans halfway. I hope you will support this amendment. This is about jobs in America. This is about giving our American consumers an alternative to their sole dependence on oil. I yield back the balance of my time.