Laura Richardson

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize November 19, 2011 as National Adoption Day, which celebrates adoptive families who have opened their homes to children placed in foster care. Today, states, communities, public and private organizations, businesses, families, and individuals come together to increase awareness of children in need of permanent homes and families. Mr. Speaker, currently there are over 463,000 children living in foster care. These children have been placed in homes on the account of the physical, sexual and emotional abuse they have endured with their biological caretaker. My state of California currently has the largest foster care population with the number of youths in foster care tripling since 1981. These children deserve to grow up in a loving home that is safe, happy, and most importantly one they can call their own. Since the first major effort to bring awareness to the need of adoptive families, which was initiated by former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and later proclaimed a month in November 1995 by President William J. Clinton, nearly 50,000 children in the system have been adopted yearly. American families have opened their homes to these children and provided resources and opportunities that allowed them to have a chance of claiming the American Dream. Unfortunately out of the 463,000 children living in foster care, about 107,000 are available for adoption. 65% of children who are not placed in a permanent home emancipate themselves from the system often left unemployed, without a place to live and resorting to homeless shelters. Less than 3 percent go on to college and emancipated females end up four times more likely to receive public assistance compared to the overall population of the United States. Measures by the government have been implemented to increase the adoption rate and make the process of adoption easier for families who seek to adopt. The Affordable Care Act increases and improves the Adoption Tax Credit. It allows the process of adoption to be accessible and affordable for families who want to nurture, care, uplift and open their home to a child. States can also receive incentives for increasing adoptions of children adopted from foster care. A project by the Department of Health and Human Services, AdoptUsKids, offers support to States and even tribes and territories to recruit adoptive parents. The project also provides assistance and help to families considering adoption or those who have begun the process. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we continue to create more programs, events and activities that will enlighten citizens of the United States on stories of children successfully placed in permanent homes, debunk myths about the process and acknowledge the thousands of children who could potentially become a part of these statistics. Through these efforts we can increase the rate of adoption, decrease the rate of homelessness among the youths in this group and help develop future leaders and innovative thinkers of tomorrow. To the families who have opened their hearts and homes to these children we celebrate you and your efforts to change the lives of these children. As the rest of us enjoy and share the company of our children and extended family members, let us not forget those children who will not have the same opportunity to do the same. Let us not forget the children who will not be able to celebrate the holiday season in a warm, loving, and happy home they can call their own. Let us remember these children and work towards positively affecting these children's lives and securing their success in the future.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. November is National Caregivers Month. All across America, there are thousands of Americans who need help. They need help to stand, to sit, to put on their shoes, to go to the rest room, and even some to take their last breath. And there are those who are sitting by the bedside of those people, we call them in-home health care workers, who oftentimes in this country barely make even a minimum wage themselves, and if they needed the very care that they were providing, they could probably not afford it. As this Congress decides and looks at the joint committee's decisions and proposals before us, let's not go against those working people, thousands of people who don't even have enough to take care of their own families. The decisions can be done better, but they certainly should not be on the backs of working people and those who care for our Americans.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 822, the proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I call on my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-considered and unwise legislation which will effectively force all states to accept the lowest-common-standard in concealed carry laws. Passage of this bill is reckless and undeniably a threat to public safety. This law would add an unnecessary burden on police officers who risk their lives every day in traffic stops and other risky situations. It would make it nearly impossible for them to be able to determine whether the guns they encounter are legal or not. The very likely and viable threats posed to public safety if this legislation passes are egregious. This legislation will do away with the strict gun laws each state has established according to its constituent composition and needs and empower dangerous individuals to carry concealed, loaded guns in states where they would not qualify for a local permit. California has one of the most stringent gun laws in the Nation, and there is a reason for that. California had the highest number of gun murders in the Nation last year, 1,257, which is 69 percent of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. A very real example of what this legislation will do is a person convicted of domestic violence and not allowed to possess, let alone carry a concealed weapon in California, can cross state lines into a state that does not have the same restrictions, receive a permit for a gun, then cross states lines back into California and exact revenge against his victim. Proponents against gun laws and restrictions constantly chime, ``Guns don't kill people. People kill people.'' That may be the case, but a person with a gun can kill another much more easily than a person without one. FBI crime statistics based on reports to FBI bureau and local law enforcement show that in 2010, the latest year for which detailed statistics are available, there were 12,996 murders in the U.S.; of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms. This dangerous bill will allow a resident of a state with strict concealed weapon permitting standards to simply go to and obtain a permit in a state with minimal standards, then head back home and carry a concealed weapon in a state that would have never allowed him to do so in the first place. If ever you needed a concrete example of why this is such an ill- conceived and dangerous piece of legislation for both the public and law enforcement, consider the recent testimony of Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The Police Commissioner testified that in 2005, a man named Marqus Hill had his concealed carry permit revoked by Philadelphia Police after he had been charged with attempted murder. Mr. Hill later traveled to Florida, got a new permit despite his record, used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun into Philadelphia, and later shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest, killing him in the street. Mr. Chair, the ramifications of such legislation do not stop there. It would also make it easier for gun traffickers to move loaded guns through urban city streets where police officers are already having a difficult time combating crime and violence. It will be nearly impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry permits. Policing our streets and confronting the risks inherent in even routine traffic stops is already perilous enough. Ambiguity as to the legality of firearm possession could lead to confusion among police officers that could result in catastrophic incidents. Congress should be working to make the job of law enforcement officers more, not less, safe. Today, states establish standards for carrying concealed, loaded handguns in public places that include criteria beyond an applicant's ability to pass a federal background check. For example, at least 38 states prevent people convicted of certain violent crimes from obtaining carry permits, 14 states require applicants to demonstrate good character to obtain a carry permit, and about half of states grant law enforcement discretion to deny a permit. The National Right-to- Carry Reciprocity Act would gut these standards and empower dangerous individuals to carry concealed, loaded guns in states where they would not qualify for a local permit. We see firsthand the tragedies that can unfold when guns end up in the hands of criminals, the seriously mentally ill, domestic violence offenders and other dangerous people. Let us not forget the tragedy earlier this year in Tucson, Arizona. Statistics show that every year, more than 12,000 gun murders are committed in big cities and small towns throughout the United States. States and localities should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their communities. It is essential that state, local and tribal governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities. H.R. 822 is a dangerous piece of legislation that will create a very real threat to public safety. In opposing this reckless piece of legislation, I stand with the people of my home state of California. I stand with domestic violence prevention advocates. I stand with law enforcement across the Nation and our local police who risk their lives every day to protect the public. I will vote against H.R. 822 and I urge all members of the House to do likewise. For the foregoing reasons I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 822 and allow states to continue to decide for themselves and set their own standards regarding who can carry hidden, loaded guns in their communities.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Teresa Hughes, former California State Senator and Assemblywoman from the Los Angeles area, who passed away on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at the age of 80. As the second black woman elected to the Assembly, Ms. Hughes proved to be an influential lawmaker, breaking barriers and proving to most leaders that it is necessary to have women in significant leadership roles because their constituents demand it. A former New York social worker, teacher and school administrator, Ms. Hughes was a fervent supporter of education. Her candidacy for the 47th Assembly District in California, which included a large part of South L.A. and the cities of Bell, Cudahy, Huntington Park, Downey and Compton, came with much support because the constituents wanted to elect a professional educator committed to expanding educational opportunities for their community. Ms. Hughes' accomplishments as a state legislator are many. During her 17 years in the California State Assembly, she authored a bill dedicating $800 million in bond money to build school classrooms as well as the creation of a state School of the Arts. In 1983, as chairwoman of the Assembly Education Committee, she co-authored an education bill setting state graduation standards, lengthening school days and the school year, raising teacher salaries and standards, and requiring prospective teachers to pass a basic skills test. Ms. Hughes also authored the bill that established the California Museum of Afro- American History and Culture within the Museum of Science and Industry in Los Angeles. There were 15 women state lawmakers in 1985 when the Joint Rules Committee formally recognized the new bipartisan Caucus of Women Legislators. As the senior woman in the Assembly at the time, Ms. Hughes was selected to chair the caucus. Elected to the state Senate in 1992, Hughes represented the 25th District, which stretched from Marina del Rey to Paramount. Before she retired in 2000, she became the first woman and first African American to serve on the Senate Rules Committee. Her State Senate achievements include establishing the Senate Select Committee on College Admission and Outreach and writing a school violence prevention bill that led to the creation of the Task Force on School Safety. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in remembrance of Teresa Hughes, a towering figure in the history of California. I ask my colleagues to join me for a moment of silence in the memory of the great Teresa Hughes.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and I appeal to my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-considered and unwise amendment to the world's greatest national charter. I oppose the proposed amendment for three principle reasons: First, it is unfair, since it would roll back Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment insurance, nutrition assistance, and other programs with expenditures that fluctuate over time. Second, it is dangerous, as it would effectively cripple the Federal Government's efforts to respond to economic emergencies like the Great Depression and the present crisis. Third, it will be nearly impossible to enforce, thus opening the door to judicial activism and intervention involving every act of Congress with a mechanism for raising revenue. Worse, the proposed amendment, if ratified, would result in an unprecedented transfer of power from the Legislature, the first branch of government, to the Judiciary, the third and least accountable branch. At first glance, the balanced budget amendment seems like a good idea, but its superficial appeal vanishes when one examines its key provisions closely. Proponents argue that the Federal Government should be required to balance its budget, spending no more than it takes in, like most American families. The problem with this analogy is that it is simply untrue. In real life, most families and businesses do not limit expenditures to the amount of revenues. They borrow and take on debt to buy homes, send kids to college, and cope with unexpected emergencies. Forcibly balancing the federal budget would be like telling families that they are prohibited from borrowing or taking out any loan, ever-- no matter how good their credit or how prudent their financing plan may be. It bars the government from taking out loans and enforces cuts on social programs while making tax cuts to the wealthy a permanent fixture. The passage and ratification of H.J. Res. 2 would mean massive cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and many other programs. Obligations will not be met because there will literally not exist enough money in circulation to pay for them. The destruction of these programs is the true aim of this legislation. It would force spending cuts by requiring a majority vote of the whole number of each chamber for all legislation imposing or increasing a tax, while requiring only a simple majority of those present to cut out funding for vital social programs. Moreover, without deficit spending, programs intended to combat economic downturns such as unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and food stamps would be jeopardized. Known as automatic stabilizers, these programs grow when the economy dips and cushion the blow for those hardest hit by recessions. Increased outlays for these programs, which have no set budgets since they follow the fluctuations of the economy, will come into direct conflict with a balanced budget amendment, meaning harder times for those without work. Equally bad is that under H.J. Res. 2, necessary stimulus such as the New Deal legislation of the 1930s or the Recovery Act of 2009 would be nearly impossible to pass. We would have no way to stimulate the economy at critical points to respond to downturns of the business cycle. The result is that what would otherwise be a mild recession could spiral down into a great depression. Imagine if the balanced budget amendment was in effect in 2008, when this Nation was on the brink of an economic meltdown. Instead of rescuing the savings of millions and saving the nation's automobile manufacturing industry, the Federal Government would have been busying itself with cutting Social Security, national parks, cancer research, Medicaid, defense, and hundreds of other programs. That was the Hoover response to the Great Depression which was repudiated by voters and replaced by Roosevelt's New Deal. Like its variants, H.J. Res. 2 is incredibly vague on how it would be measured and enforced. There is no way to accurately balance the budget, since the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to predict expenditures, is often off by hundreds of billions of dollars a year. If revenues fall short because of a projection error, the Federal Government could conceivably come to a halt toward the end of the fiscal year and stop paying benefits to Social Security. I Finally, since it is an amendment to the Constitution, it would ultimately fall to the judiciary to define and implement economic policy. This will burden the courts with issues that are intrinsically political in nature. H.J. Res. 2 also comes with an escape clause, whereby under a three- fifths vote, the provisions of the amendment may be waived. The Constitution is a statement of fundamental principles, such as free speech and equal protection under the law. The fact the proposed amendment can be waived so easily by Congress reveals that this entire exercise is merely theater intended by the Republican majority to placate its fervent base of Tea Partiers. H.J. Res. 2 is a terrible idea and would be bad for our country. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-advised and poorly-conceived amendment to the greatest constitution ever devised.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the voters of Ohio for standing up for working people in their state and across the country. On Tuesday, November 8, Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected another Republican attempt to infringe on the rights of working people and sent a strong signal to the House Republican leadership to get serious about addressing the jobs crisis in America. In a landslide victory for the rights of working people, Ohio voters overwhelmingly repealed S.B. 5, a measure passed by the Republican- controlled state legislature in March. S.B. 5 would have severely limited the ability of public employees to collectively bargain by, among other things, revoking their ability of to strike. Tuesday's vote is but the latest rejection of Republican efforts to protect the top one percent at the expense of the bottom 99 percent. Ohio voters spoke loudly on behalf of everyday Americans across the country and strong opposition to Republican efforts to balance the budget on the backs of working people. Firefighters, police officers, teachers and other public employees did not cause the financial meltdown or the recession. They do, however, serve and enrich our communities every day by educating our kids, protecting our homes, our businesses and our people. Republican attempts to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees--including their right to strike--represent how out of touch their agenda is with the American people. Over the past year, the House Republican leadership has repeatedly attempted to roll back the hard won gains of working people. I have consistently opposed these efforts and will continue to do so. Working people, including public sector employees, are the backbone of society. They deserve a decent wage, access to quality healthcare and the peace of mind that they will have a stable pension benefit as they head into retirement. In contrast, the American people are embracing President Obama's American Jobs Act, which is supported by wide margins. The American Jobs Act provides relief to state governments facing budgetary shortfalls. The President's plan, which I strongly support, would prevent layoffs and encourage hiring of teachers, firefighters, and police officers by investing $35 billion into state and local governments. That is why it is imperative that house Republican leadership bring the President's jobs bill to the floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of being unfairly punished for an economic recession caused by he irresponsible and reckless conduct of some of those on Wall Street. I call upon the House Republican leadership to abandon efforts to protect Wall Street at all costs by punishing Main Street at every turn. It is time for the House leadership to compromise with Democrats and President Obama and adopt policies that will put people back to work and help our economy grow.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the voters of Mississippi who went to the polls on Tuesday, November 7, and decisively rejected Initiative 26, the so-called ``Personhood Amendment'' to the state's constitution. By a margin of 41 to 58 percent, the voters of Mississippi turned back a thinly-veiled attempt to deprive women of their constitutionally protected freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. No matter what your position is in the pro-choice/pro-life debate, the reach of Initiative 26 was so broad and its provisions so extreme that thousands of the most sincere, thoughtful, and committed pro-life activists could not in good conscience support the measure. Initiative 26, which was the brainchild of the anti-choice group Personhood USA, sought to redefine the legal definition of a ``person'' to include ``every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.'' If the measure had passed and gone into effect, it would have outlawed abortion in all circumstances, even when the life of the mother was in imminent danger. And it would have put an end to stem-cell research, banned several of the most common forms of birth control, and restricted fertility treatments such as in-vitro fertilization. Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, anti-choice activists have been relentless in their efforts to overturn that decision or find new ways to impede women from exercising their right to choose. ``Personhood'' initiatives are merely the latest scheme designed to turn back the clock on women's reproductive health rights. Proponents sought to road test their ``personhood amendment'' strategy in the very conservative and pro-life state of Mississippi before taking it national. Mr. Speaker, Initiative 26 was worded so broadly that even its backers freely admitted that it would ban some of the most common methods of birth control like IUDs and the birth-control and ``morning after'' pill. But the reach of Initiative 26 goes further than shutting down clinics, much further. This personhood initiative takes it too far by effectively criminalizing abortion without exceptions for rape, incest or health and life of the mother. Mr. Speaker, what was especially pernicious about Initiative 26 is that it would have outlawed the generally accepted medical practices used by health care professionals in situations where the life or health of the mother is imperiled. Saving a woman's life should be the first priority. If Initiative 26 were to become law, however, saving the life or preserving the health of the mother, by aborting the pregnancy if necessary, would be regarded as a criminal act. It should be noted also, Mr. Speaker, that Initiative 26 is so far reaching that it would discourage the practice of in vitro fertilization, if not ban it altogether. Through the years, in vitro fertilization has enabled millions of childless couples to experience the miracle of become loving parents to wanted children. It makes no sense for persons who profess a preference for life and family values to champion a measure like Initiative 26 which would outlaw in vitro fertilization. Symbolic ``personhood'' amendments cause unnecessary political rancor and division. They are distractions we can ill afford. We should instead be focusing our efforts on the real problem facing our nation and that is creating jobs and revitalizing our economy. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in opposition to dangerous and diversionary personhood initiatives like Initiative 26. I congratulate the citizens of Mississippi for resoundingly rejecting Initiative 26.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 65 million Americans who spend on average 20 hours per week selflessly caring for family members or friends who, through age, disability, or illness, have lost the ability to care for themselves. For most of us, the act of caring for those in need is a basic aspect of what it means to be human. Compassion, either through charitable giving or community service, is inseparable from American ideals of human rights for every member of our society. Whenever we treat those around us as we want to be treated, we contribute to a culture of responsibility and respect for life that leads us to do great things in the name of humanity. Last week, President Barack Obama proclaimed November 2011 as National Family Caregivers Month. Anyone who spends time caring for a loved one in need is considered a family caregiver. Let us use this occasion to honor these everyday heroes and raise awareness of the profound contributions they make to society. Family caregivers save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year through their efforts. According to studies compiled by the National Family Caregivers Association, the value of the unpaid services provided each year is estimated to be $375 billion, which is almost twice as much as the $158 billion spent in 2009 on homecare and nursing home services combined. In my home state of California alone there were 3,419,481 family caregivers in 2004 providing over $36 billion worth of care. Though they are mostly untrained, family caregivers now provide about 80% of all long-term care in the United States. Imagine if taxpayers had to foot the full bill. Now, more than ever, family caregivers are essential to providing the best services and deserve the support of government and the medical community. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the US Census projects a massive growth in the number of Americans 65 and older as the baby-boomer generation ages. Populations in this age bracket will double in 23 states by 2030. As medical progress means longer lives, families struggle to provide long-term family care than they did in past decades. Families are smaller and more spread out, and many family caregivers must juggle work and raising children in addition to their caregiving responsibilities. Family caregivers may need to operate complex medical equipment or practice delicate procedures without any formal training. The ``graying of America'' will have a tremendous impact on families providing care for their older members. Many public health officials are concerned that we may not be ready to assume the roles of family caregivers. Studies suggest that many Americans have not spent much time thinking about or preparing for long-term care. People who have no experience as a family caregiver may have extreme difficulty in approaching such a responsibility. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that most of us will find ourselves in a similar situation, either giving or requiring long term care at various points in our lives. Family caregivers often put themselves second as they balance competing commitments to their jobs, families, and communities. Tragically, more than 1 in 10 family caregivers report that their physical health has deteriorated as a result of extreme stress. Family caregivers experiencing extreme stress have been shown to age prematurely. This level of stress can take as much as 10 years off a family caregiver's life. Mr. Speaker, 40 to 70 percent of family caregivers have clinically significant symptoms of depression with approximately a quarter to half of these caregivers meet the diagnostic criteria for major depression. We must also remember that many disabled veterans are supported by family caregivers. Having given so much for their country, I believe that they and their family members should not have to struggle to live out a full, dignified life. Therefore, we should do everything possible to support family caregivers and lighten their burdens. It begins with encouraging people to take adequate steps to prepare for their future care. This means setting aside funds to cover unforeseen medical expenses, signing a living will, and making preparations with family and friends. Health professionals must be sensitive to the needs of family caregivers and enlist them in formulating a patient's long-term care plan. We also need to make sure that family caregivers have access to information and resources that can help them meet their responsibilities with minimal strain and unnecessary cost. Finally, we must ensure that the concerns of family caregivers are reflected in all major healthcare legislation. We are all family caregivers, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to work together to support human dignity and the American family.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of March 11, 2011, hundreds of people gathered on the West Lawn of the United States Capitol Building for a candlelight vigil honoring the memory of Peace Corps Volunteer Kate Puzey. Two years earlier on that date, Kate was murdered while serving in Benin after she accused a local teacher of sexually abusing his students. Believing that Kate's experience could be used to prevent similar tragedies, her family and friends created ``Kate's Voice Advocacy Group'' and began a nationwide campaign to urge reforms. Collaborating with First Response Action, a group representing Peace Corps Volunteers who were sexually or otherwise assaulted, ``Kate's Voice'' met with lawmakers and tirelessly advocated policies designed to support and protect all Peace Corps Volunteers, at home or in the field. Tonight the House will consider S. 1280, the Kate Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011, which will enhance existing procedures for victims of physical and sexual assault in the Peace Corps and establish clear protocols for handling and reporting confidential information within the agency. Specifically, this legislation requires the Peace Corps to provide enhanced sexual assault risk reduction and response training to all volunteers and integrate that knowledge with safety and security protocols at every Peace Corps post. Volunteers in training will receive an in-depth analysis of the particular risks they face in a given country and be provided with clear, written guidelines regarding whom to contact and what steps to take in the event of a sexual assault. S. 1280 creates an anonymous hotline for reporting sexual assaults and sets up response teams that will be deployed the moment an incident is reported. A certified victim's advocate who answers to the Director of the Peace Corps will be required on staff to oversee the initiative and manage data collection for further studies analyzing safety and security trends. Mr. Speaker, the Peace Corps has sent over 200,000 Americans to live and work in 139 developing countries since it was established by an executive order from President John F. Kennedy on March 1, 1961. Now in its 50th year, the agency continues to fill the gaps left behind by conflict, strife, and environmental degradation around the globe. For 2 years they develop partnerships, gain valuable knowledge, and help their communities meet local development goals. In the process, they build lifelong bonds and gain a greater understanding of America's place in the world. The world in which Peace Corps Volunteers work is the real world, Mr. Speaker. It can be dangerous and uncertain. Therefore, issues of health and safety are of critical concern, especially during those first few months it takes a volunteer to adjust to the realities of his or her new life. The provisions of this legislation were developed with extensive input from affected individuals and their families, victims' rights groups, Peace Corps senior staff, and the Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (RPCV) community. Kate's memory, embodied in her family, friends, and supporters, moved the process forward. Peace Corps Director Aaron Williams testified on May 11, 2011 at a hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and affirmed that he is committed to meeting the goals espoused by Kate's Voice and First Response Action. ``The Peace Corps has not always been sufficiently responsive or sensitive to victims of crime and their families,'' he admitted. He went on to offer a public apology and described how such attitudes are changing on his watch. Indeed, much of the substance of S. 1280 is already being implemented within the agency. Director Williams created the Victim's Advocate position and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization, to collaborate and share resources on sexual assault prevention and response. Mr. Speaker, based on the Peace Corps receptivity to these reforms and the bipartisan nature of this legislation, I am confident that S. 1280 is an enlightened response to the pressing concerns of Peace Corps Volunteers and their families. As a committed friend of the Peace Corps and its mission, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and provide the resources necessary to implement it without threatening the operational capacity of the agency. The remarkable collaboration that conceived the Kate Puzey Act was an unparalleled labor of love. It was an earnest push to strengthen the program and prepare it for the future. It was not meant to hurt or punish the agency. One of the witnesses at the May 11th hearing put it bluntly: ``I would be devastated if my testimony were used to stop Peace Corps funding, cut funding, or eliminate the Peace Corps.'' I strongly encourage my colleagues to keep that thought in mind as we consider this bipartisan legislation, which is the legacy of many extraordinary Americans, some of whom never returned from their missions abroad. To honor the memories of fallen Volunteers, respect the survivors who courageously shared their stories, and encourage the next generation which recognizes the power of service, I will vote for this legislation in its current form, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act. However, while I support the underlying legislation, I have serious concerns that this bipartisan-supported bill is combined with the Commercial Vessel Discharges Act. The Commercial Vessel Discharges Act sets a single nationwide standard for the treatment of ballast water by commercial vessels. This would prevent states, such as California from enacting more stringent ballast water standards. California has stronger ballast water standards than what is found in the Commercial Vessel Discharges Act. This legislation will cause more invasive species to infiltrate the waters in California and the Great Lakes. This will also increase costs associated with combating invasive species. Mr. Chair, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act would have been further improved had the Rules Committee made my three amendments in order. Let me briefly explain what my amendments would have done. My first amendment would have simply allowed grants provided under the Port Security Grant Program to be used to pay a portion of personnel costs. The Maritime Transportation Security Act and the SAFE Port Act authorize funds to identify vulnerabilities in port security and in order to ensure compliance with mandated port security plans. The grant funding is provided to port authorities, facility operators, and state and local government agencies so they can provide security services to our ports. However, currently Port Security Grant Program funds cannot be used to fund statutorily-mandated security personnel costs. My amendment simply would have corrected this inconsistency between the Port Security Grant Program and other grant funding programs. Our American ports should not have to bear the burden of protecting our most vital stream of commerce and source of American jobs on their own. Instead, ports should be allowed to utilize Port Security Grant Program funds to hire and pay security personnel who are used to staff fusion center, emergency operations, and counterterrorism posts. Also, in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, my amendment would have placed a cap on the amount of Port Security Grant Program funding that can be used to pay security personnel costs. Payments would have been limited to 50% of the total amount awarded to grant recipients in any fiscal year. This is consistent with other grant programs, such as the Urban Area Security Initiative. Last month, I had a similar amendment adopted by unanimous consent by the Homeland Security Committee during the markup of the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My amendment would have allowed grant recipients the flexibility to use a portion of their funds to pay for security personnel expenses. In short, my amendment would have provided a simple, common-sense change to what has become a complex funding issue for our American ports. My second amendment would simply have allowed grant funds under the Port Security Grant Program to be used to replace defective security equipment. Currently, the Port Security Grant Program allows grant funds to be used for maintenance of security equipment, but not the replacement of security equipment. My amendment would have given grant recipients the flexibility in determining whether it is more cost-effective to replace or repair security equipment. It doesn't make any sense to require grant recipients to fix security equipment when it may be cheaper to replace it with newer, improved technology. My amendment didn't increase spending, but would have given Port Security Grant Program recipients the flexibility in determining the best use of their funds. My third amendment would have ensured that when the Marine Transportation System Assessment and Strategy was drafted it included a plan to identify maritime projects of national significance; the steps taken to implement 100 percent container screening at ports, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission; and develop a plan for fully utilizing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Committee on the Marine Transportation System is tasked with assessing the adequacy of the marine transportation system including ports, waterways, channels, and their intermodal connections. Part of this Committee's job is to draft the Marine Transportation System Assessment and Strategy one year after this bill's enactment. This assessment will evaluate the condition of the marine transportation system and the challenges the system faces. My amendment would have asked the committee to take into consideration three things when drafting its assessment. First, to identify maritime projects of national significance. I believe identifying these corridors are essential to the goods movement process in this country. Too often we fund projects because of political reasons and not because it is right for the country. Under the advisement of the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council, interested parties, the public, and the Committee should put forth a list of maritime projects of national significance so that the country can make smart investments that increase the flow of goods, the flow of trade, and create jobs. Second, to report what steps are being taken to keep our nation safe by ensuring that our ports are secure and not a weak point for terrorists to exploit. Millions of containers are shipped into our country every year and the smallest percentage are thoroughly checked for potential threats against the United States. My amendment would have simply asked the committee to report what is being done to secure our ports as recommended by the 9/11 commission. Finally my amendment asked the committee to make recommendations that would make the delivery of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund more efficient to the users who pay into it. Recently in a T&I subcommittee, members of the port committee expressed their displeasure with the lack of return on the Harbor Maintenance Tax. There are too many projects essential to our nation's goods movement infrastructure going under or unfunded by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I along with the entire witness panel agreed it is time for reform. Rest assured, I will continue to be an advocate for our ports, including the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. As a Member of both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, ensuring the safety of our nation's ports is one of my top priorities. Again, Mr. Chair while I support the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act, I do not support prohibiting states, like California from enacting more stringent ballast water protections. I also feel that had my amendments been made in order, the safety of our ports would have been improved.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for their work earlier this week in unanimously passing H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act out of committee. This bipartisan legislation is critical to the protection of the American people and our allies around the world. I would like to thank Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for their hard work in shepherding this bill through the Committee, and I am confident that House leadership will bring this bill to the floor without delay. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative that the United States take the lead in opposing Iran's strong quest to produce nuclear weapons. Such a development would produce the greatest destabilizing element into that volatile region the world has ever known. The recent discovery of a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States on American soil is but the latest reminder of the urgent need for the United States to take forceful and effective action to ensure that Iran does not succeed in developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Last year, Congress passed H.R. 2194, the Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act. This legislation marked the most comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation ever passed by Congress. While current sanctions on Iran have impeded Iran's ability to successfully develop a nuclear weapon, most experts agree that Iran will have nuclear capabilities in the next two to three years if tougher sanctions are not imposed. According to a recent report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has a stockpile of low-enriched uranium that if further enriched could produce three nuclear weapons. Earlier this week, I sent letters to Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Berman and House leadership urging them to consider H.R. 1905 and sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. I am encouraged by the Committee's swift action and hopeful that this bill will swiftly be brought to the floor for consideration in the whole House. H.R. 1905 strongly reflects the demands of the international community that tougher sanctions must be placed on Iranian leaders to end their nuclear program. If enacted, H.R. 1905 would increase sanctions on human rights violators in Iran, impose tougher sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and would finally codify the U.S. policy to prevent Iran from developing unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles. This bill takes steps to peacefully thwart Iran's nuclear aspirations. During the markup of this bill, an amendment offered by Ranking Member Berman to strengthen sanctions against Iran's Central Bank was unanimously agreed to. The Berman Amendment strengthens H.R. 1905 by inserting language that directs the President to determine whether the Central Bank of Iran is engaged in sanctionable activity. By sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, the United States would set a strong example for countries around the world that depend on a geopolitically stable Middle East for their own security and prosperity. Imposing tougher sanctions on the Iranian economy will demonstrate that the international community will not tolerate Iran's continued refusal to end their nuclear enrichment program. Specifically, the Berman Amendment directs the President of the United States to determine whether the Central Bank of Iran has: Assisted Iran's WMD or missile programs, including proliferation of WMD to other governments; Financed Iran's procurement of advanced conventional weapons; Provided financial services for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; or Facilitated Iran's support of international terrorism. Should the President make the determination that the Central Bank of Iran is involved in any of these areas, the bill would require him to apply sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. These sanctions would ensure that any foreign bank involved in significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran are excluded from doing business with the U.S. If this bill is passed by the whole House, the President will have 30 days to make this determination. Mr. Speaker, history has taught us that strong sanctions can bring about peaceful change. A generation ago, Congress passed the Anti- Apartheid Act which led to the end of the apartheid regime and brought about a peaceful revolution resulting in the new democratic South Africa. While the Arab Spring has deflected a lot of attention away from Iran's nuclear enrichment program, H.R. 1905 will help to refocus our efforts on appropriately addressing this critical issue. Leaders in the Iranian government have shown repeatedly that they are unwilling to comply with international demands to scrap their nuclear program. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill and look forward to voting for it when it comes to the floor for final passage.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, October is Filipino American History month, a month dedicated to honoring the achievements of a people that have contributed significantly to American history and culture. Filipino Americans have had a long and important presence in the United States and have played a substantial role in shaping the current American landscape. During Filipino American History month, we pay tribute to Filipino culture and customs and as we honor Filipino traditions and heritage. Filipino Americans continue to contribute to American society and are leaders in all aspects of American life, serving as lawyers, doctors, artists, writers, elected officials, teachers, and members of the armed forces. Filipino Americans reside in nearly every Congressional district in the United States, continuing to enrich our culture bringing new ideas and innovation to our nation. As a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I am proud to represent one of the largest Filipino communities in the United States. Relations between the United States and the countries of the Pacific Rim are extremely important and this is why only a few short months ago, I introduced H. Res. 275, my annual resolution honoring the anniversary of the independence of the Philippines. This resolution reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation which exist between the United States and the Philippines as well as a strong commitment to strengthening these bonds. In addition, H. Res. 275 seeks to increase public awareness of the vibrant and beautiful culture of the Philippines and support the continuing development of the Filipino American community as an integral part of America's cultural fabric. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to represent the people of the 37th Congressional District of California, which is one of the most ethnically, culturally, and racially diverse congressional districts in the country. This is especially true of Carson, one of the major cities in the 37th congressional district. Southern California, which includes Carson, is home to one of the largest Filipino American populations in the country and is considered a preferred destination for Filipinos looking to start a new life in our country. As we celebrate Filipino American History Month, I am proud to announce that the City of Carson will be receiving a special monument of Dr. Jose P. Rizal, a decorated Filipino national hero. The Dr. Jose Rizal Monument Movement (JPRMM) Inc., has offered to donate the monument to Carson for placement in the City's International Sculpture Garden. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Jose Rizal was a proponent of democracy and peaceful reforms during the Spanish colonization of the Philippines in the 1800s. He advocated for liberty through peaceful means rather than by violent revolution and was considered by Mohandas Gandhi as a forerunner in the cause for freedom. Dr. Rizal was executed by the Spanish on December 30, 1896, a date which is marked annually as ``Rizal Day,'' a Filipino national holiday. After his execution, Dr. Rizal became a martyr in the fight for Filipino independence and his commitment to nonviolent reform served as inspiration for the Filipino people and many others around the world. Mr. Speaker, the benefits that the Dr. Jose P. Rizal monument will bring to my district and the city of Carson especially are substantial. The monument will chronicle the rich history and significant contributions made by Filipino Americans to the City of Carson, the state of California, and the United States as well as promote the diversity and interests of Carson residents comprising of various nationalities, races and ethnicities. In addition, the Rizal monument will remind Filipino Americans of the democratic underpinnings of the Filipino heritage and encourage Filipinos from all over California, as well as the United States to visit Carson to pay homage to the national hero. I applaud the efforts of Carson for according a place of honor to Dr. Jose Rizal. He continues to be recognized globally for his efforts to bring freedom, liberation and justice through peaceful means to all peoples. His leadership, patriotism, and dedication to his country should serve as inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, during Filipino American History Month I encourage all Americans to take time to recognize the contributions of Dr. Jose Rizal as well as the achievements of Filipino Americans that have helped to make our country better. The best way to honor Filipino American History Month is to continue to cherish and preserve the ethnic and cultural diversity that strengthens this nation.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, as a member of the Native American Caucus, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, offered by Congressman Lujan of Arizona. The Lujan Amendment exempts Native American sacred and cultural sites from inclusion in the land transfer proposed by this bill. As it stands, H.R. 1904 is fundamentally unfair to the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other tribes in the region, who have inhabited this land for thousands of years. This bill waives compliance with federal statutes that require timely consultation with affected tribes, who now face the prospect of witnessing their ancestral lands of unique archaeological and religious significance fall victim to destructive mining practices. These techniques involve utilizing controlled cave-in deep underground, which can cause massive depressions at the surface and forever scar the landscape. Archaeological sites and religious lands would be forever ruined and unrecognizable. Other surveys have identified Civilian Conservation Corps sites and structures eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic Places which could also be destroyed by the proposed mining project. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1904 has been called a ``special-interest'' bill whereby a private company, Resolution Copper, which is actually a joint subsidiary of two foreign-owned mining companies. Resolution Copper would receive federal land worth billions of dollars without having to pay royalties on any mineral wealth it extracts. Furthermore, there are no guarantees that the company would even hire locally, process the ore in the United States, or purchase equipment made in America. H.R. 1904 excludes the one special interest with an undeniable right in this debate--the Native American tribes--from a decision that affects their community at the absolute deepest level. I strongly support the Lujan Amendment and oppose the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elouise Cobell who passed away on Sunday, October 16, 2011. This extraordinary individual led a 15 year fight on behalf of nearly 500,000 Native Americans who had their trusts mismanaged by the federal government. Elouise Cobell filed a lawsuit in 1996 seeking justice for herself and the half million other American Indians who had their assets mismanaged by the U.S. Department of the Interior. After a lengthy battle in the courts, a $3.4 billion settlement was announced in December 2009. However, the fight was not over for Elouise Cobell. While a settlement was reached, Congress would still have to authorize payment for the settlement. I was proud to support the Claims Resolution Act when it came before the House on November 30, 2010. This legislation authorized $3.4 billion to settle the lawsuit, which became known as Cobell v. Salazar. The Claims Resolution also established a $60 million education scholarship fund for Native American children. President Obama signed the Claims Resolution Act into law on December 8, 2010. This law came about because of Elouise Cobell's dedication in pursuing justice for the Native American community. Mr. Speaker, California is home to over 100 federally recognized tribes. These tribes will reap the benefits of the works of Elouise Cobell. I am also a proud member of the Native American Caucus. Elouise Cobell's dedication and courage is not just an inspiration to Native Americans, but to all Americans. Her work will not only benefit American Indians now, but also the generations that follow. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating the life of Elouise Cobell.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize another successful Great California ShakeOut that occurred on October 20, 2011. On 10:20 am, over 8.6 million Californians took part in a Drop, Cover, and Hold On earthquake drill. This was an increase from the 7.9 million people who participated in last years' drill. The Great California ShakeOut occurs on the third Thursday of October each year. Schools, businesses, tribes, government officials, faith- based organizations, non-profit organizations, and more participated in this year's Great California ShakeOut. The purpose of the Great California ShakeOut is to raise earthquake preparedness among all stakeholders in the State. As the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, I applaud my home State of California for taking earthquake preparedness seriously. California is no stranger to having earthquakes. Earthquake preparedness in California has saved countless lives and money. Having effective emergency plans in place for earthquakes and other disasters has proven to save lives. I will continue to fight to ensure that our communities in California and across the country have the resources available to handle emergency situations. Mr. Speaker, again I congratulate Californians on another successful Great California ShakeOut. While the Great California ShakeOut occurs once a year, it serves as a reminder to us all that emergency planning needs to be a year-round effort.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 358, the misnamed ``Protect Life Act''. At a time when the American people's top priority is job creation, Republicans continue to waste valuable time advancing legislation that has no chance of being signed into law. The real aim of the Protect Life Act is to restrict, if not eliminate all together, reproductive health options for American women. H.R. 358 is a callous piece of legislation that disrespects the judgment of American women. The Protect Life Act imposes an unprecedented limitation on abortion coverage and takes extreme measures to prevent women from accessing safe and legal abortion services. This legislation even prevents women from using their own money to purchase private insurance coverage for abortion, worse; the bill would relieve hospitals of their obligation to treat women who need an emergency abortion to save their life. The Affordable Care Act already contains strict safeguards at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services beyond those in cases of rape, incest or where the life of woman would be in grave and eminent danger. But the Protect Life Act goes further, much further. It is reckless and endangers women's lives. The Protect Life Act makes it virtually impossible for insurance companies in state health-insurance exchanges to offer abortion coverage, including those paying for coverage entirely with private dollars. The bill also prohibits all individuals who receive federal subsidies from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage, as well as barring insurance plans from covering abortion if they include even one individual who receives a subsidy. Today, nearly 87 percent of private employer-sponsored insurance offer plans which include abortion coverage. This bill would deter insurance companies from offering plans with such options and would likely force millions of women to drop the coverage they currently have. Currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by the 1986 law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), to provide emergency care to all patients, regardless of the circumstance. Under EMTALA, if a woman required an emergency abortion to save her life and she was a patient at an anti-abortion hospital or being treated by a health care provider against abortion on religious or moral grounds, the hospital would be required to either perform the abortion or transfer the patient. The Affordable Care Act leaves laws that protect medical providers who have religious or moral objections to abortion services intact. But the Protect Life Act goes even further by removing the obligation for medical providers who are not willing to terminate a pregnancy to facilitate a transfer to a hospital that is willing to save the woman's life. Madam Speaker, in short, this irresponsible and dangerous legislation would allow a hospital to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform a life-saving procedure. Saving a woman's life should be every hospital's first priority, especially hospitals that receive federal funding. The Protect Life Act amends the historic Affordable Care Act, which was passed by the Democratic 111th Congress, so that it does not ensure access to abortion services. This broad language could prevent states and state-based health insurance exchanges from ensuring that women get information about the health care coverage options available to them. It should be an ethical healthcare provision that patients be presented with accurate and complete information about their medical options in order to make the best decisions regarding their health care. This bill denies women that fundamental right. In addition, another provision of the Protect Life Act could allow insurers to refuse to offer important services that are part of the minimum standards for health coverage such as services and supplies related to contraception, infertility and sexually transmitted diseases. Our friends across the aisle are fond of saying they are against government intrusion into the market place, excessive regulation, and limits on personal freedom. But here they are again trying to deny women the right to choose what is best for themselves and their families. Eliminating access to legal abortions denies women the right to make their own health decisions in accordance with their religious and moral beliefs and as a result, infringes on their equal rights. When it comes to attacking women's freedom and privacy, this legislation knows no bounds. It is an extreme attack against women's reproductive rights and undermines women's access to quality healthcare. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I am proud to stand in strong opposition of H.R. 358, the so-called Protect Life Act and urge my colleagues to join me. This bill is not only unconstitutional, but it is dangerous. A more accurate name for this bill is the ``Endanger Women's Lives Act of 2011.'' In a time of such tough economic hardship, we should be concentrated on created jobs and stabilizing the economy, not advancing extreme legislation that is nothing less than the most comprehensive and radical assault of women's health in our lifetime.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, October is LGBT History Month, and I rise to pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of numerous members of this vibrant community and to recognize some of the men and women whose contributions and service have made America better and greater. I am proud to have supported the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which was formally abolished by the military on September 20th, 2011 after an orderly transition program prepared troops for the change without affecting force readiness or morale. Our nation is now stronger and our people are safer thanks to the sacrifices made by these brave Americans, who no longer need to choose between service and silence. There have been other changes for the better this year. In July, President Obama and his administration concluded that a critical section of the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer constitutionally defensible. And, on June 24th, the State of New York passed a law with bipartisan extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples. Just last week, history was made here in the House when our colleague, Congressman Polis of Colorado, celebrated the birth of a baby boy with his partner, and became the first openly gay parent to serve in Congress. This chamber has been enriched by his service, as it has by that of Congressman Barney Frank, the first openly gay Member to serve in the House of Representatives, and one of this body's ablest legislators. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin was the first openly gay non- incumbent to be elected to Congress. Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island was the first openly gay mayor of a major city before his election to Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to serve with these great Americans and wonderful colleagues who overcame many obstacles and barriers to realize the dream of serving their communities and representing their friends and neighbors in the Congress of the United States. History, and progress, is also being made at the local level. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, one of the largest LGBT communities in the nation is located in the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area, which I am privileged to represent. This dynamic community is culturally diverse and economically and artistically vibrant. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize two LGBT leaders who helped to make this possible. Jean Harris was a lifelong human rights activist who employed her uncanny talent for community organizing to electing open-minded city officials and defeating discriminatory legislation. A true force in California's LGBT community, she served as chair of the California Democratic Party's Lesbian/Gay Caucus, president of San Francisco's Harvey Milk Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club, and vice president of the Long Beach Lambda Democratic Club. Indeed, many local leaders and public servants across California owe their careers to her tireless advocacy. Jean Harris passed away on June 15, 2011, and my deepest sympathies go out to her family and friends. In August, I rose to pay tribute to the late Paul Duncan, the Director of Outreach for the Long Beach Community Business Network, who spent the last ten years of his life working tirelessly to connect local Long Beach employers to business organizations from Hawaii to Washington, DC. An advocate for economic empowerment of LGBT business owners and entrepreneurs, Mr. Duncan was known around the nation and beloved by the Long Beach community. He died suddenly of an aneurism at a national conference where he was one of 70 affiliate leaders working for job creation and expanded economic opportunity for LGBT owned businesses. Mr. Speaker, progress is made through the efforts of courageous leaders like Jean and Paul; people who actively engage their communities and face adversity to ensure that the rights of all are clearly defined and protected. People like the legendary Bayard Rustin, a leading strategist of the Civil Rights Movement and trusted advisor to Martin Luther King, Jr. An early proponent of nonviolent resistance, Rustin organized the 1947 Journey of Reconciliation which inspired the Freedom Rides of the 1960s and helped Dr. King organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which became the nerve center of the American Civil Rights Movement. Bayard Rustin was a driving force behind the iconic 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom which brought national attention to the civil rights struggle and spurred the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He arranged the transportation, trained the marshals and oversaw all of the logistical details involved in putting on one of the most effective political demonstrations in world history and setting the stage for Dr. King's timeless ``I Have a Dream'' speech. Later, Bayard Rustin worked to integrate all-white unions and became heavily involved in international humanitarian development and peacemaking. Openly gay, he became a public advocate for LGBT causes in the 1970s and passed away on a mission to Haiti in 1987. Many great writers of the Harlem Renaissance, such as Countee Cullen and Bruce Nugent, were homosexual, and the contributions they made to literature are forever ingrained in the cultural fabric of America. Langston Hughes was probably the most well known, though he was an intensely private man and never spoke openly on the subject. Billy Strayhorn was a musician and gifted composer whose 30 year collaboration with Duke Ellington resulted in some of the most indispensible music of the jazz age. Openly gay, Strayhorn participated in many civil rights causes and arranged a musical score for his friend, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1963. James Baldwin is one of the great literary figures of the 20th century. The writings of this African-American explored issues of race and class and gender. He rose to prominence with the civil rights movement and worked to bridge the gap between the competing approaches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, both of whom were his personal friends. His work and life had a profound impact on countless equality activists and writers. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to acknowledge the achievements of just a few of the countless number of Americans who defied the odds and overcame prejudice and discrimination, and intolerance and worked to make everyone including America be a more welcoming place succeeding generations of LGBT community members.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 11th I was unavoidably detained and therefore was not present to be recorded on rollcall vote No. 771. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 771, I would have voted ``nay'' (October 11) H. Res. 425--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3078--United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, H.R. 3079--United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act, H.R. 3080--United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments to H.R. 2832--To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes (Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension)

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic Violence Awareness Month is a month-long project dedicated to addressing the victimization of men, women, and children in our nation and raising awareness of the devastating impact of domestic violence. This month, we honor the survivors of domestic violence, whose struggles and successes continue to inspire us all as we rededicate ourselves to ending domestic violence in our communities. Domestic violence touches the lives of Americans of every background and circumstance and affects every sector of our society. It can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, or behavior used to coerce, threaten or humiliate another person. When it comes to domestic violence, there is no standard victim. It affects people from all walks of life, and individuals of every race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and socioeconomic background. Domestic violence is not restricted; it can happen to any couple, homosexual or heterosexual, whether they are married, living together, or dating. Mr. Speaker, despite the progress and achievements we have made in the recent past, there is still so much more to do. It is time to put an end to this devastating crime. Far too many families in this nation are affected by domestic violence. It is a growing epidemic affecting local, national and international communities alike. In the United States, one in four women and one in thirteen men will be the victim of domestic violence at some point in his or her lifetime and over 3.3 million children witness domestic violence each year. Further, domestic violence can also act as a precursor to more serious crimes. In 80% of intimate party homicides, regardless of which partner was killed, domestic violence was present during the relationship prior to the killing. We must remember that these victims are not statistics, but people. Mr. Speaker, victims of violence often suffer in silence, with limited options, not knowing where to turn for support and guidance. We need to break this silence. Local domestic violence agencies, shelters, victim services providing legal, emotional, and medical support are vital to helping victims and their families heal. To effectively respond to domestic violence, we must support efforts to help expand these services and to continue to foster awareness. The Recovery Act passed by Congress in 2009 and signed by President Obama provided a total of $225 million to the Office of Violence against Women for grant funding for programs which expands efforts to curtail domestic violence. These vital funds help communities develop and enhance strategies to curb domestic violence, enhance services to people victimized by domestic violence, and work in cooperation to develop education and prevention strategies directed towards issues of domestic violence. Through knowledge, action and awareness we can take the necessary steps forward to reduce the prevalence of violence in our communities. In addition, as part of the Affordable Care Act, women will receive free preventative care, including domestic violence screenings and counseling as well as ensure that insurance companies may no longer classify domestic violence victims as people with pre-existing conditions. This month, let us recommit ourselves to ending domestic violence in our communities. We have a responsibility to continue to broaden our efforts to end violence against men, women and children. But we cannot solve this crisis alone. We must work together to create support, expand resources and eliminate barriers for victims of domestic violence. Stopping domestic violence means saving lives. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I urge all Americans to take time this month to honor domestic violence survivors, applaud their strength and courage, and find out what you can do to help prevent domestic violence in your community.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to strike the provision that reduces the amount of funding to implement the Diesel Emissions Reduction program. Five years ago, Congress passed the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The program was authorized at $200 million per year for 5 years. In 2011, the Congress acted responsibly, and in light of our fiscal crisis situation, we reduced that amount by a hundred million per year. This amendment brings into question whether it makes sense to reduce a proven successful program that is not increasing regulations, as my former colleague just mentioned, but in fact is helping companies to be able to meet those regulations in a cost-effective way. DERA has helped fund more than 360 retrofit projects to date, which has reduced well over 1.6 million tons of emissions and provided more than $4 billion in public health benefits while employing thousands of workers who manufacture, sell, and repair diesel vehicles and their components in each of our States. Recognizing today's budgetary challenges, industry, environmental, and public sector representatives support the return of full-year 2008 funding levels for DERA, or $50 million for 2012. The United States relies upon diesel power to transport commuters, tourists, and students, harvest our crops, build infrastructure, and move our freight. New clean diesel technology is reaching near zero emissions but fleet turnover will take us many more years to come. Emissions from older diesel vehicles and equipment can be reduced, and we can help to make that happen. Some of our program results have been 119 projects affecting more than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles and equipment, new State clean diesel grant programs in over 50 States, 2,200 tons of particulate matter emissions reduced, 580 million benefits to health, and--this is a very important one--3.2 million gallons of fuel that has been saved per year by implementing this program. This is why in the last Congress I introduced legislation that extended DERA for 5 more years. The legislation received bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle and was signed by the President. In February during debate on H.R. 1, there was an amendment put forward by a Representative on the other side of the aisle that would have eliminated full funding for DERA. The amendment in the continuing resolution at that time was soundly defeated by both of us, both sides of the aisle, 352 Members. In fact, the chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Simpson, called the cuts to DERA--and I'm talking about my colleague from the other side--the wrong choice. I'm here to present that this cut is still the wrong choice. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the gentleman would say that this might be irresponsible. What I heard of the comments was I didn't talk about the legislation within itself. We're talking about the amendment of how this is going to be paid for. And so the question before the House is going to be, is it appropriate to take additional funds to use DERA as the whipping boy time and time again for a program that is helping what my colleague from the other side is saying? I would actually say that DERA is responsible. What's irresponsible is continuing to put the health of Americans in jeopardy. I will repeat the quote for my colleagues from the chairman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, Mr. Simpson. He called the cuts to DERA ``the wrong choice.'' We have already been responsible, and DERA has already paid its fair share, and it's being cut as other programs have been cut. The question is, is it right to continue to deplete this program? I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say, I think I've said twice now, the issue that we have before us is the question of this amendment whether DERA is the appropriate funding source that would be considered for the offset. That's the question that we have before us. It's interesting that Mr. Whitfield himself has benefited from this program. In Kentucky, the construction ports utilized $1.16 million to retrofit 73 pieces of nonroad construction equipment. Also, the Kentucky Association General Contractors benefited from retrofitting 87 pieces of equipment. I would say to you it's irresponsible to have the American public driving on our highways and roads and going through our airports breathing this air. What I've reached out to the other side is that it's important. We're talking about EPA regulations. Why would we reduce funding of a program that helps companies to meet the regulations? It's counterintuitive and it doesn't make sense. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the Richardson amendment; and the Richardson amendment is intended for exactly that, to eliminate cutting this program.

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