Laura Richardson

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was honored to be one of the featured speakers at an important session of the 102nd Annual Convention of the NAACP, which is being held in Los Angeles, California. My participation in this important event necessitated my remaining in my congressional district on Monday, July 25, 2011. Consequently, I was unable to return in time for rollcall votes Nos. 630, through 636. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: 1. On rollcall No. 630, I would have voted ``no'' (July 25)--(H. Res. 363, Providing for consideration of H.R. 2584, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes). 2. On rollcall No. 631, I would have voted ``aye'' (July 25)--(On Approving the Journal). 3. On rollcall No. 632, I would have voted ``aye'' (July 25)--(Moran Amendment to H.R. 2584, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for FY 2012). 4. On rollcall No. 633, I would have voted ``no'' (July 25)-- (Huelskamp Amendment to H.R. 2584, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for FY 2012). 5. On rollcall No. 634, I would have voted ``aye'' (July 25)-- (Cleaver Amendment to H.R. 2584, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for FY 2012). 6. On rollcall No. 635, I would have voted ``aye'' (July 25)-- (Richmond Amendment to H.R. 2584, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for FY 2012). 7. On rollcall No. 636, I would have voted ``aye'' (July 25)--(Hochul Amendment to H.R. 2584, Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for FY 2012).

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1315, the ``Consumer Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act'' because it is an undisguised attempt to undermine the critical reforms we worked to put in place following the economic disaster which cost this country 8 million jobs and $17 trillion in Americans' net worth and retirement savings. I cannot support legislation that would take us back to a time when the people charged with regulating the financial industry were so intertwined with its interests that they purposefully looked the other way while unscrupulous firms conjured up dangerous and self-defeating schemes that brought our nation to the brink of economic disaster. My friends on the other side of the aisle, aided by the army of banking industry lobbyists, all seem to have forgotten everything that happened in the past three years, so let us review the record. Years without accountability for Wall Street and the Big Banks under President Bush and Congressional Republicans led to what most economists consider to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The official explanation was that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street. Major financial institutions began to fall like dominoes, and we had to step in and bail them out. I voted for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act because it ended any possibility of another taxpayer bailout and put in place measures to ensure that such insanity should never again threaten the livelihoods of innocent Americans. H.R. 1315 is designed to slow down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), replacing its single leader with a 5 member commission, which is likely to lead to internal gridlock. Simply put, this legislation is an attack on the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act passed by the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress and an attempt to return to the bad old days of the Wild West of Wall Street. Weaken, delay, and erode--these are the tactics being employed through this legislation by those who choose to side with some reckless Wall Street bankers over millions of American families. Mr. Chair, the financial crisis of 2008-2009, which we have come to call the ``Great Recession,'' saw millions of Americans pay the price of abuses committed by big banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions on Wall Street. They paid with their homes, their savings, their pensions and their jobs. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established under the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which President Obama signed into law last year. Since then, opponents, backed by an army of banking lobbyists, have tried to restrict and cripple parts of the law that will do the most good for American consumers, the CFPB being the prime target. H.R. 1315 replaces the Director of the CFPB with a 5 person commission, which will make it easier for other banking regulators, who failed to protect consumers in the past, to overturn its rules and delay its core functions until its leadership is confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Chair, despite the claims made by supporters of H.R. 1315, the CFPB is far from being some all-powerful government bureaucracy subject to the whims of a single person, as new rules and initiatives it generates can at any time be overturned by a two-thirds vote from the Financial Stability Oversight Council. This ensures that the Director of the CFPB is held to account to the overall safety and stability of U.S. financial institutions. The CFPB is intended to oversee the $3 trillion consumer finance industry and prevent unfair and deceptive lending practices such as those that caused the economic crisis we find ourselves in today. H.R. 1315 would delay the transfer date for the CFPB until there is a Director confirmed by the Senate--a distant prospect since Republican Senators have vowed to filibuster any person nominated by President Obama. Thus, this provision in the bill would leave the CFPB with no meaningful consumer protection authority when it officially opens its doors. The same federal banking regulators who failed us the first time will remain in charge, leaving consumers unprotected from the abuses that brought our country to the brink of collapse and led to the loss of more than 8 million American jobs. Mr. Chair, since its creation last year, the CFPB has made considerable progress which hints at its full potential as a valuable and necessary component of our regulatory framework. The CFPB has established a new consumer complaint process and consolidated the authority of seven other agencies in policing abuses in consumer financial products such as mortgages and credit cards, pushing their providers to simplify their forms so consumers fully understand the costs and fees associated with their products. The CFPB also provides special guidance to members of the armed forces and has taken steps to police unfair practices employed by certain payday lenders and debt collectors. H.R. 1315 throws a wrench into these accomplishments with the ultimate goal of destroying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and turning back the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Mr. Chair, I believe that strong consumer protections are essential to stabilizing the economy, promoting competition and transparency, and bringing confidence back to the financial marketplace. For these reasons and for the protection of my constituents' livelihoods, I will vote against this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, the so-called ``Cut, Cap, and Balance the Federal Budget Act.'' This bill should properly be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare and Destroy Social Security Act,'' or quite plainly the ``Cut, Cap, and Plunge the United States into Default Act.'' Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what will happen if this legislation is passed. My colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that the proposed legislation is the answer to all the debt crisis but any attempt to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, veterans and America's working families isn't an answer; it's a cruel joke, but one with real consequences. The American people did not send us here to play games. Instead, they want us to work together to adopt fiscally sound pro-growth policies that puts our financial house in order and will give a rocket boost to our economy so that it creates millions of good-paying jobs for all of our people. We can do this. We did it in the 1990s when under the leadership of President Clinton we balanced the budget four consecutive years, paid down the national debt, created 23 million new jobs, and left $5 trillion in projected surpluses. It is not a serious proposal to legislate a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP, a level that has not occurred since 1966, before the escalation of the Vietnam War. But this isn't 1966. It's 45 years later, and in 2011 we face greater challenges. Our population has increased by 57 percent, we are living nearly 10 years longer on average, and the percentage of citizens age 65 and up has climbed to 13 percent. In my district 63,000 men and women receive Medicare annually and 40,000 receive Social Security, and tens of thousands more will soon reach eligibility age. How can I look them in the eye and tell them that the benefits they are entitled to, that they have worked so hard for over the years, are not coming? More Americans than ever rely on Medicare and Social Security to pay for the ever increasing costs of health care and provide for themselves in retirement. In my district, Social Security constitutes 90% or more of the income received by 34 percent of beneficiaries (21 percent of married couples and 43 percent of non-married beneficiaries). Passing H.R. 2560 will result in draconian cuts to these vital benefits. Doing so would leave our most vulnerable citizens exposed and unprotected. I cannot and will not support a proposal that will inflict such grave hardship on the most vulnerable of our citizens while asking nothing of those who benefited most from the reckless economic policies of the previous administration. Mr. Speaker, the times are serious but this legislation is not. In two weeks the debt limit will be reached so time is of the essence. This legislation, however, is a waste of time and has no chance of ever becoming law. We should reject this proposal and take up a serious proposal to resolve the debt crisis and maintain our country's A+ credit rating. It is difficult to take seriously a proposal that conditions, as this bill does, paying the nation's bills upon the approval by the House and Senate, and submission to the states for ratification, of a radical balanced budget amendment that enshrines the notorious Ryan Budget in the Constitution and makes the discredited theory of trickle-down economics the law of the land. That is a prescription for economic disaster. Passage of this gimmick proposal will virtually ensure that America will default on its financial obligations for the first time in history, with catastrophic consequences for our nation and the global economy. Seniors will not receive their Social Security checks; funding to train, equip, deploy, and pay military and law enforcement personnel will be withheld; interest rates will rise; the value of pensions and retirement portfolios will fall; and jobs will be lost. Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than political theater; at best a cheap gimmick to appease the Tea Party base of the majority party in the House. But it's not the right thing for our country. What we need right now is for responsible leaders to act responsibly. As legislators, our constituents are looking to us to get serious about the serious work we need to do to protect the economy, our people, and the nation's unrivaled record of creditworthiness. They deserve no less. For all these reasons, I stand in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 2560 and urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this radical and dangerous proposal.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is no exaggeration to say that the past few years have been among the challenging in our nation's history. The collapse of the housing market, the turmoil on Wall Street and the ensuing financial crisis, the severe economic downturn resulting in the loss of millions of middle-class jobs, and the ever present threat of terrorist attacks on our homeland are enough to make many question whether the American Dream is still attainable and to conclude that our best days are behind us. I do not share this view. The future of our country is bright and I firmly believe that our best days lie ahead. One of the reasons I am so optimistic that 21st century will be known as the second ``American Century'' is the extraordinary quality, talent, commitment, and energy of the young people who will in time assume the responsibility of leadership. Members of Congress know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent. I rise today to pay tribute to the wonderful young men and women who have done this work in my office for my constituents. Today, I bid farewell to an extraordinary young man, Thorne Maginnis, who joined my team in January of last year and who will be moving on to attend law school this fall at the University of Virginia. From his first day on my staff Thorne's talents as writer, analyst, and researcher were apparent for all to observe. These gifts, combined with his winning personality and cooperative spirit made him an invaluable staffer and a valued friend to his colleagues, who all will miss his good cheer but wish him well in his future endeavors, which I am confident will include continued service in furtherance of the public interest. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. When I was six years old I dreamed of becoming a public servant when I grew up so I could help others. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King once said: Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated and I wish to acknowledge them. They are: Devin Benavidez, Elliott Blufer, Laura Sisemore, Chris Robinson, Carlos Jurado, Jerry Boies, Sunjay Bhatia, Jazmine Florence, and Renata Harris. In past years, my office has benefitted from the contributions of other volunteers, including Helen Lei, Navy San, Chris Prado, Jimmie Luthuli, Erika Wright, Peter Ward, Alyce Boatwright, Tom DeMaio, and Brittni Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, the infusion of energy, intelligence, and idealism young people bring to their internships in my office and those of my colleagues helps keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. This is why I am so optimistic about our country's prospects for the future. As Margaret Mead said: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great and as they age, they will ensure she stays forever young.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to rise today to inform the House of the death of Mrs. Ramona Hahn. The wife of legendary Los Angeles County supervisor Kenneth Hahn, Ramona was the proud matriarch of a family whose members have devoted their lives to public service. Ramona Hahn passed away on Monday morning at the age of 86--a mere day before her daughter Janice was elected to join us in this body, representing California's 36th Congressional District. My deepest condolences go out to our new colleague, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, and the entire Hahn family, as they mourn the loss of a devoted wife and loving mother. Ramona was a great lady; she was my friend. Born to American missionaries in Tokyo, Japan, Ramona Hahn was a service-minded individual who committed her life to God and family. Ramona has been described by her children as the ``driving force'' behind their family of public servants. She worked hand in hand with her husband as he fought to improve the lives of his constituents. She provided strength and support as he took bold stands for civil rights, including the decision to greet Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at LAX when he visited Los Angeles in 1961. He was the only elected official from California to do so. This act of political courage has never been forgotten, but is in keeping with the character and commitment that has been the hallmark of the Hahn family for more than a half century. Ramona's community involvement and selfless attitude was a powerful example for her two children. Her son James Hahn has served as Los Angeles City Controller, Los Angeles City Attorney, and Mayor of Los Angeles, and is currently a judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Her daughter Janice Hahn has served in the Los Angeles City Council and on the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission, which modernized Los Angeles city government, making it more responsive to the city's diversity and challenges. In the coming days, she will be sworn in on the House floor. I know that the entire Hahn family wishes that Ramona could have lived to see her daughter sworn in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. For Janice, the loss of her mother must make this monumental achievement bittersweet. However, I hope that Janice and her family can take comfort in the knowledge that their mother's loving spirit lives on through the lives that she touched and the good works that Janice will do in this body. I ask all Members to join me in a moment of silence in honor of the memory of the late Ramona Hahn.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. RICHARDSON. I rise in strong opposition to the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which includes an amendment that would rescind the remaining unobligated high-speed rail funding that was originally approved in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In listening to my colleague who just spoke, I don't think anyone here on this floor disagrees that we support the farmers, we support the people who have been impacted by flooding. But the question is whether these particular funds are the appropriate funds that should be dedicated to address that particular issue. I would venture to say that while I believe it's important that the Army Corps of Engineers has access to funding necessary to prepare for future disasters, I would say that because I am the ranking member of Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications. But when you consider our long overdue efforts to be able to develop a high-speed rail network that would create jobs and bring rail infrastructure into the 21st century for the United States, that also is a priority as well. I am proud to be vice chair of the bicameral High-Speed Rail and Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus, and I am glad that we are working to increase the visibility on this issue. I have long fought for bringing transportation systems into the 21st century. After all, that's important to Americans' lives as well. Because if we're not able to traverse from one side of the country to the other, if we're not able to do it in an efficient manner, eventually we will also find ourselves without more jobs and without being able to have appropriate living conditions. Consider that high-speed rail pays for itself, significantly reducing $700 billion a year of oil purchased that could be dealt with regarding our trade deficit. High-speed rail pays for and saves lives. We are talking about lives. What about the 43,000 Americans who die each year in car accidents? What happens when we talk about that high-speed rail pays for its efficiency and mobility by being able to move people and goods without delay and waste? And also when you consider that high- speed rail pays by improving air quality, which also helps and saves lives. Thirteen countries around the world are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into their systems. And for years the United States has failed to keep up. Finally, we have an administration that is actually focused on this issue and has made a commitment to this funding. However, when you consider that in the United States we only have one high-speed rail corridor, that's the Acela Express, operated between Boston and Washington, D.C., and even in our one corridor the trains only reach 150 miles per hour, far below what we would really call a true world class high-speed rail. So when we consider being in the High-Speed Rail Caucus and what our efforts are today, thankfully we are looking at a situation where we do have funding that's been allocated. So when we say it's unallocated funds, let's talk about that. Actually, what's happened is the administration has done an excellent job in considering areas that have said they are not ready to do high-speed rail at this time. So rather than our wasting money as we did in the past, years in the past, of building bridges to nowhere, what we've said is, if a particular area is not ready, let's put the money back where it can now be reallocated. So it's not that the funds are totally unobligated. We are now in the process of putting them in the areas that are ready to build high-speed rail now. We must be forward thinking and proactive to position our country to compete in the global economy. That's about American lives as well. Nowhere is it more important than in the area of high-speed rail to take that broad step. It will cost about $40 billion to bring high-speed rail to areas like mine in California. But with it comes really a revolution in travel in a way that we have not touched before. Madam Chairwoman, I cannot support this bill in its current form in light of the amendment that's been brought forward, and I urge my colleagues to vote against these draconian cuts. We had an opportunity to do more funding for Army Corps, and on this very floor many of my colleagues chose not to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Leonard Earl Roberts, Sr., a public servant and community leader, whose impact has been felt not only in Southern California but throughout the country. On July 5, 2011, Mr. Roberts passed away, leaving a legacy of service and patriotism. He will be dearly missed by all who knew him, but his example lives on in all of the lives that he touched. Leonard Earl Roberts, Sr. was born in 1925--at the height of the Harlem Renaissance--to Mary Queen Dorsey in Vidalia, Louisiana. Leonard, Sr. was no stranger to meeting and overcoming adversity. In his desire to serve his country, he joined the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) at the young age of sixteen, where he participated in the efforts to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure during the economic recovery efforts from the Great Depression. Later that year, Leonard, Sr. stepped forward to defend our country following the events of Pearl Harbor, despite being under age, and quickly advanced to the rank of staff sergeant. Leonard, Sr. was in the first wave to land on Omaha Beach during the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, as part of Operation Overlord, now known to most of the world as D-Day. He successfully led his platoon in many battles until his honorable discharge on December 7, 1945 at the close of the war. His entire outfit received the Bronze Indian Arrowhead for Assault Trooper, the Cor-De-Guerre--France's highest military honor--and several other medals and honors. Upon his return home after military service, he sought out and married his childhood sweetheart, Dessie. Leonard, Sr. and Dessie moved to Boston, Massachusetts, taking advantage of the GI Bill and attending the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he received an Engineering degree. In the following years, Leonard and Dessie welcomed three children to the family--Donna, Janet, and Leonard, Jr. Leonard, Sr. soon moved his family to Los Angeles, California--where children Jacqueline and Keith were born--to begin his lifelong career in the Aerospace industry which was his civilian way of continuing his service to our country. He designed a four axis machine for specialized production of precision oversized aircraft parts which revolutionized the industry. In 1972, Leonard, Sr. established Roberts Aerospace Manufacturing Engineering Corporation (RAMEC), and continued to receive coveted government contracts, as a result of his expertise in precision manufacturing for nearly four decades until the time of his passing. Equally of note, Mr. Roberts was well known in the industry as a man of integrity. Leonard, Sr. valued God, Country and, above all else, family, which is demonstrated by his marriage to Dessie for sixty-five years and his commitment to his children. His love will live forever in the hearts of his Grandchildren Allen Talbert, Kellie Clay (deceased), Chanel Troy- Thompson, Danielle Benoit-Williams, Natalie Roberts, Raquel Roberts- Richards and Bridgette Craddock and Grandchildren Tealor Chanel Mason, Jeraud, Jeremiah Jr. and Jehman Williams, Carl Quincy Clay, II, Lauren, Sydney and Brandon Talbert, Rameses Earl Roberts Richards, and Marcus Sebastian Mason. Leonard, Sr. will be lovingly remembered by his sister Dottie and his nieces Cheri, Donna and Shanel, along with a host of other relatives and friends. He recently imparted the profound statement to his loved ones, a motto which he lived by, ``Everything is manageable in a family.'' Leonard, Sr. lived his life by anticipating the outcome of an effort before beginning the task. It mattered not how straight the gate or how charged with punishment the scroll, Leonard Sr. was the master of his fate, he was the captain of his soul. My thoughts and prayers are with the Leonard E. Roberts family. His passing is an enormous loss for my district, Southern California, and the Nation as a whole.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor and strong supporter of H. Res. 268, which reaffirms our national commitment to a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Madam Speaker, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted for generations. It has claimed thousands of lives and has contributed to instability in the world's most volatile region. Few things would do more to advance the cause of world peace than the achievement of the two-state solution which recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with secure borders and the right of the Palestinians to govern themselves in an autonomous state with the resources and factor endowments to enable the Palestinian people to live in dignity. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a strong and vocal advocate for direct negotiations, has already accepted a two-state solution, only to be continually rebuffed by the Palestinians at every turn. Madam Speaker, attempts by Palestinian leadership to circumvent direct negotiations with Israel and instead seek direct recognition from the United Nations and foreign governments is counter-productive and undermines the work that has been done over the last several decades to come to a peaceful and mutually beneficial resolution. The unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority shows a disregard for and violation of the underlying principles of Middle East peace agreements, including the Oslo Accords, the Road Map, and most recently the Annapolis Conference. Madam Speaker, a two-state solution is the only feasible resolution to this long-standing conflict. Therefore I strongly applaud the Administration for opposing international recognition of a Palestinian state that is not reached in direct negotiation with Israel. I urge the President to direct the United States Ambassador to the U.N. to exercise our veto with respect to any resolution of the United Nations Security Council to the contrary and call upon Palestinian leaders to return to the negotiation table in a good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to bring about the two-state solution, which is one and sure path to the just and lasting peace we all seek. For these reasons, I strongly support H. Res. 268 and urge my colleagues to join me.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 515, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011, which will support human rights in Belarus by encouraging the free expression of ideas among pro-democracy activists. I would like to commend Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Jersey, for sponsoring this legislation and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman, for their efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor. Madam Speaker, Belarusians have the same right to self-government and free speech as their neighbors and through the reauthorization of assistance to their civil society, H.R. 515 will help them regain rights which have been repressed by the ruling regime. Since he was elected as his country's first president in 1994, Aleksandr Lukashenko has steadily consolidated his power, reversing promising reforms put in place following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The CIA World Factbook describes Belarus as ``a republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship.'' Former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice called it ``the last true remaining dictatorship in the heart of Europe.'' Belarus has been criticized for its dismal human rights record by the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. State Department, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Council, the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. As a result of its human rights violations and a steady record of state-sponsored political repression, Belarus is subject to numerous sanctions from both the United States and the European Union. In 2004, Congress unanimously passed the Belarus Democracy Act, which authorizes assistance for political parties, non-governmental organizations, and independent media toward democratic and humanitarian reforms. This legislation affirms that it remains in the interest of our country that Belarus returns to its rightful place among its fellow European democracies. Unfortunately, recent events validate its current designation as a rogue state. The White House released the following statement regarding its last Presidential election which saw widespread violence and voting irregularities: The flawed December 2010 Presidential election in Belarus and its aftermath--the harsh violence against peaceful demonstrators; the continuing detention, prosecution, and imprisonment of opposition Presidential candidates and others; and the continuing repression of independent media and civil society activists--all show that the Government of Belams has taken steps backward in the development of democratic governance and respect for human rights. Madam Speaker, the focus of H.R. 515 is on the Government of Belarus, not its people. Many of my constituents and their families came to this country fleeing repression from totalitarian regimes. Hearing their stories, I am constantly reminded that a government which respects human rights, free speech, independent courts, and transparent elections is essential to personal liberty. As we pursue sanctions against the government of Belarus, we must provide support to the pro-democracy movement. With H.R. 515, we will send a message that governing through fear, censorship, and the threat of violence has no place in a legitimate republic. As we mark the 235th birthday of the United States and the rights we enjoy, let us encourage those who wish to apply our principles to their own governments. With this legislation, we support the political activists, the independent journalists, and the civil society leaders who risk so much for the good of Belarus. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 515.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of one of the world's busiest transportation centers, the Port of Long Beach. In my District, one out of every 8 people is employed by the Port, and over 300,000 jobs across Southern California are directly involved in its operations. As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I look to the Port of Long Beach as a model seaport, bringing business and economic opportunities to our area through ever more efficient methods of facilitating economic trade, guided by a philosophy that is sensitive to our environment and prepared for emergencies. Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1911, the Port of Long Beach, located on 800 acres of marshland at the mouth of the Los Angeles River, was officially opened to the world. The S.S. Iaqua unloaded 280,000 feet of redwood lumber at a small pier of wood and concrete, becoming the first ship to call on the Port of Long Beach. The port now services nearly 5,000 vessels and handles more than $100 billion worth of goods each year. After the Los Angeles Dock and Terminal Company, the Port's original owner, declared bankruptcy in 1916, the City of Long Beach acquired the harbor and appointed a Board of Harbor Commissioners to direct its operations. In 1925, it was decided that the Port ought to be an independent city department with its own independent board. Since then, the histories of Long Beach and its port have been intertwined. After nearly a decade of dredging and harbor improvements, in 1926 the Port of Long Beach attained ``deep water'' port status and recorded 1 million tons of cargo having passed through its piers since the Iaqua. The 1930's witnessed the expansion of the San Pedro Bay breakwater and the discovery of oil, ushering in an era of unprecedented growth for the Port and the City of Long Beach. The U.S. Navy established a facility in 1940 at Terminal Island that would become the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which provided critical support to America's operations in the Pacific during World War II, and remained a major military facility until 1997. The port continued to grow in size, capacity, and technological sophistication. It became the first of its kind in the Americas to install a shore-based radar system in 1949, and Time Magazine dubbed the Port of Long Beach ``America's Most Modern Port.'' In 1973 the Port of Long Beach became the first port in the Western Hemisphere to receive the Environmental ``E'' Award from the American Association of Port Authorities for its efforts to prevent oil spills, process sewage, clean the harbor, and monitor water quality, and received the E-Star Award from the United States Department of Commerce one year later. In 1980, the Port of Long Beach was the first American port of call for Chinese ships following normalized relations. 1996 and 1997 saw the Port of Long Beach handling more shipping containers than any other U.S. port. Today, nearly 1 out of every 5 American shipping containers pass through its facilities. The Port also continues its legacy of environmentally sensitive operations through its Green Port Policy and its Clean Air Action Plan which have become the model for similar facilities around the world seeking to improve water quality, reduce emissions, prevent contamination, protect wildlife, and implement sustainable practices in daily operations. In recent years, the Port of Long Beach has taken unprecedented steps to connect with its surrounding communities, offering free tours of the Port to the public, holding community forums, awarding scholarships, pioneering trade-related educational programs, and hosting the annual Green Port Fest. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Port of Long Beach for a century of innovation and the critical role it plays in American trade with the world. I am thankful for the contributions to American shipping made during the Port's history, and I acknowledge the critical importance of the Port to America's continuing prosperity and future trade for the next 100 years.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 672, the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, which eliminates the Election Assistance Commission, EAC. I oppose this legislation because terminating the EAC risks reducing the voting and civil rights of our citizens--rights for which many have given their lives. The EAC is charged with developing standards for voting systems, and this precedent-setting work has been recognized by nations around the world. The EAC's certification program uses its oversight role to coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to ensure that existing voting equipment meets durability and longevity standards. This relieves states and local governments of burdensome costs of acquiring new but unnecessary voting equipment. Several countries are so impressed with our system that they have signed agreements with the EAC for technical assistance as they develop their own voting system standards and certification procedures. The EAC has also played a central role in improving the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37 million voters with disabilities. We still have a long way to go to achieve the Help America Vote Act's mandate to make voting accessible and the EAC's leadership is essential to continuing the effort to offer all Americans the right to vote ``privately and independently.'' Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling that the EAC, an independent bipartisan commission charged with improving the conduct of elections in America to ensure that every vote counts, was born out of the 2000 presidential election fiasco with its unforgettable contributions to the political lexicon: ``hanging'' chads, ``pregnant'' chads, ``dimpled'' chads; ``butterfly ballots''; and ``voter intent.'' In response to the 2000 debacle, the EAC has performed valuable work to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of our nation's election systems. It has played a central role in collecting accurate and comparable election data. With our nation's complex and diversified election administration system, central data collection is essential if we are going to improve our citizens' trust and confidence in election results. EAC develops and fosters the training and organization of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators. Terminating EAC is not only an invitation to repeat the embarrassment of the 2000 presidential election, but it breaks faith with those who labored long and risked much to secure the right to vote for all Americans, particularly African Americans and other minority groups. Mr. Speaker, if you believe every vote counts--and every vote should be counted--then we must preserve the EAC and oppose this legislation. It is also important to note that abolishing the EAC would simply shift costs to the Federal Election Commission and local governments, not save taxpayer money. The FEC is not an agency that can make decisions in a timely and responsive fashion due to its partisan divisions. Consequently, transferring the functions performed by the EAC to the FEC is inconsistent with the national interest in ensuring election integrity, improving voter access to the polls, and enhancing the quality of election systems. For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.R. 672 and I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this misguided and reckless legislation that puts the integrity of our election systems--public confidence in election outcomes--at risk.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, the incorrectly named Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, which, aside from creating no jobs, merely permits major offshore oil companies to skirt reasonable clean-air standards, leading to greater health hazards and a poisoned environment for my constituents in California and others living on America's coastlines. Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, large, offshore projects that emit more than 250 tons of an air pollutant are subject to pre-construction air pollution permits, just like any on-shore installation, such as a factory. Oil rigs and their support ships are subject to regulations based on the amount of pollution they distribute into the air and the surrounding ocean. H.R. 2021 declares that pollution regulations shall apply ``solely with respect to the impacts in the corresponding onshore area.'' This means that the ocean and all the area from the oil rig to the breakers will not be properly taken into account when a company prepares its environmental impact reports. Near-shore areas with extensive human activity such as fishing and boating sites will not matter. Companies will be regulated according to how much they pollute at long distances, allowing them to pump more toxins into the air. We all know that air pollution contributes to adverse health effects and environmental degradation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in my home state of California where toxic air pollution is consistently linked to cancer and birth defects. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Los Angeles, where my 37th Congressional District is located, has some of the highest levels of cancer-related toxic air pollutants in the country. The Clean Air Act itself was a direct response to the issues of air quality in major American cities such as Los Angeles, and I cannot support a bill that undoes efforts which have improved the quality of life for so many of my constituents. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure representing a major port city, I authored the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, DERA, of 2010, which was passed in the 111th Congress. DERA provides economic incentives to retrofit commercial diesel engines, making them cleaner and more efficient without threatening trade. Instead of letting offshore drillers pollute more, we should focus on technologies and procedures that lessen their environmental impact. I believe that, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, offshore oil drillers should be held to the highest standards. To this end, I will soon introduce the Securing Health for Ocean Resources and Environment, SHORE, Act, which will ensure that offshore drilling operations prepare comprehensive disaster mitigation and clean-up plans before they ever begin operations. Under H.R 2021, the weak regulations the Republicans are attempting to establish would not even be in effect until ``the period between when drilling commences at a location and when drilling ends at that location.'' Support vessels, which produce the majority of emissions at these sites, would not have to apply any pollution controls or be factored into environmental impact statements. These provisions will effectively prevent the EPA and state authorities from addressing serious sources of pollution from offshore oil and gas sites. In addition to recklessly cutting critical safeguards to air pollutants, this legislation will remove any authority for EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to review permit decisions for offshore exploration activities. Stakeholders who wish to challenge an EPA permit would have to do so through costly litigation through the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, it cuts down the time allotted for public review and places similar time constraints on state and local hearing boards. In summary, this destructive bill would remove basic safeguards to toxic pollutants and restrict procedures used to challenge oil companies who drill in sensitive areas. There are similar operations going on just off shore from my district, and I cannot tell my constituents that I sat idly by while Congress allowed more toxic substances to fill our air and threaten our environment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the health of the American people and oppose this legislation.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Capps amendment to H.R. 2021. I thank my colleague, the gentlelady from California for bringing this amendment to the floor. The Capps amendment corrects a glaring flaw in this legislation by maintaining the rights of states who have already been delegated authority to continue to regulate and monitor air pollution from offshore oil and gas operations that will ultimately affect their residents. H.R. 2021 seeks to degrade state permitting powers by cutting time frames, restricting citizen engagement, and shifting responsibilities back to the Environmental Protection Agency. I find it interesting that some of my colleagues who campaign on small government have decided to fight regulation by stripping authority from local agencies and handing it over to a federal bureaucracy! Under the Clean Air Act, states have the right to issue permits and regulate emissions according to their own criteria, which either meet or exceed national standards. States and localities should take the lead in regulating pollution because they are most responsive to the concerns of their citizens and familiar with the dynamics at work on the ground. In my home state of California, cities such as Los Angeles, where my 37th Congressional District is located, have struggled with air pollution for decades. Thanks to the efforts of state regulatory agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board, the region has seen a marked improvement in air quality and other environmental indicators. The number of air quality alerts has fallen from over 200 per year in the 1970s to less than 10 per year today. For 17 years, the Air Resources Board has regulated and monitored oil and gas operations near my district. The standards they employ were developed over nearly 5 decades of experience, and, most importantly, they remain directly accountable to the people and communities of California. Mr. Chair, I believe that if a state invests time and money towards establishing high standards and creating innovative solutions to a problem, they ought to enjoy the full support of the law. I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I am compelled to rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for three reasons. First, the bill makes drastic and dangerous cuts to food safety programs and nutrition assistance for women, children, and seniors. Second, by underfunding President Obama's request by 23 percent, this bill also makes draconian cuts to necessary conservation programs that protect our country's water supplies and manage critical natural resources. Third, this substantially reduces funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation, the watchdog agency designated by Congress to protect consumers from Wall Street greed and predatory conduct. Madam Chair, the funding reductions in this bill will adversely affect every American. For example, the $285 million slashed from the Food and Drug Administration will be a devastating blow to the agency tasked with ensuring food safety standards. The FDA is our country's first and most important line of defense against diseases such as E.coli and Salmonella, and with outbreaks of these illnesses on the rise, this cut endangers everyone in America. In my home state of California, agriculture is a $36.6 billion industry that generates at least $100 billion in related economic activity. Any threat to the quality of our produce jeopardizes the economy of our state and the health of all who enjoy our products. Madam Chair, this bill recklessly cuts funding for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission by 44% below the President's budget request. The CFTC was established to implement Wall Street reforms and is charged with policing price speculation in commodities, futures, and derivatives markets. The reduction in funding obviously is intended to deprive the CFTC of the resources needed to detect, deter, and prevent the abusive practices that culminated in the economic collapse of 2008. Crippling the CFTC will leave Wall Street speculators free to drive up the price of oil and other commodities while making it more difficult to protect the pension plans of hard working Americans from the effects of another economic downturn. Madam Chair, this bill also hurts our environment by cutting $1 billion from conservation programs. The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) would be cut $171 million relative to its FY 2012 farm bill-mandated level, and if this bill becomes law the government would be unable to honor contracts it has already signed with farmers across the country employing environmentally sustainable agricultural methods. The bill also cuts the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) by $350 million. The bill cuts the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) by 64,200 acres and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) by 96,000 acres. In addition, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) would be cut $50 million and $35 million, respectively. The bill would also cut the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) conservation operations budget by nearly $128 million. Another troubling aspect of this bill is the reduction made to domestic and international nutrition programs, which hurt the most vulnerable among us. The proposed cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) would see hundreds of thousands of low-income women, infants, children and seniors losing their food aid. Last year, WIC provided nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating and health care referrals for over 9 million women and children under age five and saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth. Proper nutrition combats low birth weights and improves a baby's immune system, saving on healthcare costs. The Republican-proposed $650 million cut to the WIC program would deny these services for up to 350,000 low-income women and young children for the next year. In California, 31,800 to 55,700 women and children would be turned away. Cuts to the CSFP and TEFAP would hurt low-income senior citizens who have extremely limited options when it comes to proper nutrition. There are 52,000 seniors living in the 37th Congressional District of California, which I represent, and nearly 15 percent of them depend on these programs to stay healthy and avoid hospital visits due to poor dietary health. For this reason, I offered an Amendment to H.R. 2112, redirecting $10 million to CSFP so senior citizens will not have to choose between paying for medication and paying for food. Finally, H.R. 2112 makes drastic cuts to international food aid and poverty alleviation programs. These programs constitute a critical component of US foreign policy, expressing humanitarian goodwill to our allies around the world and promoting a positive image of America abroad. Given all the President and Secretary of State have done to improve our international standing, it makes no sense for Congress to undo this good work by lessening its commitment to combat world hunger. I. disturbs me than in their short-sighted rush to cut spending, my Republican colleagues would take food from the weakest and the poorest among us while preserving the Bush-era tax cuts for the super-rich. The American people do not accept this trade-off. My constituents in the 37th Congressional District reject this trade-off. I urge my colleagues to join them and me in voting against this unfair and ill-considered legislation.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2017, the FY 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. As a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring state and local officials have the resources they need in order for them to efficiently and effectively respond to national and local emergencies. This bill breaks faith with first responders, who are essential to our national security, by significantly underfunding them. In particular, this bill proposes to cut firefighter assistance grants by more than fifty percent. The Assistance to Firefighter Grant program (FIRE) focuses on equipping firefighters with the necessary resources they need to respond to any national or local emergency in a post 9/11 environment. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant program is designed to allow fire departments to increase their training and hiring of more firefighters. By cutting FIRE grants by 51 percent, from $405 million in FY 2011 to $200 million in FY 2012 and SAFER grants by 63 percent, from $405 million in FY 2011 to $150 million in FY 2012, we ultimately risk jeopardizing the safety of our communities. In addition, this bill takes away direct funding for nine key state and local security grants (including State Homeland Security Grants, Urban Area Security Initiative, Transit Security Grants, and Port Security Grants), combines them into a separate block grant, and slashes the funding of the block grant by 55 percent--from $2.2 billion in FY 2011 to $1 billion in FY 2012. By requiring all of these critical programs to compete against one another for essentially half the funding they each received the previous year, this bill will force many of these programs to be underfunded or zeroed out entirely. This bill also significantly cuts Homeland Security Research and Development projects by 42 percent--from $688 million in FY 2011 to $398 million in FY 2012. By implementing these cuts, this bill would force us to eliminate more than 144 research projects in areas such as biological and explosives detection, advanced cyber security, and interoperability. In a time when our nation remains highly vulnerable to terrorism, we cannot afford to lose these essential counterterrorism research projects. In response to our troubling debt, many cuts were already made to H.R. 1473, the FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 102-10) For example, State Homeland Security Grants were cut from $950 million in FY 2010 to $725 million in FY 2011; the Urban Area Security Initiative was cut from $887 million in FY 2010 to $725 million in FY 2011; Transit Security grants were cut from $300 million in FY 2010 to $250 million in FY 2011; Port Security Grants were cut from $300 million in FY 2010 to $250 million in FY 2011; and SAFER grants were cut from $420 million in FY 2010 to $405 million in FY 2011. By continuing to make substantial cuts, this bill will undoubtedly hinder the capabilities of our nation's first responders. According to The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) these cuts would have disastrous effects on the safety of our communities. They have stated that ``[a]t a time when state and local public safety budgets are shrinking, it is unconscionable to implement cuts of this magnitude. Make no mistake, if this proposal is enacted, it would devastate local fire department budgets and threaten public safety nationwide.'' In addition to the cutting of research programs, this bill also makes a foolish mistake of preserving a cap on the total number of TSA screeners at 46,000--which will prevent the additional hiring of personnel needed to staff new security technology. There will be a number of other troubling consequences if this bill is to pass: Transit agencies would not have funding to hire additional law enforcement officers, acquire bomb sniffing dogs, or install explosive screening devices at a time when open source media reports indicate that Al Qaeda may be attempting a major attack on the U.S. rail system. States and localities would receive greatly reduced funding (or be denied funding entirely) to harden tunnels and bridges or install surveillance systems at high-risk areas. Ports would not have funds for vessels to protect harbor waterways from a terrorist threat or for maritime training of law enforcement personnel at the ports. According to the National Association of Counties, a reduction in grant programs and the combining of funding would result in communities of all sizes not being able to enhance their level of preparedness to deal with all hazards, including potential nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks. As a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I refuse to stand by this bill. We as members of Congress have a responsibility to protect our communities from any possible danger. For this reason, there is no higher priority than to adequately fund our homeland security, particularly our first responders such as firefighters. It makes no sense to weaken our Homeland Security program by cutting their resources in a time when terrorist threats continue to put our nation at risk. We as members of Congress must unite and assist our brave first responders in their efforts to help contain any threats by providing them with all necessary resources, rather than turn our backs and leave them without sufficient funding. This bill not only undermines our nation's security, it also undermines our allegiance to the American people who look up to us in this particular time to protect them from any possible danger, whether it is an act of terrorism or a natural disaster. For this reason, I oppose H.R. 2017, the FY 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, the Richardson amendment adds $10 million to the Commodity Assistance Program by reducing by the same amount from the Salaries and Expenses section of the Farm Service Agency, which will provide additional funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program, which provides assistance to seniors who have incomes at or below $14,157. Ninety-seven percent of all Commodities Supplemental Food Program recipients are seniors who often receive these as the only fresh food packages that might come to their homes. Many of these seniors have no means of transportation to obtain these products. These seniors also have very limited resources with which to purchase the food that they need. Madam Chairwoman, I don't understand why those in the majority would believe that our seniors have caused our budget problems or, worse yet, are able to fix our budget problems. The Ryan budget proposes to make seniors pay an additional $6,000 out-of-pocket for their health care needs. Second, they increase the prescription drug costs for our seniors by proposing to reopen the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole, which Democrats closed in the last Congress. These are heartless legislative proposals that could force 136,000 seniors in the Los Angeles area to pay an additional $1.3 billion for their prescription drugs over the next decade. Now Food for Low-Income Seniors is under attack as well. Our seniors deserve our support. They've earned it. Many of our seniors have served our country overseas during World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Their bravery and their sacrifices have made America the great country that it is. Our seniors have worked hard all of their lives to provide for their families. It is now our responsibility to help assist them. Madam Chairwoman, the Commodities Supplemental Food Program was cut by $37 million over fiscal year 2011 levels. This cut means nearly 81,000 low-income seniors will lose their monthly food assistance. There are 6 million seniors who face the threat of hunger in this country, and with 12,000 baby boomers turning 60 every day by 2025, that number is expected to reach nearly the 10 million mark. There are 52,000 senior citizens in my district, the 37th Congressional District in California, and between 10 and 20 percent of them depend on these very programs. The Richardson amendment restores $10 million in funding to the Commodity Assistance Program, which will help to ensure that more of our seniors will continue to receive food. We are talking about something as basic as that--food--that our seniors would be able to eat. I urge my colleagues to support the Richardson amendment and support our seniors. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. If the gentleman would yield, might I point out that, first of all, we would not be able to legislate on the floor having to deal with this appropriation bill before us.

Ms. RICHARDSON. I just want you to know I am watching and paying attention carefully, sir. The other point I wanted to point out, as I stated in my comments, $37 million has been cut over the fiscal year 2011, and given the $5 million that you did earlier accept, and I am suggesting $10 million, we would still be suggesting only restoring less than 50 percent from that level. I would just urge you, sir, in these tough times, I understand in future times, but in these tough times, not all other mechanisms could help our seniors, again who are only making at or below $14,000, and this would be a dire need, and I would strongly urge, please, your reconsideration.

Ms. RICHARDSON. I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the LaTourette amendment. But before I get into the details, I would like to speak to the comments that were just made. I happen to have the privilege of serving currently on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I would say to any Member of Congress who would like to know about the thousands of jobs that were, in fact, created and maintained through the American Recovery Act, I would be more than happy to give them a copy of that document. Let me move into, though, the topic that is at hand, which is really the LaTourette amendment, which is not in reference to the American Recovery Act. I strongly speak in support of this amendment because, one, it protects American jobs; two, it completes projects safely; and, three, it oftentimes saves the taxpayers money. The LaTourette amendment ensures that funds for large-scale construction projects utilize the most cost-effective and efficient process for the awarding of Federal contracts. Section 415 of H.R. 2055 prohibits agencies from being able to use all available methods to ensure that Federal contracts are cost efficient, including the utilization of project labor agreements. Our ranking member, Mr. Dicks, just recently spoke a few moments ago about section 415, and I will only reiterate two points: One, section 1, subsection (b) says, ``Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements.'' Section 3, subsection (a) says, ``In awarding any contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis.'' And then finally, section 5 says, ``This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement.'' So, if we're going to speak on the floor of this House, it's important, if we're going to talk about facts, let's actually say those facts. So this dispels the myth that Executive Order 13502 makes requirements in the awarding of Federal contracts. Now let's talk a little bit about those project labor agreements. There is no substantial evidence that says that PLAs decrease the number of bidders on a project or increase the costs of construction projects. In fact, project labor agreements promote cost-effectiveness and efficiency in those construction projects. Having project labor agreements prevents labor disputes; it eliminates project delays and, thereby, helps us to get the projects done. We can all talk about facts and figures and dates and sections, but I would like to talk about what's happening in my district. I know from firsthand experience that project labor agreements work. In California, we have seen project labor agreements negotiated and implemented with incredible success. There have been many who have talked about project labor agreements. Here are just a few of the many examples of successful project labor agreements in California: One, the construction of the L.A. Metro's Blue Line; number two, the expansion and renovation of the Los Angeles World Airports; the recent Middle Harbor Project at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the largest ports in this country; and then, finally, the $2.2 billion Alameda Corridor Project. That was a project that was completed on time and under budget. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask respectfully that Mr. LaTourette's amendment would be found in order and that all of our colleagues will join in support of it. Finally, I would just like to say, for those who say that PLAs drive up the cost of construction, if they would say that, then we would simply ask: Why is it that Walmart is increasingly using PLAs and Toyota Motor Corporation has built every one of its North American manufacturing facilities under a project labor agreement? So, when we talk about this, Mr. LaTourette has been a leader on this issue. I strongly support his amendment. I stand in lockstep.

Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. All of us in Congress are looking for ways to rein in the deficit.