Laura Richardson

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. I strongly support the LaTourette amendment. Project Labor Agreement Activity in California 1984 Through March 2010 This is a working list maintained by Kevin Dayton, Government Affairs Director of Associated Builders and Contractors of California. Identification comes from primary documents as well as secondary sources that include web sites, union publications, and newspaper articles. PLAs on private projects are often not publicized, so this list may not include all PLAs imposed on refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and housing projects. Large Infrastructure Implemented Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority--Blue Line--1984. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor--1993. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California-- Eastside (Domenigoni) Reservoir Project--1994. Contra Costa Water District--Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project--Three Components--1994-1995. Contra Costa Water District--Ralph D. Bollman Water Treatment Plant Upgrade--1995. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--Inland Feeder Project--1996. San Francisco International Airport Expansion and Renovation--1996. U.S. Department of Energy--Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories--National Ignition Facility--1997. Sacramento Regional Transit District--South Corridor Extension--1998. Alameda County Transportation Authority--Alameda Corridor Project--1998. Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Construction Authority--Gold Line--1998. Los Angeles Department of Public Works--Hyperion Full Secondary Treatment Plant--1998. Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Expansion and Renovation--1999. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District-- Seismic Retrofit Phase I--1999. San Diego County Water Authority--Emergency Storage Project--1999. Los Angeles World Airports Expansion and Renovation--2000. Contra Costa Water District--Multi-Purpose Pipeline Project--2000. Los Angeles Department of Public Works--East Central Interceptor Sewer and Northeast Interceptor Sewer--2000. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Pier 400 Phase II--2002. San Jose International Airport Expansion and Renovation-- 2002. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--Capital Program--2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District--Affholder, Inc. (a general contractor) signed for Lower Northwest Interceptor Northern and Southern Sacramento River Tunnel Crossings--2004. San Diego County Water Authority--Policy to Consider PLAs for Projects Over $100 Million--2005. Contra Costa Water District--Brentwood Water Treatment Plant--2005. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berths 90-91 Cruise Terminal Baggage Handling Building--2006. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District-- Three contractors signed for Napa River Flood Protection Project--2006. City of San Francisco--Measure A--Water System Improvement Program (Hetch Hetchy)--2007. Contra Costa Water District--Alternative Intake Project-- 2007. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berth 408 Liquid Bulk Petroleum Terminal--2008. Port of Long Beach--Middle Harbor Project--2010. Negotiations Approved East Bay Municipal Utility District--Supplemental Water Supply Project--1999. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--All Future Projects on Port Property--2008. Proposed Temperance Flat Dam--Madera/Fresno Counties--2002. Contra Costa Water District--Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion--2003. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berth 93C-94 Boardwalk-- 2003. San Francisco International Airport--West Field Cargo Redevelopment Project--2003. City of Santa Paula--Wastewater Treatment Plant--2008. City of Long Beach--Airport Expansion--2009. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority-- Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension--2009. Proposed but Rejected or Not Implemented Los Osos Community Services District--Wastewater Project-- 2003. San Diego County Water Authority--Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant--2005. Palmdale Water District--All Work--2007. Central Marin Sanitation Agency--Wet Weather Improvement Project--2007. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority--Terminal 2 Expansion--2009. Prohibited by Presidential Executive Order 13202 Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District-- Seismic Retrofit Phase II--2001. East Bay Municipal Utility District--Walnut Creek-San Ramon Valley Improvement Project--2001. Sacramento Regional Transit District--Folsom Line Extension--2001. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency--Interstate 405 Improvements--2006. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Highway Improvements to Harry Bridges Boulevard--2010. Municipal Implemented City of Los Angeles--Convention Center--1990. Contra Costa County--Merrithew Memorial Regional Medical Center--1994. City of West Sacramento--Palamidessi Bridge--1995. City of Concord--Police Station--1995. City of Sacramento--Sump 2 Improvement Project--1998. City of Concord--Concord Avenue Parking Garage--1999. Contra Costa County--Family Law Center--2001. Contra Costa County--All Work Over $1 Million (revised-- original policy never implemented)--2002/2003. Solano County--Government Center and Parking Garage--2002. City of San Jose--City Hall/Civic Center--2002. Contra Costa County--Two Small Renovation Projects in Richmond and Antioch--2002. Contra Costa County--New Discovery House Facility--2003. City of San Mateo--New Main Library--2004. Santa Clara County--Valley Specialty Center Bid Package 2-- 2004. City of Carson--All General Contracts over $125,000, All Specialty Contracts over $25,000--2005. City of Santa Cruz--West Coast Santa Cruz Hotel and Conference Center Redevelopment--2005. Santa Clara County--Gilroy Valley, Fair Oaks, and Milpitas Health Centers; New Crime Lab--2005. Santa Clara County--Required Staff Analysis of PLA Benefits for Projects Over $10 Million--2005. Los Angeles Department of Public Works--New Police Headquarters, Metro Detention Center, Harbor Area Police Station and Jail Facility, Fire Station 64, Hollenback Police Station, Main Street Parking/Motor Transport Division and Aiso Street Parking, Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) Systems--2005-2009. Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--2005-06, 2006-07 Site Improvements--2005. City of San Fernando--All General Contracts over $150,000, All Specialty Contracts Over $25,000--2005. City of San Mateo--New Police Station--2005. El Camino Hospital District--Measure D--Hospital Bldg. Replacement and Central Utility Plant--2005. City of Milpitas--New Library, Parking Garage, and Other Midtown Projects--2006. Solano County--All Work Over $10 Million (Threshold Increased from $1 Million Estab. in 2004)--2007. City of Richmond--Civic Center--2007. San Joaquin County--New Administration Building--2007. City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency--All Work--2008. City of Milpitas--Senior Center--2008. City of Brentwood--Civic Center--2009. Solano County--321 Tuolumne Street/Solano Justice Center and 355 Tuolumne Street Renovation--2009. City of Vallejo--Downtown Parking Garage--2009. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District--Future Capital Improvement Projects--2010. City of Brentwood--Parking Garage--2010. Sacramento Municipal Utility District--Corporation Yard-- 2010 Negotiations Approved City of Long Beach--All Work--2005, 2007. Alameda County Medical Center--Highland Hospital Acute Care Tower Replacement--2008. Alameda County--All Work--2008. Santa Barbara County--All Work--2010. Proposed City of San Diego--New Central Library--1999. City of San Jose--Convention Center Expansion--2002. City of Union City--Intermodal Station Mixed Use Development Project--2002. City of Alhambra--West Main Street Corridor Redevelopment-- 2005. City of South El Monte--All Work--2007. City of Los Angeles--All Work--2004, 2008. City of San Leandro--All Work--2009. Various Projects in Ventura County (Santa Paula, Fillmore, Oxnard, Piru)--2009. City of Long Beach--Airport Expansion--2009. Proposed but Rejected or Not Implemented City of Sacramento--Sewer Maintenance Building--1996. City of Pinole--City Hall--1996. City of Redding--Civic Center--1998. City of Sacramento--All Work--1998. City of San Francisco--All Work--1998. City of West Hollywood--All Work--1999. City of San Diego Convention Center Expansion--1999. City of Fresno--All Work--2000. Sacramento County--Sacramento International Airport Parking Garage--2000. City of Sacramento--Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant Replacement Intake--2000. City of Santa Rosa--The Geysers Recharge Project--2000. City of Santa Rosa--Downtown Hotel and Convention Center-- 2000. City of West Sacramento--City Hall/Civic Center--2001. City of San Diego--SeaWorld Hotel and Expansion--2002. City of Cupertino--New Library--2003. City of Watsonville--Civic Center--2004. City of Gardena--Gardena Transit Facility Project--2006. City of Fairfield--All Work--2007. Washington Township Health Care District--Measure FF-- Central Plant and Hospital Expansion--2007, 2008. Imperial County--Green Retrofit Program--2009. Terminated San Francisco Housing Authority--All Work--1994-2003. Orange County--All General Contracts over $225,000, All Specialty Contracts over $15,000--2000-2005. Solano County--All Work Over $1 Million (Threshold Increased to $10 Million on 5/22/07)--2004-2007. Prohibited by Presidential Executive Order 13202 City of Richmond--Former Ford Motor Assembly Building. City of Richmond--Bay Area Rapid Transit Village. City of Richmond--Former Port Terminal One. City of Vallejo--Downtown Parking Garage (not built during Bush Administration)--2000. Orange County--Resurfacing of Santiago Canyon Road. Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center Replacement Project-- 2003. San Mateo County Youth Services Center--2004. City of Pasadena City Hall Restoration--2004. Orange County--Glassell Street Bridge Replacement Project-- 2004. City of Hayward--Water Pollution Control Facility Improvement Project--Phase 1--2005. Union City--Union City Intermodal Transit Village--2006. Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District--MetroBase Project--2006. Prohibited City of Fresno--All Work (ordinance)--2000. City of Antioch--All Work (sense of the council resolution)--2002. Orange County--All Work (ordinance)--2009. San Diego County--All Work (ordinance)--2010. Proposed but Rejected or Abandoned Prohibitions Riverside County--All Work (ordinance)--2010. proposed prohibitions City of Chula Vista--All Work (June--2010 ballot initiative for proposed ordinance)--2009. City of San Diego--All Work (qualification for Nov. 2010 ballot initiative for charter amendment)--2009. City of Oceanside--All Work (June 2010 ballot initiative for new charter)--2009. City of Roseville--All Work (proposed June 2010 ballot initiative for proposed charter amendment)--2009. Educational Implemented Los Angeles Unified School District--Proposition BB, Measure K, Measure R, Measure Q--1999-2009. West Contra Costa Unified School District--Measure E, Measure M, Measure D--2000-2005. Vallejo City Unified School District--Measure A--2001. Los Angeles Community College District--Proposition A-- 2001. Rialto Unified School District--District High School #3-- 2001. San Mateo Community College District--Proposition C--2002. San Mateo Union High School District--San Mateo High School Modernization Phases I and II--2002. Rancho Santiago Community College District (Orange County)--Measure E--2003. East Side Union High School District (San Jose)--Measure G, Measure E--2003,--2008. Solano County Community College District--Measure G-- Certain Larger Projects--2004. Oakland Unified School District--Measure A after February 2004 (adopted by administrator)--2004. Peralta Community College District--Vista Campus (Measure

Ms. RICHARDSON

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the Chair for allowing me to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017. The Richardson amendment directs $50 million in funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program. While the amendment is simple, it is important to keep in mind that being able to connect is a matter of life and death. In this information age, it seems inconceivable that this bill is suggesting that we would not invest in the technology to allow our first responders to communicate with one another. How many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had New York firefighters and police officers been able to communicate? In Joplin, Missouri, and in Alabama, every day that passes without interoperable communications we put American lives at risk--those who are serving and those who are being served. Now is the time for this investment. We simply can't afford to delay. My amendment will help ensure that public safety officials across the United States would have the resources needed to communicate with one another across jurisdictions and across disciplines, hence, being able to prevent the unnecessary loss of life and property in the event of a disaster whether it's natural or manmade. My amendment recognizes the immense importance of the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program and the work that is still required to establish a nationwide infrastructure for reliable emergency communications. Mr. Chairman, when I talk about interoperable equipment, I am looking to preserve that when we have a first responder who picks up a radio that he or she will be able to get in touch with the appropriate people to gain critical information when it matters the most. Throughout the United States, public safety agencies--law enforcement, firefighters, emergency technicians, public health officials, and others--often cannot communicate effectively with one another even within the same jurisdiction or with other public safety agencies at the Federal, State and local levels when responding to emergencies. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our communities' first responders are equipped with the best possible equipment. Interoperable communications allow our Nation's first responders to communicate in realtime during an emergency. It has been well-documented, including in the 9/11 Commission Report, that the lack of sufficient handheld communications devices may have contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate effectively with firefighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Similarly, the lack of adequate equipment exacerbated the difficulties in evacuating people during Hurricane Katrina, where many could have been saved if effective communications equipment were available not only to public safety workers but to transit authorities and others who were involved in that evacuation. More recent national catastrophes, including the floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, and beyond, clearly continue to make that argument. I ask of the chairman to find our amendment in order, and I urge my colleagues to join me in putting public safety first over politics and to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, as former chair and current ranking member on the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee and member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I offer this amendment in good faith to save lives and to protect American citizens. Like my Republican colleague, Chairman King, I have a strong concern with the current appropriations bill in its current form which in and of itself could potentially cause dangerous threats to our national security by drastically cutting vital response and prevention programs, leaving Americans and their visitors vulnerable when we are most in time of need. My amendment will make great strides to remedy this danger by ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security allocates $50 million for the Port Security program, $100 million for the Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance program, $50 million for Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant program, $10 million for the Buffer Zone Protection program, and $42.3 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System. The Richardson amendment dedicates $252 million of the $1 billion authorized, all while still preserving the chairman's original intent by allowing 50 percent of those dollars to remain flexible under the direction of what the committee had originally provided and also still maintaining the $247 million that the committee designated for Stonegarden and for training. Mr. Chairman, each and every day, America faces threats to our national security. Certainly, the most well-known are the threats to our ports and our transit systems, which I have particularly been focused on given the fact that my district covers two of the largest ports in the entire United States. However, these programs that I've mentioned so far go beyond the LA area. When you consider the recent tornadoes in Alabama and Missouri, the floods in Tennessee, other natural disasters, and other large-scale emergency situations facing our Nation, strong and effective security and response programs are vital to the lives of all Americans coast to coast. It therefore seems counterintuitive and shortsighted to undermine port and rail security, medical response and communication efforts by cutting the grant programs, or should I say, by not ensuring that these particular categories have sufficient funds in them. My amendment ensures that the funds will be available for port and rail security assistance grant programs. Now, despite the recent strides that we have made in the war on terror, when we found bin Laden's diary, we learned that he was already in the process of having discussions about attacking our transportation infrastructure system. At the heart of American infrastructure and fundamental to the success of our economy is clearly protecting our ports and our rail system. These systems have been known to be targeted in the past. All we have to think of is Madrid, London and Tokyo. Across the country, port and transit security forces are already stretched to the limit, and thanks to the substantial cuts that were already made via the end- of-the-year appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011, their jobs were made even more difficult as they were expected to do more with less. The same is true for other important State and local grant programs, like the Metropolitan Medical Response System, which aids emergency medical first responders and interoperable communications grants that are so important to our first responders. Finally, I also want to talk about the buffer zone grants that are available, which are important for people to understand. When you think ``buffer,'' you think maybe a sea area. Actually, they are regional assessments that are done to determine if critical infrastructure is properly protected. If it is not, those grants go out of that particular area to fix it. Thus, while prioritizing and dedicating 25 percent of the funds to fund port and rail transit grants, medical response programs and emergency communication efforts, my amendment preserves the Secretary's flexibility to allocate funding as the committee had initially directed. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to please withdraw their points of order, and I ask the Chair to find my amendments in order where they are not cutting other programs or adding to the deficit. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and provide these key elements of national security the funding that they need. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on my amendment about disaster relief funding. My amendment is designed to support response, rescue, and recovery. In fiscal year 2011, the Disaster Relief Fund was funded at $2.65 billion. I was pleased to see only, finally after great embarrassment, that we restored the funding of what it was previously in full year 2011 after the disaster we had in Joplin, Missouri. This amount of funding is not enough, and we should just be honest with the American public in terms of the budget of what the real costs are. Hurricane season has not started yet, but FEMA has already made 37 major disaster declarations, seven emergency declarations, and 54 fire management assistance declarations already this year. Just over the last few days, 142 people were killed in Joplin, Missouri, during the tornado that struck the city on May 22, 2011. This disaster is the highest recorded death toll from a tornado in U.S. history. The Joplin tornado destroyed an estimated 2,500 homes and damaged 10,000 others. In May, flooding in Memphis, Tennessee, devastated 1,300 homes and caused thousands to be displaced. In April, a powerful storm system spawned tornadoes across seven southern States, resulting in over 300 deaths in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, Virginia, and Kentucky. Without disaster relief funding, or not having a sufficient amount of it, many of these communities would not be safe. These funds are used to be able to rebuild lives and communities. The Disaster Relief Fund is managed through FEMA. We need to ensure that people who are in need of assistance are not waiting on Congress to debate; but, in fact, Congress is responding with the appropriate resources. This other approach is wrong. We should never hold relief funds hostage and allow citizens to suffer from a disaster while Congress debates. I think it is unconscionable that we would not immediately allow FEMA the ability to provide the assistance that is needed to help rebuild our communities. Now, let me show you a more recent picture of what happened in Joplin. You'll see in this picture that it appears a man is holding a child who doesn't even have socks and shoes. So when we talk about whether it is ideologically we believe in cutting the budget, we need to make sure that we are cutting in the right places and not in places like this. Since full year 1989, Congress has appropriated roughly $292 billion for disaster assistance in 35 appropriations bills, primarily as supplementals, two significant catastrophes that have occurred. The mean annual range that we have had to do as a supplemental is anywhere between $8.3 billion and $13.3 billion. Today we are considering only $2.65 billion. Clearly, history tells us it is not enough, and the American public should not have to wait each time that we debate when we know that what we are looking at today is not enough. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee chair and my colleagues to support the Richardson amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak in support of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment to restore funding for FIRE and SAFER grants. I would like to thank Congressman LaTourette and Congressman Pascrell for offering this amendment that enjoys bipartisan support and which I strongly support. The onslaught of natural disasters that we have seen all across the country has shown that the need for first responders has increased, not decreased. Many of us have been strong advocates for this program and recognize the inherent value of making sure our Nation's first responders have the people and the equipment they need in order to ensure our safety in all of our local communities. I support these programs. Why? Because they work. After an independent evaluation of the FIRE grant program was implemented by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture concluded that this program was ``highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the Nation.'' Additionally, at a time when many local and State governments have been forced to make drastic cuts to their emergency staff and personnel, the SAFER program has been the only resource fire departments have had to ensure that their communities would be ready if they needed to respond. In the Appropriations Committee report, it mentions that FEMA should maintain an ``all hazards focus'' in order to ensure that FEMA concentrates its efforts on where it is needed most. I strongly agree with this sentiment, which is why I think this amendment is critical to achieving our goals. As the Representative of the 37th Congressional District and as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, I understand the importance of having a fully staffed and equipped fire department. The San Miguel fire, the worst wildfire in California's history, burned through 90,000 acres of land and cost $15.6 million. However, thanks to prior planning and fire prevention education efforts made possible by this critical grant program, not a single life was lost in this devastation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Unfortunately, with firefighters, we cannot always plan ahead. We have to be ready to respond, to do the rescue and then to do the recovery. This amendment should be made in order so as to eliminate the burden that our local and State governments and the firefighters feel of having to do more with less.

Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides $690 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their hard work in bringing this bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor. Mr. Chair, I support this bill for three reasons: (1) it restores and enhances the readiness of our troops, equipment, and defense infrastructure; (2) it takes care of our military personnel and their families; and (3) it authorizes the needed investments to keep our nation strong, safe, and respected in the world. Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions. This legislation:

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I am recorded as voting ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 344; this was inadvertent. I intended to vote ``no,'' as I do not support Congressman Hunter's amendment (#12) to H.R. 1540. Amendment #12 would create a five-year pilot program to provide school vouchers set at $7,500.00 to dependent children with special needs for the purpose of attending a public, private, or charter school of choice. Because I oppose this initiative, I ask the record to reflect my intention to vote as follows: 1. On rollcall No. 344, I intended to vote ``no.'' Hunter Amendment (#11) to H.R. 1540.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of En Bloc Amendment 5 to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order and the Armed Services Committee for its work on this important legislation. Among the reasons why I support the En Bloc Amendment is because it includes an amendment that I offered to increase the effectiveness of the Northern Command (``NORTHCOM''). NORTHCOM was created on 1 October 2002 in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, its mission is to protect the United States homeland and support local, state, and federal authorities. In case of national emergencies, natural or man-made, which are happening all too frequently these days, its Air Forces Northern National Security Emergency Preparedness Directorate will take charge of the situation or event. My amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that NORTHCOM: Develop and have in place a leadership strategy that will strengthen and foster institutional and interpersonal relationships with state and local governments and; utilize training programs to teach key personnel how to lead effectively in the event of a disaster and during uncertain times. The purpose for NORTHCOM's existence is to bring the capabilities and the resources of the U.S. military to the assistance of the American people during a catastrophic disaster. NORTHCOM leaders will be much more effective in saving lives, protecting assets, and enhancing resilience after the disaster has occurred if they are trained in the techniques of effective engagement with civilian leadership. My amendment represents Congress's support for such training. I am disappointed that another amendment I offered to this bill was not made in order. This amendment would have instructed the TRANSPORTATION COMMAND (TRANSCOM) to update and expand the PORT LOOK 2008 Strategic Seaports study. Although this amendment was not made in order, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that port infrastructure receives the programmatic support it deserves. Finally, let me note my strong opposition to Section 1034 of the bill. Section 1034 is a broad and unwarranted expansion of executive power and an ill-considered enlargement of the ``War on Terror.'' This expansive new definition for the use of force is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous, particularly since Section 1034 does not require the President to obtain the express approval of Congress prior to using military force. I support efforts to strike this provision as the bill moves forward. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support En Bloc Amendment 5 to the Defense Authorization bill.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. On May 23, 2011, I was unavoidably detained during the vote on rollcall No. 330. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 330, I would have voted ``aye'' (May 23) H.R. 1627, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for certain requirements for the placement of monuments in Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes.

Ms. RICHARDSON

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 1216. Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans, through H.R. 1216, are attempting to attack our Nation's vital support system for our seniors. The Republican budget would deny seniors, and those who are coming forward after those that are currently taking advantage of these benefits, health care, long-term care, and the Social Security benefits that these seniors have earned. Sunday evening, I just got back from my district where I had an opportunity to have our annual senior briefing, and there were over 900 seniors who were there and they were concerned. I spoke with several of my seniors in my district, and they're worried about how they and even some of their parents who are in their nineties today will be able to get by once RyanCare--which is what I'm going to call it, the attack on Medicare--destroys something we all need. By following RyanCare and turning Medicare into a voucher program, Republicans would gradually eliminate the peace of mind that many of our seniors have grown to be able to count on. We don't want to go back to the old days of calling seniors ``poor'' and not having an opportunity to live in dignity in the last years. These fixed value vouchers, which are being suggested in RyanCare, would not only not keep up with the rising costs of health care, but it would cost seniors an additional $7,000 more per year by 2020. In California alone, which is where I'm from, under the Republican budget, seniors would pay $214 million more on prescription drugs in 2012 alone. That's next year. The Republican budget would return our country to a time when being old was something that people would be afraid of, not look forward to. The Republican budget would also turn Medicaid into a block grant system. Haven't we seen what that's done with community development block grants? It wouldn't work. Under a block grant system, Medicaid would no longer be able to support the elderly. By converting the current Medicaid system into a block grant index to inflation and population growth, Congress would shift the burdens of rising health care costs and aging populations to the States. All you have to do is look at the Los Angeles Times to see what's happening to my State, and I don't think we'd be able to help the seniors. The deficit must be addressed. In fact, I've supported many bills and amendments that have been brought forward on the other side. But it should be done in a fair way. We should not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's seniors, not after Wall Street and our car manufacturers got a bailout. I will, and Democrats will, continue to work to protect, strengthen, and save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I am recorded as voting ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 307; this was inadvertent. I intended to vote ``aye.''

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1217, a bill that would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund established by the Affordable Care Act. The Prevention and Public Health Fund makes smart investments in state and community efforts to help the American people live longer, healthier lives. The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents a paradigm shift in the way we conceptualize health care in this country. Instead of focusing exclusively on treatment, the fund established by the Affordable Care Act recognizes the importance of prevention and encourages Americans to lead healthier lifestyles. All 50 states are already using these funds to target the obesity epidemic, HIV prevention, tobacco usage, and nutrition and physical activity. Not only does the Prevention and Public Health Fund promote healthier lifestyles, it also contributes to long-term savings in health care expenditures. As health care costs continue to rise, preventative care can help to rein in the out of control costs. Preventing chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and stroke does not only make sense from a public health perspective, it makes sense from an economic perspective as well. The United States spends $270 billion annually due to chronic illness. Chronic diseases are also responsible for 70 percent of deaths in America and 75 percent of health care expenditures. Working to curb unhealthy behaviors that lead to chronic disease such as tobacco and alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and poor diet will save lives and money. At a time when we are being forced to make tough decisions on government spending, targeting a program like the Prevention and Public Health Fund is misguided. Investing money into community-based preventative care initiatives that encourage people to engage in healthier behavior has the potential to save the country billions of dollars in costs associated with treatment of chronic disease. In California alone, the Department of Health and Human Services has already used the Prevention and Public Health Fund to grant $42.7 million to organizations throughout the state that are engaged in prevention and wellness initiatives. Of this $42.7 million, $8.9 million has been awarded to community and clinical prevention, $7.2 million to public health infrastructure, and $26.4 million to primary care training. The cost of treating those with chronic illness totals billions of dollars annually and leads to billions of dollars in lost productivity. Preserving the overall health of the American people should be a priority of this body. The move by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to repeal this important aspect of the Affordable Care Act is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it is also morally reprehensible. Developing programs that will encourage Americans of all ages to lead more active and healthy lifestyles will require significant investment at the community level. The Prevention and Public Health Fund does that by strengthening the capacity of state and local communities. Repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund will threaten the well being of millions of Americans and I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure to repeal it.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3. This deceptively titled legislation is nothing more than an assault on women's access to health care. If enacted, this legislation would severely curtail women's access to reproductive health care services. What would it do? It would impose tax penalties on women. It would narrow the already restrictive areas that the Hyde amendment has dealt with. And further, what I find most alarming, it would attack the coverage for Federal employees, including women who serve in the military. Where is all of our applause now? The Hyde amendment clearly states that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care and has narrowly provided exceptions that state for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which would put a mother's life in danger. Are we against that? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill resoundingly, ``no'' on H.R. 3.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This deceptively titled legislation is nothing more than another Republican assault on women's access to reproductive health care. At a time when Congress needs to be focused on creating jobs and protecting the middle class, the Republican majority has decided to make this anti-choice bill a priority. If enacted, this legislation will severely curtail women's access to reproductive health care by: 1. Banning the coverage of abortion services in the new health care law; 2. Imposing tax penalties on women and small businesses with health insurance plans that cover abortion; 3. Narrowing the already restrictive rape and incest exceptions in the Hyde Amendment; and 4. Continuing to limit access to reproductive health care for low income women, and ban coverage for federal employees and women in the military. If this bill were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds. If enacted, H.R. 3 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds. This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care. Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. If H.R. 3 is made into law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly. H.R. 3 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion. This would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care. For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--threatening 4 million small businesses. Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes. A November 2010 Hart Research poll found that a significant majority (74%) of the American population opposes the key provision of this bill, which would increase the tax burden on those who purchase comprehensive health insurance plans. Current law requires state Medicaid programs to cover abortion care in limited circumstances, including in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy jeopardizes the woman's life. H.R. 3 would allow states to refuse abortion coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries in all of these cases, even when their life is in danger. Women who would need to terminate a pregnancy as a result of medical complications would be forced to pay up to $10,000 or more for abortion services. For many women, being forced to pay the full cost of an abortion is not economically feasible and would lead many families into bankruptcy or force pregnant women with medical complications to take on major risks to carry the child to term. H.R. 3 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women. The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger. H.R. 3 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment. When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.'' This bill goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country. At a time when the American people want Congress to focus on creating jobs and stabilizing the economy, the Republicans wish to focus on this divisive piece of legislation that does nothing to move our country forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.R. 3, a bill that represents an unprecedented step backward in women's reproductive freedom.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative budget for FY 2012. With this budget, Congressman Van Hollen has offered a responsible alternative to the dangerous Republican approach. The Democratic alternative offers a dramatically different vision of America's future. It takes on our deficits, but not in a reckless way. It does so responsibly, so that we can continue investing in our economy and our people. It took us years to get into this fiscal challenge, and economists agree that it would be disastrous to try to get out of it overnight. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do. Democrats believe in a balanced approach that keeps our economy growing while getting us back to living within our means. The Democratic alternative also allows us to keep the promise of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to our seniors, the disabled, and the poor. What our country needs is to get on a more responsible fiscal path. But we cannot afford to remake the social contract in a way that harms the least advantaged in our society. Democrats want to strengthen these programs--not destroy them. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget is a responsible alternative to a Republican plan that would fundamentally alter the kind of society that we live in. Democrats reject the false choice between fiscal responsibility and our values. We are offering an opportunity to get serious about our deficits without turning our backs on those who can least afford it. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Democratic budget.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ramon Cortines, a great educator who has spent more than a half century serving America's youth at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. His remarkable career as an educator dates back to 1956 when he began teaching in the small town of Aptos, California. Since then he has worked for seven school districts, spanning the country from New York to Los Angeles. In his 55 years as an educator, Mr. Cortines has held many titles: professor, administrator, principal, chancellor, senior advisor, deputy mayor, superintendent--you name it, he's done it. But if you were to walk up to him on the street and ask him what he does, his response would be simple: ``I'm a teacher.'' Now the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Mr. Cortines will soon begin a much- deserved retirement. It is therefore my pleasure to publicly thank him for all he has done for our children. I highlight his career with the hope that many bright young Americans follow his example of service. Mr. Cortines earned a bachelor's degree in speech and education as well as a pair of master's degrees in school administration and adult learning, from Pasadena College. After serving in the U.S. Army from 1953 to 1955, he took his first teaching job in Aptos, CA. In the following years he served as a teacher and administrator in Covina, CA; an administrator and superintendent in Pasadena, CA; a superintendent in San Jose, CA; and a superintendent in San Francisco, CA. In 1993, he was appointed Chancellor of the New York City Schools, where he served for two years. He soon went on to become the Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley under the Clinton Administration. For several months in 2000 he served as the interim superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, then went on to become Los Angeles' Deputy Mayor for Education, Youth, and Families. In addition to advising numerous non-governmental organizations and working at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and Brown universities, Mr. Cortines accepted his most recent post as the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District on January 1, 2009. Superintendent Cortines assumed this position with the same goals that he advanced as its interim director in 2000. He consistently challenged Los Angeles' lowest-performing students and schools to perform at a higher level, improving overall academic achievement and ensuring that every classroom and child is properly equipped to learn. He streamlined internal operations and encouraged greater decision- making among the administration of every school in the nation's second largest school district. Mr. Speaker, Superintendent Ramon Cortines is one of this country's great educators, and though we are sad to see him go, we are thankful for his years of service and the impact he has made on the American system of education. I commend him for his remarkable achievements.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, the Republican budget for FY 2012 continues the reckless Republican fiscal policy. It takes a slash and burn approach to the budget, rather than going line by line to see where we can afford to cut and where we cannot. This is a budget that favors Big Oil over the middle class, asks for sacrifice from seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social contract in our America. The budget would open an enormous hole in our country's social safety net by turning Medicare into a voucher program. These fixed-value vouchers do not account for the yearly increases in health care costs and will increase seniors' annual out-of-pocket expenses by nearly $7,000. Their budget would decimate our primary assistance to the poor by turning Medicaid into a block grant. This is the Republican vision: to balance the budget on the backs of the seniors and the poor. Madam Chair, Democrats have a better way. We understand that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach that protects our fragile recovery. Our plan would take on our deficits in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong: education, health care, innovation, and clean energy. Democrats will balance the budget without reneging on the bedrock promise of Social Security and Medicare. Madam Chair, this Republican budget moves us backwards. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it and taking a more sensible approach.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the alternative budget of the Congressional Black Caucus. This budget makes smart investments in our future by focusing on education, workforce training, and advanced research and development for clean energy technologies. As you all know, minority communities took the hardest hit during the economic recession. In my district, we suffer from rates of unemployment and home foreclosure that are significantly higher than the rest of the country. Although our nation's economy is showing positive signs of growth, we must continue to make critical investments in our communities to facilitate our recovery. The CBC's alternative budget does this by investing $20 billion more than the President's Budget in education and job training programs that will prepare our young leaders to win the future. While the CBC recognizes the importance of creating a budget that is fiscally responsible, we cannot slash spending and investment on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. The CBC's alternative budget reduces the deficit over the next decade and makes smart investments in education, job creation, and transportation and infrastructure. Without these investments, the United States will lose its competitive edge. Unlike the Republican budget proposal, the CBC's alternative budget protects Medicare and Medicaid, and ensures that the most vulnerable in our society have access to quality healthcare services. The CBC's alternative budget also restores cuts to programs like the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, Community Development Block Grants and Pell Grants for students. The CBC's alternative budget will also provide $20 billion more than the President's Budget for needed transportation and infrastructure projects. These investments will help to create jobs, facilitate the movement of goods, and help keep our economy moving forward. I urge my colleagues to support the CBC's alternative budget plan, which reduces our deficit responsibly over the next decade and invests in the future prosperity of every American.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was struck down by an assassin's bullet as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee. He was in Memphis to march in solidarity with African American sanitation workers during their 1968 strike for better working conditions. Despite the shock and sorrow of losing the country's most celebrated civil rights leader, the march went on and the strike proved ultimately successful. We are here today to remember Dr. King, the workers in Memphis that he stood with, and the victory they achieved for themselves and working people everywhere. Over the last 40 years, this country has seen more than its share of tragedies: assassinations, bombings, terrorist attacks, and all manner of natural disasters. It is easy to become desensitized to evil and some of us may drift away from the lessons of the past. We should remember that in 1968 Dr. King's murder threw the country into chaos and threatened the civil rights movement he had labored to build through peaceful protest. But it was not to be, as Dr. King's message was too powerful for hate, and today we remember that nothing eclipses his message that all humanity has dignity and worth. Dr. King, Jr., recognized that the struggle for civil rights and workers' rights were inextricably linked. Both required that the basic rights of all people are equal and ought to be honored equally, whether by an employer or by the United States government. Organized labor is a cornerstone of our democracy and a guiding force in our nation's history. It is the natural right of a free people, as workers rightly expect a degree of safety, security, and just compensation for the work that they do. We should not sacrifice their quality of life to fuel the myth that doing so will somehow balance the budget. In closing, I urge my colleagues and my fellow Americans to always remember the significance of this day. Dr. King received criticism from all sides, some saying he was too soft; others saying he was too radical, and many fearing widespread violence and social upheaval in the wake of his death. It was human nature, some argued, that violence is a more effective means to effect change than passive resistance. They were wrong. Dr. King understood that the moral force of non-violent direct action was so powerful that it could bring down the modern-day walls of Jericho. And he was right; it brought change to America. And to Poland and the nations of eastern and central Europe. And we saw it at work in Tunisia and Egypt. As Dr. King said: ``The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today, our nation mourned the loss of one of the greats of the age. But while an assassin may have felled the Dreamer; the Dream of Dr. King still lives in the hearts and minds of people of goodwill everywhere in the world.