Laura Richardson

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.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. In 1935 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law and then again in 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson made Medicare a reality, these were programs that our seniors depended upon. In fact, that promise was backed by a lifetime of hard work that they have backed on their own sweat and tears, and yet now we need to back it up with our commitment. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I favor a budget that recognizes our dual responsibility to, yes, reduce our deficit, but not on the backs of our seniors who have already paid into Social Security and have now received Medicare benefits, who oftentimes have limited means to really have the opportunities to increase their salary. In my district, 52,000 people are over the age of 65. Only 11.9 percent of them are working. These are impossible odds. Mr. Speaker, we need a budget, but we are not willing to do it on the backs of seniors. You make your choice. Democrats have a better way, and it's not called hurting seniors.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate an innovator in the health care delivery industry: MemorialCare Health System. A not-for-profit integrated delivery system, MemorialCare serves the health care needs of individuals and families throughout southern California. Two of MemorialCare's flagship facilities, the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center and Miller Children's Hospital Long Beach, play a major role in promoting the health and wellness of my district. MemorialCare's other facilities--Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center in Fountain Valley, CA and Saddleback Memorial Medical Center in Laguna Hills, CA and San Clemente, CA--are also vitally important to the wellbeing of the populations that they serve. In addition to its already impressive list of recognitions and accolades, MemorialCare was recently honored with the Gallup 2011 Great Workplace Award. The Gallup Great Workplace Award is based on what is being called ``the most rigorous workplace research ever conducted.'' This year only 28 other companies received this honor, which is reserved for the most productive and engaged workforces in the world. According to Gallup, employees at MemorialCare and other honored companies are twice as likely as employees elsewhere to agree that: they receive recognition for their good work; they feel like their opinions count; their colleagues encourage their professional development; they have coworkers who are committed to quality work; and they work for a company whose mission and purpose make them feel like their job is important. MemorialCare Health System has recognized something that is critical to our future prosperity: productive and enlightened management that respects and empowers workers leads to economic success and strong communities. I am proud that the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center and Miller Children's Hospital Long Beach stand as shining examples of this approach in my district. As we continue working as a nation to create good-paying jobs and strengthen our economic recovery, I hope that employers across the country will take note of MemorialCare's leadership in this area. Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere congratulations to MemorialCare Health System for this honor.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed and my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 213. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' for the following reasons: 1. The underlying bill, H.R. 1255 is unconstitutional because it violates Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution which states ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States.'' 2. The underlying bill will ``deem'' H.R. 1 as signed into law, which waives the constitutional requirement of having legislation pass both the House and the Senate and signed by the President before it becomes a law. 3. H.R. 1 is a reckless bill that destroys jobs, slashes critical funding for education, homeland security, and public health. 4. This violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act by imposing an unfunded mandate.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to bring my amendment forward. I want to point out that I actually brought forward this amendment back in 2009, and it was passed in this House back on May 21, 2009. My amendment directs the FAA administrator to promulgate regulations within 180 days, giving consumers an option--I want to stress an ``option''--for a text message or an email notification from carriers in the event of a delayed or a cancelled flight. The amendment would, consistent with existing regulations, apply only to carriers which earn at least 1 percent of the domestic passenger service market. My purpose today is not to tell the airlines how to run their businesses or to instill any burden on the airlines. It is merely to ensure that hardworking men and women who are spending their dollars flying the airlines are given the basic information that they deserve and, as I would say, what they've already paid for. We can all tell horror stories of delayed and cancelled flights. Given the advances in technology and the widespread use of cell phones and smart phones nationwide, it is only reasonable to consider that we would utilize 21st century solutions for all of the American public, not just for some who can pay a little bit more for it. My amendment will help to ensure that the traveling public will receive timely notifications of any flight delay or cancellation. I need not tell you that flight delays and cancellations continue to be a problem. In fact, the Bureau of Transportation reported that, in 2010, more than one out of every five flights was delayed. Major choke points for travelers have taken place at large hubs, but they can occur anywhere. It is not uncommon that the airlines have prior knowledge of an upcoming delay, and that information should be shared appropriately with the public. The airlines can simply send each passenger who has requested it an email or a text message, which would give those passengers more time to plan alternative routes or to notify their families. Earlier this year, snow slammed the east coast and the Midwest. In the New York region alone, the storm caused thousands of cancelled flights at the Newark Airport. Customer service does matter, and in this case, it is something that all Americans deserve. Also, consider that it is in the economic interest of our country not to have thousands and thousands of people who are flying and who, unbeknownst to them, end up sleeping on the floor and running out of baby's milk and diapers, having a need to get to their final points. Let me suffice to say that, in consultation with my colleagues on the other side, with Mr. Mica and others as well as with those in the industry, I have committed to working with them as we go forward to make sure that we can eventually get to a point where we can provide the public with the information but not in a way that is burdensome. So, today, I will not ask for a recorded vote, but I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side to establish a better process going forward, which the industry has also agreed to work with me on. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. I thank the gentleman on the other side for his willingness to work with me. As I have just spoken to the industry individuals, actually, not all of them have implemented it, so there is room to grow. Also, not necessarily all passengers are aware of the service or have access to it. Suffice to say, I agree with your thoughts. Certainly, we're not looking to do anything burdensome, and we're certainly not looking for legal issues, but if we can figure out a way to work to get the best thing for the American public, that's my objective. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the flying public should have the peace of mind of knowing that, if they so choose, they're armed with the latest information regarding their flight delays. This is what our American public has right now. As this bill continues, I pledge to continue to work with Mr. Petri, Mr. Mica, and our ranking member, Mr. Costello, as we continue to work to make sure that the airlines can come up with a solution that will benefit all of the flying public here in America, a solution that does not burden the consumers or the industry, that can allow us to get to our objective, which is for people to fly safely and to be appropriately informed. I urge my colleagues to continue to work on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today marks the five year anniversary of Maersk Line's voluntary switch to low-sulfur Marine Gas Oil for the main and auxiliary engines for their 188 ships docked in California ports. As a representative of the 37th District of California, home to the largest port complex in the country, I applaud them and thank them for being an example of corporate responsibility to the citizens of the world. Maersk Line is the largest container shipment company in the world. Founded in 1904, Maersk operates over 550 vessels and employs 24,500 people in 125 countries across the globe. This voluntary action increased costs for the company by $20 million, but the 60,000 barrels of low-sulfur fuel that they used have lead to short and long-term health benefits for the people of my District and throughout Southern California. In the past five years, this switch has reduced their ship's contribution to air pollution by 3700 tons through lowering their Sulfur-Dioxide levels by 95%, their Nitrogen Oxide levels by 6%, and their Particle Matter levels by 86%. I would like to thank Maersk again for making this incredible change and look forward to seeing what they accomplish in the future.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the Richardson amendment to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which we've been talking about this afternoon, is a vehicle to discuss a program that was really urgently needed when it was established, when it was funded in the Recovery Act, and why it's still needed today. The Richardson amendment is simple, it's straightforward, and it's necessary. It takes the politics out of it. It says that the programs should be terminated based upon whether they're needed or not, not based upon using funny numbers. Now, let's talk about this particular bill. I'm suggesting, with the Richardson amendment, that we could consider two things: One, that it would be based upon a termination of 5 years after the initial date of enactment. Two, that the date would be triggered when the national average of underwater mortgages would be at a point that it's 10 percent or less, or in the highest State that happens to have high mortgages, that it would be at least 15 percent, and if it didn't meet that test then it would be terminated. Now, the most current data available in the third quarter of 2010 reported by CoreLogic, a leading provider of mortgage information, indicates that of the Nation's 47.8 million residential mortgages, approximately 10.8 million, that's 22.5 percent, are underwater. In Nevada the percentage is 67 percent. In Arizona it's 48.6 percent. In Florida it's 45.5 percent. And in Mr. Miller's and mine, our great State, California, it's 31.6 percent. I will insert into the Record a chart indicating the underwater mortgage percentages for each State in the Nation. Now, clearly the housing crisis is far from over, and anyone who thinks that we've stabilized the neighborhoods in this country is not really living in the real world; certainly, not with Americans like who live in my district. So now it's time to not terminate NSP. Instead, it should be phased out gradually after it serves the purpose of what it was intended to do. I offered the Richardson amendment because the NSP grants provide critical assistance to State and local governments and nonprofit developers that collaborate. How do they collaborate? To demolish or rehabilitate blighted properties, to establish financing mechanisms such as down payment programs for low to middle-income home buyers, and it also helps the grantees with at least 25 percent of the funds to be appropriated to house individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the area's median income. When I look at this--it's also important: NSP funds and is helping to redevelop hard-hit communities and to create jobs. In fact, 9,700 blighted properties have been demolished or have been cleared. HUD estimates that NSP will support 93,000 jobs nationwide. I think we need those. And then finally, when we look at some of the groups that are supporting these programs, it's not about who's on this side of the aisle and who's on the other one. It's the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. That's what the housing officials in my district are talking about-- having a way to be able to solve the problem. March 7, 2011. Hon. Spencer Bachus, Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across the country address and mitigate the deleterious effects that vacant and blighted properties have on neighborhoods and property values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis, communities throughout the country, including Los Angeles, face significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a vicious cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower property values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem this downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of abandoned and foreclosed properties. In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of 1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic recovery. Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Very truly yours, Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor.

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Miller, the question that was asked is how long we should wait. In my amendment that's my exact point. It's not how long we should wait; it's whether it's needed or not. So if we find that the mortgages are above 10 or 15 percent, then the program should exist.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, in regards to the comments that have been recently stated, for the largest city that's in our State of California, from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, he states that the NSP has helped cities across the country to address and mitigate the terrible effects of what this crisis has done. In closing, what I would also say is that my amendment is really building upon what I hope both sides of the aisle would consider, and that is, this program should be based upon if there is a need, then it should assist. If there is no longer a need, then I would support phasing it out. And what I would also say is that the key point to keep in mind is, when we're looking at this program, this program, people need--it's for the counties and the cities to determine to be able to help improve their programs. And that's the way the program is intended. And if there's unintended consequences or things that can be done to support the program, I would work with my colleague on the other side of the aisle to fix those changes. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Fairly.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my remaining time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Just to summarize again what my amendment is talking about, it is the ability of State and local governments to revitalize, to rehab and to help the neighborhoods so that those property values can go up and so we can improve the economy. I would venture to say it's not giving away the money. It's actually helping to revitalize and stimulate our economy. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act. I am hopeful that passing this extension will give us the adequate time we all need on the committee to pass a full 6-year reauthorization. Last year, the committee initiated a very good start. In fact, we suggested spending a minimum of $500 billion of investment, and the administration recently released budget calls for approximately that same amount, of $556 billion, over the next 6 years. This includes an extra $50 billion boost next year to provide for an immediate economic stimulus, which we all know we need. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side reference unemployment in construction. In my district, it's over 40 percent, so this has got to be done, and it has got to be done now. While the President's budget calls for a significant increase in our spending, we should all remember that it still falls well short of the $225 billion per year investment that is really required from all sources, recommended by the Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, a bipartisan commission that was created by Congress to study this very issue. Our infrastructure is in a state of disrepair, and congestion costs us more than $78 billion per year. The quality of our transportation system is deteriorating. Almost 61,000 miles--37 percent--of our roads are in poor or fair condition. More than 152,000 bridges--25 percent-- are structurally deficient. So, when we talk about cutting, we are all mindful of the need to make adjustments and to be good stewards of these dollars, but we shouldn't cut just for the sake of cutting. That is the wrong approach and the wrong thing to do. In my district--home to four major highways, a transit system, three airports, and more than 40 percent of our entire Nation's cargo going through it--these congested roads and crumbling bridges are in dire need, and we need help now. A robust surface transportation bill will help the people in my district and across this country get where they need to go; it will improve safety; and it will help put people back to work. I was talking to some of my colleagues, and they were telling me that Mr. Shuster, when he was the chair of this committee, worked on both sides of the aisle. I was told, when we had that very difficult vote, he worked with this side, and we moved forward a very successful bill. In that spirit, when Mr. Mica mentioned that he was going to have his listening tours, I took him at his word. I've attended two, and I intend upon attending one more. Out of those listening tours, we've heard a lot of things from people. One of the things I'd like to suggest we continue is really that of open discussion--an open discussion about HMT, an open discussion about TIFIA, an open discussion about really implementing a true national goods movement strategy--all of which my staff and I have worked on in order to bring forward very thoughtful legislation that I hope will be sincerely considered. The gas tax alone will not work, so I urge Mr. Mica to please work with us as we are working with you today. Many people asked me today, You're going to vote for this rule? I said, Yes, because I'm willing to work across the aisle with Mr. Mica to get this done and with Mr. Shuster as well. We are going to have to consider new ideas to be able to help institute this public-private partnership that we all know needs to be a part of this discussion. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 662, which should really be the building block of our 6-year reauthorization. It deserves the bipartisan support of this Congress and of the American people. Mr. Rahall, I appreciate all of the efforts that you have made so far. I know you are very committed to getting this done. There is hard work ahead, and I look forward to working with your new leadership as well as with our ranking member, Mr. DeFazio.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Peace Corps and praise the generations of volunteers who have passed through the program, sharing American ideals with the world and promoting a greater understanding of world cultures on the part of Americans. Mr. Speaker, there are currently 8,655 Peace Corps volunteers serving abroad, and the largest portion of them, 1,134, come from my home state of California. Right now, there are 336 volunteers from the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area, which encompasses my District. In fact, I am proud to say there only two metropolitan areas that produce more volunteers than my congressional district. Since the beginning of the program, California has produced over 27,000 Peace Corps volunteers, who, driven by the same pioneering spirit for which California is famous, selflessly contributed a significant portion of their lives to serving others. My alma mater, UCLA, has produced 92 volunteers, ranking it among the top 10 universities that inspire recent graduates to join the program. I salute them all and thank them for the sacrifices they make every day to make the world a better place. The history of the Peace Corps is tied to its founder, John F. Kennedy, when he was then a candidate for President. On October 14, 1960, he gave a speech at the University of Michigan and lingered afterwards with a group of students, the conversation lasting long into the night. During that meeting, they discussed the idea of a government program whereby young Americans would be sent to developing nations to aid in local projects, mostly centering on education, health, and agriculture. President Kennedy kept this idea and 50 years ago he signed Executive Order 10924, establishing the Peace Corps. It was one of his first acts as President. Peace Corps volunteers are expected to work for 27 months, during which time they live and work in a developing nation with minimal comforts. After a training period, volunteers are placed in schools, community groups, and with other organizations that lack the capacity to acquire professional staff with specialized skills. Volunteers live on a small stipend and must adapt to the unique challenges posed by living in a different place with different cultures. Volunteers started arriving in five countries through 1962. In just under six years under the leadership of its first Director, Sargent Shriver, the Peace Corps developed programs in 55 countries with a volunteer count of more than 15,000. As of now, over 200,000 Americans have served in 139 developing countries. Whole families have served in the program, which leads me to believe that the Peace Corps is an American institution, its value time-tested and its image recognized on a global scale. As a Member of Congress dedicated to strengthening American security, at home and abroad, I can think of no other American program that does better work to promote peace and goodwill at the grassroots level among everyday people in the world's developing countries. Every Peace Corps volunteer is an ambassador, living simply and building lasting relationships with their community partners, day in and day out. Some of these partners have gone on to serve their own countries internationally as diplomats. Many more become teachers, businesspeople, and local leaders who invest in their country, continuing and improving upon the work inspired by a Peace Corps volunteer. In making more friends around the globe and helping people take the lead in solving their own problems through collaborative means, the Peace Corps makes the world safer. Mr. Speaker, in addition to building institutional capacity and promoting a positive model of Americans abroad, the Peace Corps has a third component: It educates Americans about the world beyond our shores and promotes long-term cross-cultural understanding. Returned Peace Corps volunteers will talk about their experiences and offer insights into the cultures of their host countries for the rest of their lives. They will seek out public forums and encourage others interested in making the journey. They will possess a perspective of the world, and of its inhabitants, unattainable by any other means. They will also continue to serve the public interest. In this way, the Peace Corps improves America as it does any other country. Mr. Speaker, since the age of 6 I have wanted to work for others, and though I was a little girl at the time, I was touched by the energy of President Kennedy and came of age as the Peace Corps flourished. The spirit of service has never left me. The ideals of the Peace Corps fell across a generation, and to all those volunteers who heeded the call, I thank you for your service.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule on this continuing resolution that the Republicans have brought forward. Why? Number one, it's for 14 days. Can you imagine one of the most powerful economies in this country and we are talking about doing kind of in a pause mode for 14 days? That's not very responsible. But let's get to the specifics of why I am opposed to this. This CR would slash $340 million for construction jobs for projects of the Army Corps. Now, I just heard the previous speaker talk about private jobs. Are we prepared to say that this government, we don't think there should be any Federal Government jobs? So are you to tell me that in my district, where I have two ports, the largest ports in the Nation, that we don't need to do dredging, that we can just have ships run afoul? I mean, how are we going to continue our economy? I support cuts. If you check my record, you will see that I have supported many of the initiatives that have been brought forward. But they need to be thoughtful, and they need to make sense. A few others that concern me greatly: A slash of $20 million to the Department of Homeland Security. What are we thinking here? Haven't we learned anything from Hurricane Katrina or 9/11? That we would suggest a cut, $103 million of FEMA State and local programs that would provide grants to avoid disasters and how we prepare for them. Cut $129 million from higher education. I would ask, what is this 14 days about? We have talked about that we are prepared, everyone's going to come here and make these cuts. Well, let's have a real civil discussion, and let's build upon last week, but let's not do it on the backs of the American people. There is waste that can be addressed. And I look forward to supporting those initiatives. But this 14-day pause button is the wrong way, and I am opposed to it.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. I rise to oppose any effort, including the Paul Amendment (No. 523), which would terminate International Security Assistance Funding. I oppose any such attempt because cutting international security funding is unwise and short-sighted, and would undercut U.S. interests in the Middle East. Given the turmoil in the Middle East, it is essential that the United States keep its commitment to Israel's security by fully funding the $3 billion in U.S. aid pledged to Israel for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012. The dramatic events in Egypt and Tunisia underscore the importance of Israel to the United States and the fragility of Israel's security situation. At a time when Israel is facing increased security threats, cutting U.S. aid to Israel would send exactly the wrong message to Israel and its potential adversaries about the strength and reliability of America's commitment to Israel's security. Mr. Chair, international security assistance funding is not a ``handout'' or ``giveaway'' to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or to Pakistan. Rather, this investment provides several tangible benefits to the United States: by helping Israel maintain its qualitative military edge, QME, American assistance has promoted peace with Egypt and Jordan, and made Israel secure enough to make significant concessions in peace agreements with these countries and dramatic peace overtures to the Palestinians and to Syria; Israel's battlefield use of American equipment and shared know-how has helped the United States improve both its equipment and tactics especially while fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; aid to Israel also fuels economic growth here at home since Israel is required to spend 74 percent of U.S. aid in the United States, which helps create American jobs. Mr. Chair, while other countries in the Middle East wrestle with change and instability, the United States can count on Israel as our trusted, reliable, and democratic ally. Israel in turn must be able to count on the United States. Nothing will send a clearer message to Israel and any potential adversaries of America's unshakeable commitment than defeating any and all attempts to terminate security funding for Israel.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Section 2226 of the bill, which will cut funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program from the current level $3.948 billion to $1.5 billion, a 62 percent decrease. This drastic reduction would have a devastating impact on communities all across America, including my district, and hinder our ability to continue doing our part in aiding the Nation's economic recovery. CDBG works. In Los Angeles County, for example, CDBG funding has provided a direct benefit to low- and moderate-income residents and their neighborhoods, something that simply would not have been possible without this federal-local partnership. Over the past five years, Los Angeles County's CDBG program has accomplished the following: 1. created or retained 1,109 jobs; 2. provided loans and technical assistance to over 14,000 businesses; 3. provided assistance to over four million individuals in unincorporated areas and participating cities in Los Angeles County; 4. preserved 6,217 housing units; 5. provided improvements to almost 23,000 facilities; and 6. removed over 28 million square feet of graffiti. Mr. Chair, reducing CDBG funding would mean curtailing or cancelling the following types of activities in my district and countless others across the Nation: 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants for families the elderly and disabled persons; 2. Commercial Facade Improvements in distressed areas; 3. Youth Programs providing afterschool, child care, gang prevention, and intervention services; 4. Senior Programs that offer meals, housing placement, and recreation; 5. Construction and improvement of critical public facilities and infrastructure; and 6. Business Loan Programs to bring development and jobs into our communities. Mr. Chair, the federal budget is not merely a ledger documenting receipts and expenditures but a reflection of our national values. And certainly nothing is more central to our national character than its strong, healthy, and vibrant local communities. The CDBG program is indispensable if we are to continue the important community and economic development initiatives needed to revitalize our economy, create jobs, and put people back to work in homes they own and can afford.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Guinta Amendment (#166), which prohibits the government from entering into any contract that requires a project labor agreement (PLA). I oppose the amendment because prohibiting the use of PLA's cannot assure savings to the taxpayers. Project labor agreements, also known as Community Workforce Agreements are not new and contain several benefits: PLA's normally include a local hire component; PLA's establish and set a fair wage; PLA's avoid labor disputes and construction delays; under PLA's, workers are trained to perform required work safely and correctly. Mister Chair, a project labor agreement establishes the terms, conditions, and safety standards for workers on construction projects. One of the major advantages of a PLA is that because it is an agreement negotiated prior to construction, there is minimal, if any, disruption in the construction schedule arising from contract disputes. This saves taxpayers money and at the same time providing jobs offering steady employment at livable wages to local communities where the need is greatest. PLA's establish rigorous safety standards that save time and save lives. There is absolutely no evidence that PLA's increase the cost of construction projects; instead properly trained workers improve product quality which saves taxpayers money. Finally, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Guinta amendment.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. I rise today in strong opposition to the Pence Amendment to the Republican Continuing Resolution which would eliminate all federal funding to Planned Parenthood facilities across the country. Planned Parenthood has been a vital healthcare provider for low and moderate income women since its formation in 1916. It is one of the largest providers of basic healthcare in the country offering a variety of services including cancer screenings, HIV/AIDS testing, blood pressure examinations and general reproductive care for more than 3 million patients annually. If passed, this amendment would have a detrimental impact on women's access to basic healthcare services and would severely limit a woman's right to control her own reproductive health. Over 90% of the services Planned Parenthood administers are preventative care services that keep low and moderate income women healthy. Planned Parenthood also gives women access to contraception and important family planning services. 6 in 10 women who receive healthcare from women's health centers such as Planned Parenthood consider these facilities to be their primary source of basic, preventative care. Taking away these options for millions of women is not acceptable. Research has shown that every dollar invested in family planning programs saves American taxpayers $4. Clearly, the goal of this amendment is not to reduce the deficit but to restrict women's access to basic healthcare services. In the long-term, the preventative care services that Planned Parenthood offers will certainly save millions of dollars for the American taxpayer who would otherwise be forced to foot the medical bills of patients who had been denied access to preventative care services as a result of this amendment. The Republicans claim that this Continuing Resolution is about cutting the deficit. However, this amendment is inconsistent with that objective. Instead of focusing on creating jobs, an issue that is at the center of the American people's mind, the Republicans are focusing on eliminating funding to health centers that actually save the American taxpayers money. In these tough economic times, women who rely on health centers such as Planned Parenthood for basic care may not have any other options for seeking treatment if funding for these facilities were to disappear. This amendment does not reduce the deficit, it does not create jobs and it severely hinders women's right to affordable, basic healthcare. Thank you.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues Congressman Don Young and Congresswoman Mazie Hirono. This amendment removes the current language in H.R. 1 that prohibits the Department of Education from funding the Alaska Native Education Equity Act and the Native Hawaiian Education Program. No additional funds are added to the underlying bill. Alaska and Hawaiian natives historically have had lower student achievement levels due to high rates of poverty and the lack of resources available to them. Investment in Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs have decreased student dropout rates and improved student achievement. These programs provide students a quality education while also recognizing and building upon their unique cultural backgrounds. As a member of the Native American Caucus, I have worked with my colleagues in Congress to address the needs of all Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. I will continue to advocate on behalf of all of our native populations and work to ensure that they have equal opportunities to succeed. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.