Laura Richardson

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 786, which honors the four exceptional public servants who gave their lives in service to the United States and condemns the attacks on United States' diplomatic facilities in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen. I would like to extend my condolences and sympathy in this time of great loss to the families of these four heroes. Mr. Speaker, John Christopher Stevens, the United States Ambassador to Libya; Sean Smith, Foreign Service Information Management Officer; and Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, Security Officers, were among the finest members of our diplomatic corps. They dedicated their lives to promote peace, support prosperity, and protect American citizens while advancing the interests of the United States abroad. Ambassador Stevens was a champion of the Libyan people's efforts to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power and served as Special Envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council in Benghazi during the 2011 Libyan revolution. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty as well as the United States' citizens that were injured in these attacks made professional and personal sacrifices to faithfully serve the United States and its people to advance the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human dignity around the globe. They are heroes and their contributions and sacrifices in service to America and the cause of freedom will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution in its condemnation of the terrorists who planned and conducted the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and those who vandalized the United States embassies in Cairo, Egypt, and Sana'a, Yemen. The resolution also reaffirms that nothing can justify terrorism or attacks on innocent civilians and diplomatic personnel. Most importantly, the bill calls upon the Governments of Libya, Egypt, and Yemen, in full cooperation with the United States Government, to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of these attacks. Finally, the resolution reiterates the United States' commitment to promoting its core values, including support for democracy, universal human rights, individual and religious freedom, and respect for human dignity. Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate indeed to live in a country that produces exceptional men like Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. Their selfless devotion to our nation's ideals and values will forever mark them as American heroes. I hope their families can take consolation in the fact that they will live on in the memories of the grateful nation they gave their lives to serve. It is for these reasons that I support H. Res. 786 and ask for a moment of silence in memory of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week during the week of September 16 through September 22, 2012. These institutions of higher learning play a unique role in bringing together families and communities to develop our nation's most valuable resource: our children. During this week, I rise to thank the Hispanic-serving institutions that are equipping our children with the skills necessary for a lifetime of success. I would like to recognize four such institutions in the 37th Congressional District of California: California State University- Dominguez Hills, California State University-Long Beach, El Camino College-Compton Center, and Long Beach City College. These schools are preparing students to enter the workforce in science, education, and healthcare, among many other fields and career paths that will contribute to our economic success today and in the future. The majority of residents in my district are Hispanic, and Hispanics represent our country's largest minority group. Hispanics have already made invaluable contributions to America and I have no doubt Hispanics will continue to do so. The future prosperity of America hinges on tapping into the enormous potential of minority groups. Investing in technical education for minorities is not just a moral obligation but an American necessity. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the tremendous work of Hispanic-serving institutions, within my district as well as across the nation. I thank the countless staff members and educators who are strengthening our education system and creating new opportunities for a new generation of Hispanic leaders.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from California, Chairman Denham, as well as Ranking Member Norton, for bringing this bill forward and for working with me to improve the bill. I serve in a unique position by serving on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as Homeland Security. Although this may not be the perfect bill, as some have articulated for the record already, I would have preferred, for example, that the bill make more explicit FEMA's authority to respond to acts of terrorism, in addition to natural disasters. Yet I believe it is necessary that we pass this bill today to ensure that the men and women of FEMA have the resources necessary to respond to emergencies and disasters in the near future. I rise in support of the bill, specifically to the language that I added to H.R. 2903 in committee, and I believe it's essential to the well-being of the American people. Specifically, my language, which was marked up in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and accepted with bipartisan approval, would provide a series of checks and balances that keep the American public safe. First, my language simply would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security coordinates and provides guidance to the appropriate individuals, officials, and organizations for outreach to individuals with disabilities during unforeseen disasters. This simple, straightforward language will help to keep the disabled, who are the most vulnerable and often times experience the greatest challenges during a time of disaster, safe during those disasters, and also from terrorist attacks. Individuals with disabilities should feel as safe and secure in their communities and their work environments as individuals without disabilities. Too often, however, the needs of people with disabilities are not considered in emergency planning despite the fact that the need for such planning has received an increased focus due to the recent disasters--for example, Hurricane Katrina--both natural and man-made. FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has stated that: At FEMA, we need to do a better job of meeting the needs of people with disabilities when disaster strikes. We have to start by supporting and encouraging our entire emergency management team, including our State and local partners, to integrate the needs of people with disabilities into all planning. My language strengthens H.R. 2903 by ensuring guidance is given to the individuals with disabilities and facilitates cooperation among Federal, State, territorial, local, and tribal governments, private organizations, and individuals in the implementation of emergency preparedness plans related to individuals with disabilities. Additionally, I included language that would make sure that the integrated public alert and warning system, IPAWS, is properly performing and that the system needs to be tested regularly. IPAWS is the generation platform for transmitting emergency alerts. I have the experience of representing in my district, the 37th Congressional District, the largest number of Samoans outside of Samoa. If we look at that particular incident, and had we had a better working system similar to what IPAWS will be able to do, I believe many lives would not have been lost. Mr. Speaker, as you know, in November 2011, FEMA conducted a nationwide test of the emergency alert system for the first time in the system's 50-year existence. The system met with widespread problems. With the ever-changing threat to the environment and technological landscape, we cannot afford to wait 50 years to verify if IPAWS is fully performing. To do so is irresponsible. In the case of EAS tests, significant gaps in the system's ability to provide a nationwide alert were revealed for the first time. My language seeks to make sure that IPAWS in the future is regularly tested and to encourage the administrator of FEMA to test the system at least once every 3 years. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the language that I submitted was accepted in a bipartisan way, strengthens this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill as a whole.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the tireless service and dedication of my friend and colleague, Congressman Jerry Costello of Illinois. Congressman Costello has announced his retirement from the House at the end of the 112th Congress after 24 years of faithful and effective service to the people of the 12th Congressional District of Illinois. Known to his friends and colleagues simply as ``Jerry,'' Congressman Costello began his career shortly after graduating from high school, working as a law enforcement officer while attending Maryville University. In 1980, Congressman Costello was elected Chairman of the St. Clair County Board, the chief executive of one of Illinois' largest counties, where he gained valuable leadership experience. In 1988, Jerry was elected to Congress. I have had the privilege of working closely with Jerry throughout my tenure on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which he has been an influential and a senior Democratic member. Jerry is perhaps the leading expert in the House on aviation issues and I feel fortunate to have been a member of the Aviation Subcommittee when he chaired the panel during the 110th and 111th Congress. Congressman Costello also served as the second ranking Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, playing a leading role in writing and passing several major pieces of legislation to improve our Nation's infrastructure and technological advancement. As Chair of Aviation Subcommittee, Jerry played an indispensible role in passing the $68 billion Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act. Jerry has worked to pass major bills for our Nation's transportation infrastructure, including obtaining a significant grant for a new Mississippi River Bridge. He also secured the passage of the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009. Jerry has been a champion of bipartisanship throughout his tenure in the House, and is deeply respected by members on both sides of the aisle. He refused to allow partisanship to keep him from finding the common ground necessary to advance the interests of his constituents and the American people. Jerry's talent for finding common ground enabled him to assemble and lead the coalition that saved Scott Air Force Base from closure and led his constituents to dub him affectionately as the ``Patron Saint of Scott AFB.'' I am honored to count Jerry as one of my close friends and colleagues. Throughout his tenure, Jerry has proven to be a shining example of the type of dedication and devotion we should all strive to match. I have long been an admirer of Congressman Costello's work, and we will all surely feel the loss of his presence. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Costello is a Member's Member: honorable, hardworking, selfless, and dedicated to public service. It has been an honor to serve with him in the People's House. I wish Jerry and his family success and happiness as he embarks upon the next phase of his remarkable career of service, all the best in his future endeavors.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. On September 22, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation as of January 1, 1863 all slaves residing in the states in rebellion against the Union would be forever free. President Lincoln's bold move changed our Nation for the better and is a defining moment in American history. In honor of this historic moment many organizations from coast to coast are hosting celebrations. In my district, radio station Classical KUSC, MusicUNTOLD and the Colburn Foundation are partnering together to support a 150th Anniversary Emancipation Proclamation concert. The concert program will consist of solo and duet performances interspersed with spoken texts describing the American journey from slavery to the election of President Barack Obama. The concert will be preceded by a lecture about the music and the Civil War era giving participants a historical context of the inspiring music following. Featured artists represent a wide range of styles and have appeared on the stages of great opera houses and concert halls worldwide. Artists include tenor George Shirley, baritone Donnie Ray Albert, soprano Latonia Moore, violinist Sanford Allen and Annelle Gregory, violist Nokuthula Ngwenyama, soprano Jammieca Mott, composer-pianist Richard Thompson and pianist Lukas Swidzinski, Polli Chambers-Salazar, and Althea Waites. In past years, John Malveaux, president of the Long Beach Central Arts Association and a longtime arts promoter who runs MusicUNTOLD and Classical KUSC radio station have presented an annual Juneteenth Concert in Long Beach. Promoting historical awareness through music has been a strong tradition of MusicUNTOLD and Classical KUSC radio stations. I commend their tireless work in the Long Beach community. Mr. Speaker, the Emancipation Proclamation established a moral strength that reverberates throughout American history. The Emancipation Proclamation was a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction and has justly assumed its hallowed place among the great documents of human freedom.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay. tribute to the memory of Helen Gurley Brown, one of the world's most influential magazine editors and authors. As editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine for over three decades, Ms. Gurley Brown promoted the idea of a modern career woman and left a permanent mark on American culture. She passed away at 90 years old. Even from an early age, Ms. Gurley Brown never let anyone set limits on what she should do with her life. She put herself through Woodbury Business College and jumped into a career in copyediting, all at a time when society demanded that women marry young and start families instead. She knew that women could have it all: successful careers, relationships, and the confidence to take charge of their own lives. In 1962, Ms. Gurley Brown authored her famous book, ``Sex and the Single Girl.'' Three years later, she became editor of Cosmopolitan, transforming it into the bold and trendy magazine we know it as today. Her frank advice on sex and careers revolutionized the entire media industry and sparked a nation-wide conversation on what it meant to be a feminist and modern woman. Although her publications were considered shocking and risque when first published, she ushered in a new wave of ideas and made women's empowerment a mainstream concept. Ms. Gurley Brown changed the way an entire generation of women defined themselves and their future aspirations. Her outspoken and pioneering nature will be greatly missed, but her lifetime's work has already liberated a whole generation from outdated ideas of women's place in society. Her legacy will live on through the countless women Ms. Gurley Brown has inspired. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing deep condolences to Ms. Gurley Brown's friends and family.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my regrettable duty to report the death of a great American, Larry Grant. Mr. Grant died on August 22, 2012 in Torrance, California. He was 86. Perhaps more than any other person, Mr. Grant was responsible for founding the parade commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King that was the first in Los Angeles and became one of the largest in the nation. Mr. Grant was instrumental in starting the Kingdom Day Parade where thousands of spectators lined the streets to celebrate civil rights leader Dr. King. With a deep love for his country, Mr. Grant was driven by passion to create a platform to showcase past and present black leaders in the community and hopefully inspire the youth. Mr. Grant traveled the three-mile route in South Los Angeles with a procession of colorful floats, marching bands and dance troupes trailing behind. Mr. Grant created the yearly event as an entertaining way to unite the community. It also became a means of mending wounds. In the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when tensions were still thick between Korean store owners and black residents, Grant appointed a Korean taekwondo master to serve as co-chair. Mr. Grant was one of the pioneers of Black bankers in the State of California. After serving 20 years in the Army, including World War II and the Korean War, he earned a degree in banking from the University of Maryland. He was the President and CEO of Pacific Coast Bank in San Diego, California where he started banking in 1964 until his retirement in 1984. In 1979, his colleagues encouraged Mr. Grant to form the nonprofit National Cultural Corp. A year later Mr. Grant threw the first King parade in San Diego, before the civil rights activist's birthday was recognized as a national holiday. Mr. Grant was eager to bring the parade's success to Los Angeles. On January 20, 1986, Los Angeles hosted the first Kingdom Day Parade. It was also the first year that King's birthday was celebrated as a federal holiday. I remember fondly Mr. Grant's devotion to keeping the legacy of Dr. King alive through the annual Kingdom Day Parade in Los Angeles. He earned the love and respect from countless people through his selfless acts. Mr. Grant was a leader in the community and was instrumental in sharing Dr. King's philosophy with future generations. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of Larry Grant.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, each year about this time I rise to recognize the wonderful young men and women who have contributed a substantial amount of work to my office. Members of Congress know well, perhaps better than most, how important it is to have such exceptional young men and women working towards our nation's future. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows or interns. They do amazing work for the constituents we are privileged to represent, and are a vital part of every aspect of this establishment. Although the United States has experienced some hard times in recent years, I simply have to look to the eager and idealistic young staff members and interns in my office to know the future of our country is bright and our best days lay ahead. These are the people who toil in obscurity, but who willingly and happily jump at every task they are given because they know they are serving a great purpose. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than serving your country. That is why I ran for public office. When I was six years old I dreamed of becoming a public servant when I grew up so I could help others. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King once said: Everybody can be great because anybody can serve . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. This rings true for a number of great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my office. Their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated and I wish to acknowledge them. They are: Ashley Guill, Ashley Bobo, Aliya Wishner, Quentin Scott, Anna Bartels, Tara Karoian, Lilit Rostomyan, Amanda Osborne, Monique Morgan, Sarah Birk and Francisco Guerra. Mr. Speaker, the infusion of energy, intelligence, and idealism young people bring to their internships in my office and those of my colleagues helps keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. This is why I am so optimistic about our country's prospects for the future. As Margaret Mead said: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. These particular young people I have had the honor of getting to know have displayed extraordinary talent, quality, commitment and energy in their time in Washington. Their initiative and drive have shown me that in time, they will assume the responsibility of leadership. Mr. Speaker, if these young men and women are a representation of the future, I know our country will remain a nation of fairness, equality and greatness for generations to come.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012. I oppose this bill because it extends the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to millionaires who do not need it, have not requested it, and at a time when the nation cannot afford it. The extension of this 2001 tax policy would keep the rates of all tax brackets at a reduced level. While this reduced level would keep more funds in the hands of American families, it provides for a disproportionate distribution of the tax burden on different income levels. These reduced rates give a greater break to the incredibly wealthy, placing unfair monetary responsibility on the middle class. The extension of this tax policy also maintains a lower rate on capital gains, and taxes dividends at the same rate as capital gains instead of as ordinary income. In addition, this extension lowers the estate tax. Lower rates on such incomes further burden the middle class, as they further relieve the incredibly wealthy from their duty to give back to this country. As a result of these policies, the average income tax cut for households making more than $1 million a year would be over $74,000 in 2013. Concurrently, as a result of H.R. 8, some of the tax cuts for working families which were adopted in 2009 would be allowed to expire, and eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit will be reduced. This bill also ends the American Opportunity Tax Credit, 85 percent of the benefactors of which made less than $100,000 a year. These actions will effectively raise taxes on 25 million middle- and low-income households by an average of $1000. The conversation surrounding our nation's tax policies has focused on ensuring that tax cuts for the middle class are extended. It has been made clear, on both sides of the aisle, that this is imperative not only to helping American families get back on their feet, but also to the continuing recovery of the United States economy. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are determined to use these middle class tax cuts as leverage to make sure that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are extended. They use top-down economics as the argument for the validity of these cuts--that they help to restore our economy and reduce the unemployment rate, because the individuals earning incomes in the top two percent are ``job creators.'' Contrary to this claim, the facts demonstrate that fewer than 35 percent of small business owners make over $250,000 a year. Allowing the Bush tax cuts for the upper class to expire would not affect the vast majority of ``job creators'' in the American economy, but it would help relieve the tax burden of working families. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 8 not only because the policies included within it would inflict an unbalanced tax burden on working families, but also because it will prevent this Congress from helping to reduce America's budget deficit. My colleagues across the aisle consistently claim they are committed to reducing our deficit, yet they have fought to pass this bill, extending Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. If we were to let these cuts expire, our deficit could be reduced by $50 billion in 2013 alone. Simply stated, the tax plan laid out in H.R. 8 will not raise adequate revenue to fund our national priorities or repay our debt. Instead of arguing over tax cuts for those individuals who don't need our help, this Congress should be working across the aisle to create a fair, comprehensive tax reform that unburdens our working families. The conversation should be focused on continuing to rebuild our economy and reduce our deficit, not give handouts to the wealthy few. When a bill that outlines real, fair tax reform comes up for consideration on the Floor, I will support it. Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing the Breath of Fresh Air Act. This legislation would establish a grant program to make funds available to elementary and secondary schools to purchase nebulizers. I am proud to be joined by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton as an original co-sponsor, and I urge my colleagues to join me as a co-sponsor. A nebulizer is an extremely effective and easy-to-use medical device used to treat asthma attacks. It delivers the medicine in the form of a mist directly to the person's lungs and is the best remedy for young children who may not cooperate in their time of distress. This bill authorizes funding to purchase nebulizers as well as to provide training to school personnel who administer the nebulizers. Mr. Speaker, across the United States, nearly 25 million people have been diagnosed with asthma, including almost 7 million children. That means on average one out of every 10 school-age children suffers from the shortness of breath, chest pain, and airway restrictions that are common symptoms of asthma. This serious disease impacts every district in every state, and its effects are far-reaching. Low-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by this chronic respiratory disease, and their health outcomes are likely to be worse. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that black children are twice as likely to be hospitalized and four times as likely to die from asthma as white children. Low-income and minority communities also disproportionately live in areas afflicted with high levels of air pollution, allergens, and other environmental factors that trigger asthma attacks. They may also have limited resources to put towards asthma management or to deal with the financial challenges of medical bills and missed days at school and work. I have been particularly concerned with this issue, as it affects my home district in California. The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angles operate within and near the 37th Congressional District, and if left unregulated, the California Air Resources Board estimates that the ports will be the largest source of pollution in the state by 2020-- greater than the impact of every car on the road in California. The neighborhoods of Los Angeles and Long Beach also rank as one of the U.S. cities most polluted by Particle Pollution. Exposure to air pollution such as this can be dangerous for children whose lungs are still developing, and it increases the risk of emergency room visits for asthma attacks. The purpose of this grant program is to provide schools with the equipment to treat asthma attacks as soon as symptoms present themselves, and without contributing to the nearly 2 million asthma- related emergency room visits each year. School personnel, particularly school nurses, play an invaluable role in detecting early symptoms and administering a quick medical response in emergency situations. This grant program would be a way to support their efforts even as schools face budget cuts. It will ensure that they have access to all possible resources and can properly assist the students and families with the full range of asthma management decisions. I also want to acknowledge the indispensable work of my able staff members, Anna Bartels and Gregory Berry, in developing this important legislation. I would also like to submit into the Record a letter of support from the Allergy and Asthma Network/Mothers of Asthmatics, and I thank them for their hard work to ease suffering from asthma, allergies, and other related conditions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Breath of Fresh Air Act. Let us work together to make schools a healthy and safe place for children. Allergy and Asthma Network, Mothers of Asthmatics, McLean, VA, August 2, 2012. Hon. Laura Richardson, 1330 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Richardson: Founded in 1985 by families for families, Allergy & Asthma Network Mothers of Asthmatics (AANMA) is the leading national nonprofit family organization dedicated to eliminating death and suffering due to asthma, allergies and related conditions. AANMA supports the ``Breath of Fresh Air Act'' which would provide student access to nebulizers at school for use with their prescribed medications. Working together with 28 organizations, AANMA led the nationwide effort to ensure students have the right to carry and self-administer their lifesaving inhalers and auto- injectable epinephrine during the school day. Today 50 states protect that right for students with asthma and 49 states protect students' rights to carry their auto-injectable epinephrine. While students can carry and self-administer their inhalers, in some cases students may best be served by inhaling these medications via the nebulizer. We support the ``Breath of Fresh Air Act'' and look forward to its passage. Sincerely, Nancy Sander, President and Founder.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reduction Act. This bipartisan legislation is critical to the protection of the American people and our allies around the world. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is imperative that the United States take the lead in opposing Iran's effort to produce nuclear weapons. Such a development would introduce an intolerable and destabilizing element into one of the world's most volatile regions. The discovery of a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States on American soil is but a reminder of the urgent need for the United States to take forceful and effective action to ensure that Iran does not succeed in developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. In, Congress passed H.R. 2194, the Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, which at the time were the most comprehensive sanctions ever imposed on Iran by the United States. But more needs to be done. While current sanctions on Iran have impeded Iran's ability to successfully develop a nuclear weapon, most experts agree that Iran will have nuclear capabilities in the next two to three years if tougher sanctions are not imposed. According to a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has a stockpile of low- enriched uranium that if further enriched could produce three nuclear weapons. Last year, I wrote to Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Berman, Leader Pelosi, and Speaker Boehner urging them to bring before the House legislation imposing sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. Shortly thereafter, I was very encouraged and pleased that the Committee reported favorably and the House passed H.R. 1905. H.R. 1905 strongly reflects the demands of the international community that tougher sanctions must be placed on Iranian leaders to end their nuclear program. H.R. 1905 increases sanctions on human rights violators in Iran, imposes tougher sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and codifies U.S. policy to prevent Iran from developing unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles. This bill takes steps to peacefully thwart Iran's nuclear aspirations. During the markup of this bill, an amendment offered by Ranking Member Berman to strengthen sanctions against Iran's Central Bank was unanimously agreed to. The Berman Amendment strengthens H.R. 1905 by inserting language that directs the President to determine whether the Central Bank of Iran is engaged in sanctionable activity. By sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, the United States would set a strong example for countries around the world that depend on a geopolitically stable Middle East for their own security and prosperity. Imposing tougher sanctions on the Iranian economy will demonstrate that the international community will not tolerate Iran's continued refusal to end their nuclear enrichment program. Specifically, the Berman Amendment directs the President of the United States to determine whether the Central Bank of Iran has: (1) assisted Iran's VVMD or missile programs, including proliferation of WMD to other governments; (2) financed Iran's procurement of advanced conventional weapons; (3) provided financial services for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; or (4) facilitated Iran's support of international terrorism. Should the President make the determination that the Central Bank of Iran is involved in any of these areas, the bill requires him to apply sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The President will have 30 days to make this determination. These sanctions would ensure that any foreign bank involved in significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran is excluded from doing business with the U.S. Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes Title WI, entitled the ``Syria Human Rights Accountability Act of 2012.'' I support the inclusion of this title. What began as a peaceful stand against tyranny has degenerated into the bloodiest movement of the Arab Spring. According to the International Red Cross more than 16,00o people have been killed in the conflict and the violence has increased substantially in the past few weeks. This is why Title VII of this bill is necessary. It builds upon efforts to bring about a peaceful and swift resolution by (1) requiring the President to identify within 90 days and impose sanctions on officials of the Syrian government or those acting on their behalf who are complicit in or responsible for the commission of serious human rights abuses against Syria's citizens, regardless of whether the abuses occurred in Syria; (2) imposing sanctions on anyone who transfers equipment or technologies including weapons, rubber bullets, tear gas and other riot equipment, and jamming, monitoring and surveillance equipment which the President determines are likely to be used by Syrian officials to commit human rights abuses, and (3) imposing sanctions on anyone who engages in censorship, or activities relating to censorship, in a manner that prohibits, limits, or penalizes the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression by citizens of Syria. Mr. Speaker, history has taught us that strong sanctions can bring about peaceful change. A generation ago, Congress passed the Anti- Apartheid Act which led to the end of the apartheid regime and brought about a peaceful revolution resulting in the new democratic South Africa. H.R. 1905 will help to refocus our efforts on appropriately addressing these critical issues. Leaders in the Iranian and Syrian governments have shown repeatedly that they are unwilling to comply with international demands. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1905 and the Senate amendments. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this bill.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6169, the Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act. This bill will allow for expedited consideration of a bill that lays out tax reform. Mr. Speaker, this bill lays out a schedule for an early introduction and swift markup and consideration of a tax reform bill in the 113th Congress. While this would be effective in ensuring that a bill gets passed in a reasonable amount of time, the expedited consideration provided in H.R. 6169 only applies to tax reform bills that contain certain key components. One requirement for this tax reform bill is that it consolidates the current six individual tax brackets into two brackets of 10 and 25 percent. This provision would allow for an additional $331,000 tax cut for the average millionaire, while American families earning less than $200,000 would see their taxes increase by an average of $4,500. For the sake of reducing rates for the wealthy, this tax reform bill would vastly curtail tax provisions that benefit the middle class. Another required component of the future tax reform bill is a reduction of the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. In order to achieve such a significant reduction, this plan would require eliminating every provision in our current tax code that encourages domestic job creation, investment, and innovation. My Republican colleagues assert that this component of the legislation will create jobs by allowing corporations to hold onto a larger portion of their profit. However, this new tax code would provide no incentive to purely domestic businesses or investors, and would result in an increase in the off-shoring of jobs and income. This will stifle our country's economic recovery, and contribute to a continually high unemployment rate. Mr. Speaker, not only will the proposed requirements of this future tax reform bill unfairly benefit wealthy households and corporations, it will plunge the United States deeper into a budget deficit. If my colleagues across the aisle are so committed to reducing our nation's debt, they should be working on bipartisan legislation to promote progressive and productive tax reform. Instead, they have introduced a H.R. 6169, which expedites future handouts to corporations and the wealthy under the guise of tax reform. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting the opportunity to vote for true, progressive tax reform when it is brought to the House floor. Until then, I urge my colleagues to join me in continuing to oppose attempts to unfairly burden America's working class, now and in the future. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of me standing today--and I had no intentions of speaking because I believe we had agreed to a certain format of what would have occurred. But the most important issue that I bring forward is the comments of Mr. Dent. Third, with respect to the count charging obstruction of the committee investigation, I want to make clear that the Statement of Alleged Violations does not assert anywhere that I deliberately failed to produce documents in response to requests for information and a subpoena, as referenced in yesterday's public statement by the chair and the ranking member. I did not admit to this conduct, and I certainly do deny it. And it's my understanding that the committee is aware that, in fact, it was not included. With respect to the conduct to which I did admit, my statement of views explains that my office calendars were adjusted retroactively but only to accurately reflect the history of the time worked by my deputy district director. Discussions about that adjustment, in fact, took place before the committee commenced its inquiry. I did at the very beginning of the committee's preliminary inquiry suggest--and, Mr. Chairman, I think this is very important--I acknowledge the Statement of Alleged Violations. In fact, much of what has been said today has been, in fact, true. But what I want to make emphatically clear and what I want to emphasize is that I have never taken or threatened any action against any staffer who did not volunteer to work on my campaign. There is no doubt that a number of staff felt compelled or coerced to do so. That was not my intent, and I deeply regret that this occurred. And because I want to make sure it is very clear to the committee, I will repeat that statement. There is no doubt that a number of staff felt compelled or coerced to do so, and that was not my intent, and I deeply do regret that this occurred. I never told any staff member that they would be out of a job if they did not work on the campaign. And it is undisputed that I was not present at the staff meeting at which time the statement was made. With that context and these clarifications, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues refer, as was stated by the committee, to my public reference to this matter, my statement of views, which are included in the report. As I conclude, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I look forward to the resolution of this matter. In fact, I have sought the resolution of this matter for well over a year. And I have agreed to the items that were set forward; however, some of the details that were said in the language that was said today was not what had been discussed. And so, for the record, I wanted to clarify that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I was told that I would be allowed to continue to request additional time to complete my presentation. I would say approximately, I think, less than 5 minutes.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding time, and it's my understanding I will be provided additional time, if needed. I had no desire or intent to prolong the debate on this report. But given what has now been stated during this debate, which is contrary to what I understood to be agreed to, I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of several issues critical to understanding the full context of this resolution. First, I want to assure my colleagues that contrary to the inflammatory suggestions in the full committee report, I do take these findings very seriously and do accept the responsibility for the specific conduct set out in the Statement of Alleged Violations. Second, I set forth in my statement of views, included in the committee report, several significant concerns about the manner in which the committee conducted this investigation. I find it was interesting that the ranking member stated in the initial discussion that the subject of an investigation does not mean that an individual or a violation has occurred. Well, in fact, in this investigation, there are seven areas where I feel that there has been a violation-- prejudgment and improper influence of witnesses by the Ethics Committee, the very matter that the ranking member just mentioned. And I'll state for the record what specifically was stated in the statement of views. During the rule 18(a) inquiry at the outset of the committee's process, the committee counsel improperly influenced witnesses by telling them a year before any such decision had been made by the Ethics Committee that the Ethics Committee was likely to impanel an investigative subcommittee, thereby clearly signaling that the Ethics Committee staff at least already believed that I, Representative Richardson, was guilty of misconduct and, given the staff discussions, clearly influenced staff testimony. For example, during their interview of Angel Macias, a key staff witness, Ethics counsel told Ms. Macias: It's completely up to the full committee on what they want to do. They make the final decision, which could be anything from dismiss the matter entirely to investigate it by impaneling an investigative subcommittee. Counsel continued: If that happens, you will be called. You will be placed under oath. So that is the process. Chances are --this is important-- Chances are, they are going to want to impanel. This is according to Macias' transcript on page number 34. Committee counsel told former district director Eric Boyd during his first interview that ``the chances are very likely that you are going to be interviewed again. If you are interviewed again, it will be under oath; and it will be in front of members of the committee. My recommendations could be anywhere from dismiss the matter as being, you know, not a violation or not impanel an investigative subcommittee. I think you probably know which way at this point we are looking?'' Eric Boyd's transcript, page 83 and 84. Committee counsel told district staffer Candace Yamagawa: The committee choices in this matter are to dismiss the matter because the information received lacks merit or lacks sufficient information to believe a violation occurred; or we recommend that an investigative subcommittee be impaneled. You actually won't hear back from us until such time we decide to interview you again. And the reason is that, as I said, everything is done confidentially. I expect that we would not be able to impanel an investigative subcommittee until the beginning of the 112th Congress because there is insufficient time left in this Congress to do so. So more than likely, it would be in January we would impanel and begin doing any additional work. And, finally: The committee counsel told Kenneth Miller during his first rule 18(a) interview in November 2010 that, ``When I present the findings to the Members, I will give them a full briefing on what I believe was violated, be it House rules, campaign law, or Federal criminal statutes.'' Miller testimony, page 47. During these interviews with my staff, the committee attorneys made clear to staff witnesses that the Ethics Committee staff had already determined that I had committed violations at the very first stages of the preliminary inquiry. Committee staff explicitly requested that my staff not speak with my own counsel, a recognized form of prosecutorial misconduct, which effectively deprived me of an opportunity to actually learn of the specific allegations against me until the final stages of this investigation. And after the resolution had been negotiated, new and additional allegations appeared in the investigative subcommittee report supported by two attorney proofers that I still, to this date, have never seen. The full committee report takes issue with my raising these concerns, stating that in the resolution of the matter I waived all my procedural rights and that the time for lodging these objections had passed. These concerns should have been taken seriously by the committee, as I brought them forward.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am requesting time to speak.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 742, a resolution I introduced condemning the Russian government for selling weapons to the Assad regime of Syria. A bipartisan companion resolution sponsored by Senators Cornyn (R-TX) and Durbin (D-IL) has been introduced in the Senate as S. Res. 494. I am proud that my colleagues Sheila Jackson Lee, Dave Camp, Sue Myrick, Bill Pascrell, Jr. and Betty McCollum have joined me as original co- sponsors of this important resolution. The resolution is endorsed by the American Syrian Coalition, ASC, and I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter of support from ASC Chairman Mahmoud Khattab. I welcome and invite all members of the House to co-sponsor this resolution. I am proud that I was able to work with Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate on a resolution that puts the Congress on record in calling upon the government of Russia to immediately end all weapons sales to Syria, support international sanctions against the regime of Syrian President Assad, and to use its influence to help bring about a peaceful transition of leadership within the government of Syria. Mr. Speaker, what began as a peaceful stand against tyranny has morphed into the bloodiest movement of the Arab Spring. According to the International Red Cross, more than 16,000 men, women and children have been killed in the conflict, and the violence has increased substantially in the past few weeks. An estimated 1 million Syrians have also been internally displaced and tens of thousands more have fled to neighboring countries. The massacres in Houla and Tremseh where dozens if not hundreds of civilians were killed are just two of the more shocking examples of the terror that has gripped this nation for over a year. Battles are currently raging for the country's two largest cities, the capital Damascus and the commercial center Aleppo. In Aleppo rockets and shells have routinely been landing in residential areas, and there have been sightings of fighter planes over the city. The international community is holding its breath as the Assad regime gears up for what many fear will be a massacre of the city. A rebel victory in Aleppo would be a decisive turning point in the war, and this is something the Syrian government will prevent from happening at all costs. President Assad's brutal crackdown in response to these protests has been directly fueled by the unrelenting support of the Russian Federation. Throughout the mass murders, torture and other atrocities perpetrated by the regime, Russia has continued to send weapons, knowing they are not being used for self defense purposes. Although the vast majority of the world has condemned the actions of President Assad and his government, China and Russia have refused to support any efforts to end the violence. Russia in particular has been Mr. Assad's staunchest defender. The Russian Federation has now vetoed three United Nations Security Council Resolutions that would have imposed long overdue international sanctions against the Syrian regime. I agree with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she stated, and I quote: ``History will judge this council; its members must ask themselves whether continuing to allow the Assad regime to commit unspeakable violence against its own people is the legacy they want to leave.'' These comments were obviously directed towards Russia and China, and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Lavrov has simply repeated Russia's support for non-intervention, and stated that any solution would have to be decided by Syrians themselves, and not a foreign power. Mr. Lavrov says this as his country continues to send arms to Mr. Assad and his army whose firepower is already vastly superior to the rebels they are attacking. Mr. Speaker, Russia can do what I cannot, and that is to sit idly by as thousands of innocent civilians are slaughtered because of their desire to live in a free and democratic country. Syrian men and women fighting for democratic ideals should not be abandoned to face the wrath of a tyrant alone. They should know that they have a friend in the American government. Today, I ask for my colleagues' support for H. Res. 742. The Russian government has enabled the Assad regime to commit murder among other mass atrocities, and they need to be held accountable for their actions. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security I have seen how America is an example of democracy and peace, and I wish to see the same outcome for Syria. I stand today not only to ask for the support of my colleagues, but to show my support and admiration for the rebel fighters and all those in Syria who are fighting against oppression and cruelty. July 30, 2012. Hon. Laura Richardson, House of Representatives, Longworth Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Richardson: On behalf of the American Syrian Coalition (ASC), I would like to thank you for introducing H. Res. 742, a bipartisan resolution condemning the Russian government for continuing to sell offensive weapons to the Assad regime of Syria, which is using them to violently suppress peaceful demonstrations and protests by innocent Syrian citizens. Since the beginning of the Syrian revolution in March 2011, more than 21,000 people have been killed, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and thousands more have been wounded, displaced, detained, and/or tortured. Emboldened by the Russian and Chinese vetoes at the U.N. Security Council, the regime continues its all-out military assault using Russian-supplied helicopter gunships and fighter jets to bomb Syrian civilians simply because they demanded freedom, dignity and democracy. Your stance with the Syrian people is courageous and we wholeheartedly appreciate your efforts to help put an end to the brutal Assad regime. Thank you again for supporting the Syrian people and for standing up for those facing injustice at home and abroad. Sincerely, Dr. Mahmoud Khattab, Chairman, American Syrian Coalition.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, beginning today, August 1, preventative health care provisions for women under the Affordable Care Act will begin going into effect for new insurance plans. As an increasing number of health insurance policies come under the reach of the Affordable Care Act, a growing number of women will finally be able to access--with no co-payments or deductibles-- important preventative services including breastfeeding support, counseling for domestic violence, screenings for HIV, and well-woman visits. Also importantly, women with these new insurance policies will have access to all FDA-approved forms of contraception. This is an unprecedented victory for women in every district and for women of all backgrounds. The use of birth control is nearly universal, with 99 percent of women using contraception at some point in their lives. A June Hart Research poll also found that 80 percent of all American women agree that cost should not be a barrier to using effective birth control. In addition, a letter released by leading law-and-religion scholar Leslie Griffin, and co- signed by 170 law professors at top religiously affiliated and non- religiously affiliated law schools clearly explains why the contraceptive-coverage benefit protects the rights of individual employees and in no way violates religious freedom. I ask unanimous consent to include the letter in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the majority of Americans that all women have the right to affordable and effective birth control, and I am proud to have fought for this great achievement. Even before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, the benefits of publicly-funded family planning services could be seen, as these programs have assisted 7 million women each year and have prevented 2 million unintended pregnancies. Every dollar spent on family planning services is also estimated to save four dollars on future Medicaid costs for prenatal services, delivery, and one year of the baby's medical care. Affordable birth control and preventative health care services help women plan the timing and size of their families and protect their health. There is a direct link between increased access to birth control and declines in maternal and infant mortality. The critical provisions within the Affordable Care Act will therefore allow us to expand on these previous successes and give women the freedom to make their own private health decisions. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my colleagues and to acknowledge the hard work and long hours we devoted to ensuring that women have access to health care they deserve and I pledge to continue championing women's access to these important preventative services. August 1, 2012. To President Barack Obama and the Congressional Leadership: We are law professors concerned about the Constitution, religious freedom, individual liberty, and gender equality. Today, the egalitarian notion that every American deserves to enjoy religious freedom is under attack from those who would cede employees' religious-liberty rights to corporate executives and nonprofit directors. In this cramped and one- sided view of religious freedom, supervisors are entitled to decide, based on their religious sentiments, whether their employees will be permitted to enjoy essential health benefits without the slightest concern for their religious beliefs. In particular, advocates claim that the Constitution gives all employers the right to veto their employees' health-insurance coverage of contraception. This view, which is espoused by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others, is both wrong as a matter of law and profoundly undemocratic. Nothing in our nation's history or laws permits a boss to impose his or her religious views on non-consenting employees. Indeed, this nation was founded upon the basic principle that every individual--whether company president or assistant janitor--has an equal claim to religious freedom. Nor does religious freedom provide a constitutional entitlement to limit women's liberty and equality, which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Throughout the 1960s, religious leaders advocated laws banning contraception because they believed contraception was immoral. Nonetheless, in 1965 the Supreme Court held that contraceptive use enjoys constitutional protection in Griswold v. Connecticut. Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that women enjoy the same health and reproductive freedom enjoyed by men. Women's liberty and equality are well-settled constitutional law and must remain so. Just as the Court ruled in 1983 in Bob Jones that the free exercise of religion may not override government policies against racial discrimination, today free exercise must not undermine women's liberty and equality. The diminishment of women's liberty and equality will be the result if organizations claiming a religious affiliation are granted an exemption from the Obama administration's policy requiring all employers to provide contraceptive insurance to their employees. The battle against legal contraception has been fought and lost before, not only in the 1960s, but also in the 1990s, when state legislatures and courts repeatedly rejected the argument that religious liberty provides a justification for undermining women's equality and denying them contraceptive insurance. The same principle must apply today in the battle between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their allies and the Obama administration over insurance coverage for contraception. Simply put, religious freedom requires religiously affiliated employers to obey the law rather than to become a law unto themselves. Even forty-seven years after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to contraceptive use, many American women continue to lack access to effective and affordable contraception. One reason for this has been the disparate insurance coverage for men and women. For that reason, twenty-eight states have passed contraceptive equity acts that help women gain equal access to reproductive health care. Several of those acts, just like the Obama administration's policy, require employer insurance plans that offer prescription-drug coverage to include contraceptive drugs and devices in their coverage. Most of those acts, just like the Obama plan, do not apply to houses of worship but to religiously affiliated employers like Catholic Charities, a large social-services organization that receives more than two-thirds of its funding from taxpayers, as well as to Catholic schools, universities and hospitals that employ both non-Catholics and Catholic women who use contraception. The bishops and their allies opposed those bills in the legislatures and the state courts, arguing that religious freedom requires a complete exemption for all employers that claim a religious affiliation. As the recent debate demonstrates, that argument has a certain intuitive appeal to religious organizations that believe that free exercise allows religiously affiliated organizations to avail themselves of special rules. Under the leading free exercise case (Employment Division v. Smith), however, religious employers are subject to neutral laws of general applicability. Two state courts, namely the highest courts of New York and California, forcefully rejected the bishops' argument for exemptions from laws requiring the provision of contraception insurance to employees. The state courts first ruled that providing insurance could not be a matter of internal church governance protected from state interference by the First Amendment. The courts also held that insurance laws applying to all employers were neutral laws of general applicability that could be constitutionally applied to religious employers under Smith. The two holdings reinforce each other. As the New York Court of Appeals explained, ``The employment relationship is a frequent subject of legislation, and when a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit.'' The California Supreme Court took a further step, ruling that its women's health act survived strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, a law that substantially burdens a religious practice is upheld only if the law represents the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest. The court concluded that the women's health care act was narrowly tailored to the government's compelling interest in eliminating gender discrimination, obviating the need to undertake a substantial-burdens analysis. The California Supreme Court's strict scrutiny analysis remains relevant to criticisms of President Obama's plan. Opponents of the regulations have argued that they violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which subjects federal policies to strict scrutiny if they substantially burden a person's exercise of religion. The opponents are wrong. First, under existing case law, the provision of insurance coverage is arguably not the exercise of religion. Moreover, allowing individuals the choice of contraceptives does not substantially burden any exercise of religion. Even if the courts found a substantial burden on religion, however, the government's interests in protecting women's health and reproductive freedom, and combating gender discrimination, are compelling. The Institute of Medicine panel's report, and a mountain of evidence from other public health groups, amply demonstrate the government's compelling interest in ensuring widespread access to affordable contraception as a means of promoting health and remedying gender inequality. The California Supreme Court ruled that a law nearly identical to President Obama's initial plan to provide insurance coverage--including a virtually identical exemption for houses of worship--was narrowly tailored to protect women's equality. Thus President Obama's original regulation could have withstood constitutional scrutiny. The constitutional case is even clearer for the accommodation, which requires insurance companies to bear the burden of providing coverage to employees claiming a religious affiliation. The accommodation is even more narrowly tailored than the initial regulation was to reflect the government's interest in women's equality. In past Supreme Court decisions, religious employers have been required to pay Social Security and unemployment taxes for their employees and to observe the minimum wage laws. Federal courts of appeals have required religious employers to comply with the child labor laws and to observe the equal pay laws even when the employers believed head-of-household pay was required by the Bible. As the California Supreme Court observed, ``We are unaware of any decision in which this court, or the United States Supreme Court, has exempted a religious objector from the operation of a neutral, generally applicable law despite the recognition that the requested exemption would detrimentally affect the rights of third parties.'' The federal government must continue to protect the rights of women who need insurance laws so that they may make reproductive choices consistent with their individual consciences. Religious freedom must not provide a justification to deprive women of legal rights they should enjoy as employees and citizens. To the contrary, the First Amendment specifically preserves space for their religious liberty, and secures their right to act as individuals who exercise their own conscience on matters pertaining to their faith, body, and health. Leslie Griffin, Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas. Signed [Note: Affiliations provided for identification purposes only]: Paula Abrams, Jeffrey Bain Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; Libby Adler, Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law; Janet Ainsworth, John D. Eshelman Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law; Sara Ainsworth, Lecturer, University of Washington School of Law; Catherine Albiston, Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology; Executive Committee Member, Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Jose Alvarez, Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law, New York University School of Law; Mark Anderson, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Susan Appleton, Lemma Barkeloo and Phoebe Couzins Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law; Margalynne Armstrong, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law and Marie Ashe, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School. Barbara Babcock, Judge John Crown Professor of Law, Emerita, Stanford Law School; Katharine Baker, Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law; Susan Smith Bakhshian, Clinical Professor, Director of Bar Programs & Academic Success, Loyola Law School; Ann Bartow, Professor of Law, Pace Law School; Carrie Basas, Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University; John Beckerman, Visiting Professor, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; Valena Beety, Associate Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law; Leslie Bender, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; Mary Berkheiser, Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Programs and Director of Juvenile Justice Clinic, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; and Adele Bernhard, Associate Professor of Law, Pace Law School. Anita Bernstein, Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, Associate Professor of Clinical Legal Education and Director, Human Rights Clinic, University of Miami School of Law; M. Gregg Bloche, M.D., J.D., Professor of Law, Georgetown University; Karen M. Blum, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; Grace Ganz Blumberg, Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita, UCLA School of Law; AmeliaBoss, Trustee Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel University; Cynthia Bowman, Dorothea S. Clarke Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Alfred L. Brophy, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; June Carbone, Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. David Cassuto, Professor of Law and Director, Brazil- American Institute for Law & Environment, Pace Law School; Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, University of California Irvine School of Law; Nancy Chi Cantalupo, Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Margaret Chon, Donald & Lynda Horowitz Professor for the Pursuit of Justice, Seattle University School of Law; Roger Clark, Board of Governors Professor, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; David S. Cohen, Associate Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University; Clare Coleman, Assistant Teaching Professor and Director of Student Advising, Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University; Rebecca Cook, Faculty Chair in International Human Rights Faculty of Law and Co-Director of the International Program on Reproductive and Sexual Health Law, University of Toronto; Bridget Crawford, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Pace Law School; Lynn Daggett, Professor of Law, Gonzaga School of Law. Anne Dailey, Evangeline Starr Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law; Anne Dalesandro, Director of the Law Library, Rutgers School of Law--Camden; Christine S. Davik, Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law; Martha Davis, Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law; Kate Nance Day, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; Bernard Dickens, Emeritus Professor of Health Law and Policy, University of Toronto; Norman Dorsen, Frederick I. and Grace A. Stokes Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Margaret Drew, Professor of Clinical Law and Director of the Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order Clinic, University of Alabama School of Law. Jennifer Drobac, Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law; and Linda Edwards, E.L. Cord Foundation Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas. Maxine Eichner, Reef C. Ivey II Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Law; Kathleen C. Engel, Associate Dean for Intellectual Life and Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; JoAnne Epps, Dean, Beasley School of Law, Temple University; Deborah Epstein, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Georgetown Law; Martha Ertman, Carole & Hanan Sibel Research Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law; Lisa Faigman, Lecturer in Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law; Bryan Fair, Thomas E. Skinner Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law; Mary Fellows, Everett Fraser Professor of Law, Emerita, University of Minnesota Law School; Linda Fentiman, James D. Hopkins Professor of Law, Pace Law School; and Zanita E. Fenton, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. Victor Flatt, Taft Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Law; Marsha Freeman, Professor of Law, Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law; Jaqueline Fox, Associate Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law; Katherine Franke, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, Columbia Law School; Theresa Gabaldon, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law and Director of Academic Programs and Administration, George Washington University Law School; Ruben Garcia, Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; Leslie Garfield, Professor of Law, Pace Law School; Marsha Garrison, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Susan Gary, Orlando J. and Marian H. Hollis Professor of Law, School of Law University of Oregon; and Bennett Gershman, Professor of Law, Pace Law School. Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law; Theresa Glennon, Professor of Law, James E. Beasley School of Law at Temple University; Sally Goldfarb, Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; Julie Goldscheid, Professor of Law, CUNY Law School; Leigh Goodmark, Associate Professor, Director, Family Law Clinic and Co-Director of the Center on Applied Feminism, University of Baltimore School of Law; Michele Goodwin, Everett Fraser Professor of Law, University of Minnesota; Cheryl Hanna, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; Kathy Hessler, Clinical Professor of Law and Animal Law Clinic Director, Lewis & Clark Law School; Steven J. Heyman, Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law; and Tracy Higgins, Professor of Law, Fordham School of Law. Jessie Hill, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Cynthia M. Ho, Associate Professor of Law & Vickrey Research Professor; Director, Intellectual Property & Technology Program, Loyola University Chicago School of Law; Sharon Hoffman, Edgar A. Hahn Professor of Law, Professor of Bioethics, Co-Director, Law-Medicine Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Joan H. Hollinger, Lecturer-in-Law, Berkeley Law School, University of California; Deena Hurwitz, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic and Human Rights Program, University of Virginia; Melanie Jacobs, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law; Stewart Jay, Pendleton Miller Endowed Chair of Law, University of Washington School of Law; Faye Jones, Director and Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law; Sital Kalantry, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice, Cornell University Law School; and Margo Kaplan, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law. Harriet Katz, Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; Linda K. Kerber, May Brodbeck Professor in the Liberal Arts Emerita, and Lecturer in Law, University of Iowa College of Law; Jaime King, Associate Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law; Kristine S. Knaplund, Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law; Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; Sylvia Law, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law Medicine and Psychiatry, New York University School of Law; Nancy Leong, Assistant Professor, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law; Nancy Levit, Curators' and Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law; Francine J. Lipman, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; and David Luban, University Professor in Law and Philosophy, Georgetown Law. Jody Lynee Madeira, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law; Kevin Noble Maillard, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; Maya Manian, Associate Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law; Thomas McAffee, William S. Boyd Professor, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; Joyce E. McConnell, William J. Maier, Jr. Dean, Thomas R. Goodwin Professor of Law, WVU College of Law; Marcia McCormick, Associate Professor, Saint Louis University School of Law; Ann McGinley, William S. Boyd Professor, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas; Michelle McKinley, Associate Professor, Dean's Faculty Fellow, University of Oregon School of Law; Laura McNally, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Carrie Menkel-Meadow, A.B. Chettle, Jr. Professor of Dispute Resolution and Civil Procedure, Georgetown Law. Cynthia Mertens, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Santa Clara University; Vanessa Merton, Professor of Law and Faculty Supervisor of the Immigration Justice Clinic, Pace Law School; Sally Merry, Professor of Anthropology, Institute for Law and Society, New York University School of Law; Carlin Meyer, Professor of Law and Director of the Diane Abbey Law Center for Children and Families, New York Law School; Naomi Mezey, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law; Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law; Karen Moran, Associate Professor of Law, General Faculty, University of Virginia; Daniel Morrissey, Former Dean and Professor of Law, Gonzaga University School of Law; Jill Morrison, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of DC David A. Clarke School of Law; and Ann Murphy, Professor of Law, Gonzaga School of Law. Karen Musalo, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, University of California, Hastings College of Law; Michael Mushlin, Professor of Law, Pace Law School; Kimberly Mutcherson, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; Cynthia Nance, Dean Emeritus & Nathan G. Gordon Professor of Law, University of Arkansas; Michelle Oberman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; Nancy K. Ota, Professor of Law, Albany Law School; Richard L. Ottinger, Dean Emeritus, Pace Law School; Justin Pidot, Assistant Professor, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law; Deana Pollard-Sacks, Professor of Law, Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law; and Andrew S. Pollis, Assistant Professor of Law, Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Terrill Pollman, Director of the Lawyering Process Program and Professor of Law, Williams S. Boyd School of Law, University of Las Vegas; Lucille M. Ponte, Professor of Law, Florida Coastal School of Law; Sarah Ricks, Clinical Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law-- Camden Angela R. Riley, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Director, UCLA American Indian Studies Center; Dorothy Roberts, George A. Weiss University Professor of Law & Sociology and Raymond Pace & Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights, University of Pennsylvania; Rand Rosenblatt, Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law--Camden; Susan Deller Ross, Professor of Law and Director, International Women's Human Rights Clinic, Georgetown Law; Margaret Russell, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law; Carol Sanger, Barbara Aronstein Black Professor of Law, Columbia Law School and Nadia N. Sawicki, Assistant Professor of Law, Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Robert P. Schuwerk, Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center; Elizabeth Sepper, Associate Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law; Ann Shalleck, Professor of Law, Director of Women and Law Program, Carrington Shields Scholar, American University Washington College of Law; Laurie Shanks, Clinical Professor of Law, Albany Law School; Julie Shapiro, Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law; Jessica Silbey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; Rosalind Simson, Adjunct Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Mercer University; Jana Singer, Professor of Law, University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law; Abbe Smith, Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Defense and Prisoner Advocacy Clinic, Georgetown Law and Cynthia Soohoo, Director of the International Women's Human Rights Clinic, CUNY Law School. Roy G. Spece, Professor of Law, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Carrie Sperling, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; Ralph Stein, Professor of Law, Pace Law School; Lara Stemple, Director of Graduate Studies, Director of Health and Human Rights Law Project, UCLA School of Law; Richard Storrow, Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law; John Strait, Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law; Jennifer Templeton Dunn, Executive Director, UCSF/Hastings Consortium on Law and Adjunct Professor, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Tracy Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law; Stacey Tovino, Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas and Mary Pat Treuthart, Professor of Law, Gonzaga University School of Law. Ann E. Tweedy, Assistant Professor, Hamline University School of Law; Carole Vance, Associate Clinical Professor of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Valorie K. Vojdik, Professor and Deputy Director, Law Clinic, West Virginia University College of Law; Lois Weithorn, Professor of Law, University of California Hastings College of the Law; Robin West, Frederick J. Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown Law; Lesley Wexler, Thomas M. Mengler Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law; Deborah Widiss, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; Lindsay Wiley, Assistant Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law; Verna Williams, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Zipporah Wiseman, Thos. H. Law Centennial Professor, University of Texas at Austin School of Law and Marcia Zug, Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the millions of athletes, coaches, fans, and families around the world who are eagerly anticipating the opening of the Games of the XXX Olympiad, which will be held in the City of London from July 27 through August 12, 2012. There is something special about the Olympic Games. Every four years the world's best athletes come together and engage in a spirited but friendly competition of athletic skill and grace. For two weeks the world will be treated to incredible athletic displays of speed, power, endurance, strength, and grace; heartwarming displays of courage under pressure; inspiring examples of sportsmanship and teamwork; and several surprising turns of events. Their performances will amaze and astound the world and be a source of pride to the nations they are privileged to represent. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the 529 athletes making up the United States Olympic team. Like the men and women of the Armed Forces, they represent the best of our country. Their self discipline, willingness to sacrifice, commitment to excellence, and humility in victory make us all proud to be Americans. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history the majority of athletes on Team USA is comprised of women. Team USA reflects the rich diversity of our country. The athletes come from 45 states. The oldest is a 54 year old equestrian, the youngest a 15 year old swimmer. Thirteen are mothers, 54 are fathers. It is a source of pride to me and a positive reflection on our country that 41 members of the team are foreign born. And I am proud to say that 127, or 24 percent, hail from my home state of California, including 24 of the 26 members of the water polo team and one of the best basketball players in the world, Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers. It is not easy to become an Olympian. It takes years of training, extraordinary focus and determination, natural ability, incredible work ethic, and a bit of luck. I know from personal experience. I tried out for a spot on the Women's Basketball Team that would have competed in the 1980 Summer Games held in Moscow had the United States not boycotted the games in protest of 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, the Olympic motto is ``Citius, Altius, Fortius,'' which is Latin for ``Faster, Higher, Stronger.'' Over the next 17 days of glory, as we watch these marvelous athletes from all over the world compete in the London Games, I have no doubt that our hearts will race faster, our hopes will be higher, and our pride even stronger that we live in a country that could produce such exceptional men and women. I wish them all well. Let the games begin.

Ms. RICHARDSON

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, in relation to the comments that have been made, I'd like to speak to why the fair credit reporting agencies would be exempted in this particular amendment. When you consider that we're national representatives--and rational legislators do know, I would say, and I think small business owners are aware, that without capital, without the ability to have appropriate credit scores and not to be able to extend that, not to be able to get appropriate capital to have your business to be successful, there are no jobs. There is no thriving economy. That's why, in fact, this Agency should be exempted. The statistics are clear: small businesses are the key to our economic recovery and our continued growth. Relieving the financial burdens of small businesses stabilizes the uncertainty and encourages critical job growth. Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the engines of innovation and economic growth, and the small businesses in my district are at the forefront of that innovation. It would be wrong and counterproductive to limit the Federal Government's ability to support small businesses when they need it most. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Richardson Amendment No. 9 and reaffirming our commitment and this Nation's commitment that when businesses need the assistance, when they, in fact, can qualify for the assistance, that improper reporting or old reporting certainly shouldn't hinder their ability to have that vibrant business. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, the Richardson amendment simply improves the bill by allowing for necessary regulations to be promulgated when the monthly national unemployment rate is above 6 percent in order to protect consumers against unintended consequences that they might suffer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This amendment promotes job growth by ensuring small businesses have fair and accurate credit scores to obtain competitive interest loans. This amendment enables the appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to issue regulations necessary to protect consumers and to promote small businesses. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, also known as FCRA, is an important piece of legislation that protects the accuracy, fairness, and the privacy of information collected at credit bureaus. It gives consumers the right to view and challenge the information in their respective credit reports. Although this legislation was originally passed well over 40 years ago, this issue has remained in the forefront of public consciousness, and in 2003 we had provisions that were added to deal with identity theft. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that consumer reporting agencies, also known as CRAs, ensure that they provide up-to-date information and remove negative information after 10 years. These requirements mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act provide entrepreneurs with fair credit scores and enable them to seek competitive loans to start or expand small businesses. There are 28.6 million small businesses in the United States, and small businesses create two out of every three jobs in this country. In the State of California that I represent, small businesses employ more than 50 percent of the State's 16 million workers and represent 90 percent of the job growth for higher income. With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chairwoman, I demand a recorded vote.