Cedric Richmond

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my colleague from across the aisle, in fact, my colleague from across town and our great State of Louisiana. Not only is this amendment on time; it's on target, in terms of job creation and job retention in our great country. The current cargo activity at the Port of New Orleans alone generates $2.8 billion in Federal taxes. The future and livelihood of farmers and manufacturers in 30 States that depend on the Mississippi River to get their goods to market, that's 60 percent of all U.S. grain exports in this country flows through the Port of New Orleans. Our industrial heartland desperately needs the Mississippi River. The steel, rubber, copper, aluminum, and lumber that they need to use in manufacturing comes up the mouth of the Mississippi. So although it's two colleagues from the great State of Louisiana, we are not here specifically talking about one thing that's important to Louisiana. This is important to 30 States in this country. It's important to the entire country. According to customs, $85 billion to $104 billion a year is attributed to trade through the Mississippi River. So when you talk about how we keep this country going, how do we grow this country, it's through making wise investments. And right now, in these tough times, the American people want us to use every dollar that we have very wisely; and I will say that according to the Port of New Orleans, every dollar that this country spends on dredging the Mississippi River, we get a 35-1 return. So the $6.8 million that my colleague from New Orleans and the metropolitan area is talking about diverting creates $238 million in this country. I would say what's happening in this country is that we should look at return on investment. We should look at how we spend money wisely to create more income, create more jobs, and make this a better country. That's what this amendment does. And for all of my colleagues in those 30 States that depend upon the Mississippi River, I would just say think about your farmers, think about all of your industrial employees because they need these goods to come up the river so that they can continue to compete. I will just tell that you if you look at a Panamax vessel, the 5 feet of draft--of the difference it would make if we don't dredge the Mississippi River would cost us $3.2 million per voyage. That makes us noncompetitive in the world. So they can get their grain from the United States or they can go to Brazil to get their grain. And I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, if they start going to Brazil to get their grain, then they will never come back to the great country that we live in. So we have to use our money wisely. I think this is a very prudent use of $6.8 million and that the American people, if they knew they could spend $6.8 million to generate $238 million, everybody would support it, and that would be the reason why I would ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and presiding over these affairs tonight. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much. Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to come down to the floor of the House and start something that I think is very significant. Mr. Speaker, I can't directly can't talk to the American people. I have to address you. But if I could talk to the American people, I would remind them that a couple of weeks ago, when I came down here, I was inviting them to participate in what I am now calling ``The People's House'' so that ordinary people can have a say in what we do and make sure that their opinions are heard. So again, I would invite anyone and everyone to join me in this conversation to make sure that everyday people have a voice and have a way to contact me. So, again, you can reach me at myidea@mail.house.gov or you can find me on Facebook or you can find me on Twitter. What I want to remind everyone of is the fact that it is very clear that many of us know a lot of things, but the most important thing we need to know is that we don't know it all. That is why I am soliciting, Mr. Speaker, the help of the American people, so they can give us their ideas. When I started this the last time, I was asking them to send me their ideas on ways to cut spending and ways to save money. I also was asking for ideas on how to raise some revenue, how to make this country the great country that it used to be. Well, the good thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we had people who took me up on this idea and to say that they thought that this was a good idea and they wanted to participate. They wanted to make sure that people heard their voice. They sent me a number of ideas, and we are going to talk about some of those ideas and those comments today. So my goal here is to again have and initiate a conversation with the American people, because this is truly ``The People's House.'' The United States House of Representatives, you cannot be appointed to it. You have to be elected. And the history behind it is because we are the closest to the American people. So now, in this day of new technology and all of the outlets and social media that we have in order to strike up conversations in different ways, we should do that. This is not the day when the only thing we have is the United States Postal Service or slower means of communication. Today, we can communicate in seconds if not nanoseconds. So I want to make sure that we use all of this new medium in order to expand this conversation to everyone who is concerned. These are some of the people who responded last week and some of the people whose ideas we will talk about. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to get such a large response, and these are some of the people I wanted to point out. We had Sheila Baker who responded; Robert Becker from New Orleans, who also responded; Mary Anne Lawrence Cazaubon responded several times through several different media outlets, and had some very interesting things to say, as well as Micah Hill, Barbara Olinger from Folsom, and Freddy Vazquez, Jr. Then, through Facebook, we had Adam Haney, Anthony Sadler from Tennessee, Phil Schlittler, and Deloris Wilson, all of whom participated and gave me some of their thoughts about what they thought should be going on. I want to make sure that at least the people back in the Second Congressional District of Louisiana understand that they are more than welcome to participate in this conversation but that this conversation is open to the American people. There is no monopoly on good ideas. Although I respect and value the opinions of the people from Louisiana in the Second Congressional District, we want to hear from everybody. So let's just start talking about some of the ideas. I will tell you before I start that I may or may not agree with all of the ideas, and some of my colleagues from the Republican side or the Democratic side may or may not agree. The one thing I think both sides will agree on is that this is America and that this is what makes America the great place that it is. This is the place where we can provide kids with a free quality public education, which will prepare them for the future. This is the place where we strive to get the sick the health care that they need even if they can't afford it. This is the great country where we take care of our seniors and our disabled with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the country where we care for our fellow man and strive to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless. Tonight, I am sharing recommendations on how we as Americans get back to that great place of humanity, of sacrifice and of prosperity. Now, Micah Hill's comments were very, very interesting. Micah's frustration was the fact that Congress should address underachievement in our grade schools. He wanted us to address that underachievement by holding parents accountable for their children's performance. I'll give you an excerpt from his letter. Micah's response was: Children who are not doing well in their studies are children who are constantly in trouble. Their parents should be investigated. The students' homes should be investigated to see if the parents are abusing substances or anything else. If young students, like those in grade school and freshmen in high school, are having problems, then the parents should be investigated. That will help educate our children who are not getting their educational needs met because of their home fronts. Find out the child's educational strengths, and find out what is lacking in the home. Now, Micah, that is a very creative idea, and I think that that conversation has started numerous times back in my State legislature. It is a conversation that we should be having at the Federal level because, when we talk about our children's success, when we talk about their education, the one thing that everyone agrees on is the fact that parental responsibility and parental involvement is the single biggest indicator of that child's success. So, as government, if we can help to do anything to make sure that that home life is safe and secure and that that child can succeed, then we absolutely should do it, and I look forward to continuing that conversation with you. I will now touch for a second on Mary Anne Lawrence Cazaubon, who, by the way, is 72, and is a retired teacher. Before her teaching career, she worked more than the required quarters in order to draw Social Security. Between the two lives that she lived and the two jobs that she worked, she now lives on less than $1,150 per month. If there were a flat tax of only 10 percent, it would cost her, roughly, $115 per month. She says, even though she would have to spend every dime of her check every month, she would just have to do that. She also mentions, some months, she has to go without food, but she always makes sure that she gets her medicine for her heart and her osteoporosis. That's the type of sacrifice, that's the type of predicament a lot of our families are in. Ms. Mary Anne went further as she talked about tax and fiscal issues, and she was very clear to write this, a statement that I absolutely agree with: Congressman, I hope you appreciate the fact that many of your constituents do support limited government and fiscal sanity. Our country is in real danger of economic collapse. Please don't just toe the party line and reject solutions to this crucial issue. Our Nation's fate depends on it. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think Ms. Mary Anne is absolutely right. I think that everyone in the country is calling for limited government and fiscal sanity. Also, I think that we have to recognize at the same time that as we cut and make very prudent decisions to restore our fiscal sanity that we have to invest in this next generation, that we have to invest in the future, that we have to invest in those things that spur our entrepreneurial spirit and our innovation, and in those things that are going to continue to make sure that we are the leader in every industry and in every category that we used to be the leader in. After Ms. Mary Anne talked about the limited government and fiscal sanity, she also volunteered that she would like to see an indexed income tax without any exceptions for individuals or families and no incentives or exemptions to any industry or company, large or small. Here is the recommendation that Ms. Mary Anne came up with: She would recommend a 0 percent tax for anyone with an income of less than $20,000, 5 percent for anyone with income from $20,000 to $40,000, 10 percent for any of those from $40,000 to $60,000, 15 percent for those from $60,000 to $80,000, 20 percent for those from $80,000 to $100,000, 25 percent for those from $100,000 to $150,000, 30 percent for those from $150,000 to $200,000, and 35 percent for all incomes over $200,000. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is very interesting because we're talking about a 72-year-old lady who survives on $1,150 per month, and she has taken the time not only to watch C-SPAN but to join in the conversation with me and the people's House to say that she understands that people who make more should pay a little bit more. On that note, I'll go to Sheila Baker, whose quote, I think, is directly applicable to what Ms. Mary Anne was saying. Ms. Baker says: I pay my taxes responsibly with the understanding that I must pay more than those who earn an income less than mine. Ms. Baker is clearly saying that she makes a little bit, and she understands that she pays more than the person who does not make what she makes and who is not as fortunate as she is; but her next sentence is the most important one. She says she also expects and demands that those who earn more than she should do the same and that those who make more than Ms. Baker should also pay their fair share, hence the concept of a fair shared burden of taxes. So I want to thank Ms. Baker, one, for acknowledging that she is doing better than other people and that she has to pay a little bit more, and I want to thank her for participating in the people's House and in expressing her concerns and her opinions about where she thinks we should be as a country. The next person I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is Freddy Vazquez, Jr. He has concerns about our spending; he has concerns about foreign aid; and he has concerns about the war that we are fighting. And he writes, ``We spend billions on helping others, and that's fine when we have the means. Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, they take our money, then they stab us in the back. America can and will go bankrupt. Our government is acting like a teenager who just received a credit card.'' He then goes on to quote 2pac, where 2pac said, ``They got the money for war, but they can't feed the poor.'' And he closes with, ``That's not right--that's not America.'' And I would just say that the frustration that Mr. Vazquez is expressing here is a frustration that we're hearing all across the country, the fact that we're fighting so many wars on foreign soil, the fact that our humanity goes far out immediately. People are wondering, does humanity start at home? Do we have obligations to take care of on the home front before we go across the globe doing the same? Mr. Speaker, I would just chime in here and add my personal opinion that we're America, we can do both; we can provide here at home, and we can continue to be the world leader, spreading democracy around this world to make sure that the world is just as great as the free country that we live in. Now, what is it going to take to do that? It's going to take a shared sacrifice. In the last People's House we talked about, American people, give what you can give--if you're a high school student, mentor an elementary kid; if you're a college student, help out at a senior citizens home; if you're a millionaire, then contribute to a charity. What makes America great is the fact that we are willing to give what we have to give. So I would just implore everyone, Mr. Speaker, to give what it is you have the ability to give because that's what made this country what it is today and allowed us to achieve what we were able to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I would also add that Anthony Sadler wrote in to say that he believes we should buy more products from local businesses, especially minority businesses. Anthony, I just want you to know that down here today I don't have our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, but I will tell you that you and Steny Hoyer are a match made in heaven. Steny and our Democratic Caucus are pushing what we call ``Make It in America.'' And if Steny was down here today, he would go on and on and really get excited about the fact that we will make it in America. That's what we do--we make it in everything we do. Another part of that Make It in America, we need to make more products in America. That's what we do--we manufacture things, we build things, we have the best innovation, but we need to make sure that we have a focus, a commitment, and an investment in the American people so that they can make it here in America. So that goes right with what you're saying, Mr. Sadler. Because as Steny will push that we make it in America, you're pushing that we buy American products, and those two things go hand in hand. So Mr. Sadler, I just want to thank you for chiming in. And I'm sure that my minority whip, Steny Hoyer, is somewhere right now very appreciative of the fact that you also recognize the importance of making it in America. Now we have Ms. Deloris Wilson and Phil Schlittler, who posted on my Facebook. And both of them didn't post very long messages, they both posted the same thing at different times, and they simply said that they agree with the President's rationale not to release the pictures of Osama bin Laden's body. And I just want to say to Ms. Wilson and to Phil that I agree with both of you. I think the President made the right decision. But it's very comforting to know that we have citizens like you all that are at home, paying attention, and simply are not voicing an opinion to get attention, but simply a heartfelt belief. And it just so happens that I agree with your opinion. But even when we don't agree, I want to hear from you. I want to make sure that we keep this conversation going. Now, the next person is Adam Haney, who I did not know before the first time I did the People's House, but he was watching and this is what he wrote, ``Saw you on C-SPAN, good job. Those maniacal Republicans want to kill my hopes for class mobility. Save the safety nets Republicans used to get into Congress for those of us who want to benefit from those same programs that they did.'' And I would just add, Adam, that there are a bunch of programs out there, and those programs are what make this country great. And I don't have to talk about the obvious--Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare--we can talk about Head Start, that gives our toddlers the ability to start school and give them a head start on their future. As a country, we invest in things. We should look at what return do we get on our dollar. When we invest in early childhood education, we get a 9-1 return. For every dollar that we invest in that child, we get $9 back. Those are the types of programs that Adam is referring to when he said that the majority would prefer to cut all of those programs now that they have received it and they've been the beneficiary of it. Also, we can go back to free and reduced lunch in our public schools. We can talk about public school education, period, the fact that many of us that are lucky enough and honored enough to be Members of the United States Congress in this 112th Congress came from public schools with public school teachers funded by the American people. We should hold that very high, the privilege that we were able to do that, but at the same time we should recognize that that was a sacrifice by generations before us to make sure that it was fully funded. We had the quality teachers that we needed so that we could be prepared, so that we could prosper and that we could be successful. It would be a sin and shameful for us not to invest that same energy, same money, same commitment into our next generation, and I'm afraid that that's the route that we're taking. So Adam, I just want to say I agree with you wholeheartedly. The second to last one is Robert Becker from New Orleans who wrote me with an idea about Social Security and retirement security. He said, ``We should increase the amount that is deducted from paychecks to pay into the trust fund and increase the amount employers contribute to the fund. It is in America's best interest not to have a great portion of elderly Americans living on the edge of poverty.'' Not only is it in America's interest, Robert, I will tell you it's the right thing to do. And at some point we have to remember that while we're here on Earth, it's for a purpose, and that's to make the world a better place. And what you're advocating for absolutely is the right thing to do. It makes this country the special country that it is. And our last person is Barbara Olinger from Folsom. She is from Louisiana, not in my district, but she wrote, urging Congress to act on Social Security and related issues. Specifically, she was requesting that we as Congress reconsider the Social Security Fairness Act of 2009, which would repeal rules related to the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision. She says this reduces her income during tough times. She wrote, ``Saddest of all is I am a retired social studies teacher, American history, civics. I am so distraught. We only ask for what is right and just. If I had not ever paid a dime, I would not be asking for a dime.'' Well, Ms. Barbara, you're absolutely right; you paid into it, you should get it, you shouldn't be penalized. I'm not too big, too arrogant to say sometimes government gets it wrong, and government has it dead wrong on this issue, and it's something that we should address. So I want to thank those people for writing in. And now I just want to turn for a second to something that is absolutely the climax of foolishness. See, I have a shipyard in my district called Avondale Shipyard. It used to be Northrop Grumman, then Northrop Grumman spun it off, got a $1.5 billion credit for the asset, and they spun it off to a new company that they made, Huntington Ingalls Shipyard. Well, Huntington Ingalls, in just the first quarter this year, made $45 million, but they decided that they're going to close that shipyard in my district. Now that's almost 5,000 direct workers that work for Huntington Ingalls, 6,000 indirect jobs. Well, it's every American company's right to decide when they want to close a business. They can decide it's just not profitable. They can decide that the heat in Louisiana and the humidity and the mosquitos are too much for them, that they can quit, that they're going to shut their plant down. That is their right and that's what we fight for in this country, to give people the right to do what they want to do. It doesn't mean I have to like it. But government should not be a coconspirator in that company's quitting on the American people. So what I have here today, I have all of these petitions--and they're not signed by the workers. It would have been far too easy to come in here with a big box of 5,000 signatures from people who depend on Huntington Ingalls for a paycheck. This is from businesses in the community that are saying that it's just not right for Huntington Ingalls to just abandon the community. Here's the part that rises to the level of the climax of foolishness. Now that Huntington Ingalls has decided to close, they have applied for the Federal Government to reimburse them the cost of closing. So the Federal Government is contemplating giving Huntington Ingalls $310 million to pay for their cost of ramping down and laying off almost 5,000 people. To me, that just doesn't make good sense. We can take that $310 million, we can put it in an economic development fund for any other business that wants to come along and create thousands of jobs. We can put it in education for those 5,000 employees so that they can be competitive in another occupation. We can take that $310 million and pay down the debt. We can take that $310 million and do a number of things, but I would submit to you that we don't take that $310 million and reward a company for closing. I offered that amendment on a bill just a few days ago, and some of my Republican colleagues supported the idea that we should not reward a company for quitting on 5,000 employees, and my Democratic colleagues overwhelmingly supported the same amendment. I would just tell you that in these tough economic times it is unconscionable to reward a company for quitting. For those people who voted against that amendment, I would hate to have to go back to Montana, Minnesota--somewhere--and say not only did I have an opportunity to take $310 million and give it to paying down the debt or doing something productive with it, or even doing something in my district, I decided to give $310 million to a company that is going to make $180 million this year. And why are we giving them $310 million? Because they're closing. They're still going to own the property; they're still going to have the asset; they won't have the employees. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just wanted to quickly touch on one thing, and that is, on the last district workweek, I had the opportunity to go to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans. They are leading the fight in eradicating hunger. Last year, they served 262,800 people, including 82,000 children and 40,000 seniors. I just want everyone to know that the problem of hunger, homelessness, and all of those things in our community is real. So as we cut, we need to remember to invest. Again, I look forward to continuing this conversation on the next People's House. And you can email us at myidea@mail.house.gov.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on the same side of the aisle, I rise today to do two things. One is to thank the American people, thank Congress, and thank two Presidents for the assistance that they gave to the gulf coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and even after the BP oil spill. But at the same time, I rise because just in the last 2 months, President Obama has issued 27 disaster and emergency declarations across 18 States. And the fact that this Congress and the last Congress was able to help the citizens of the gulf coast gave great comfort to Americans to know that this government would not let them fend for themselves when a natural disaster hits. However, under the policies of this Congress, we have decided that any disaster assistance would require a pay-for. That would leave a large number of our American taxpaying citizens out to fend for themselves when they simply cannot do it. So when we look at the tornadoes and we look at the flooding that has occurred in the last 2 months--and we are talking about States like Minnesota, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana--I think it should be the policy of this body that we are going to be wherever our citizens need us. If you look at the fund which FEMA uses to pay for disaster response recovery and mitigation projects, it is facing a $1 billion shortfall this fiscal year. If you look at the entire hole, the hole is much bigger. You are talking at least a $3 billion hole for the fiscal year 2012. That does not even include estimates of the incidents and the disasters that I talked about earlier, the mini-tornadoes and the massive flooding that we have incurred in the last 2 months. That is worrisome, but let's take it a step forward. Let's assume, or even not assume, but there is a possibility that we would see another event similar to the flooding, similar to a hurricane. Hurricane season started June 1, and I think that it is absolutely irresponsible for us to tell the American people, it is disingenuous, it is wrong, it is sinful to say we are not going to help you if we don't cut the budget somewhere else. We have not done that in the past, and I don't think we should do it now. The great thing for me today, I get to stand up here as a person whose district benefited tremendously from the fact that we have water diversions on the Mississippi. And in order to save Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and New Orleans, Louisiana, we opened those diversions which flooded small towns and small farmers, and that happened up and down the Mississippi River. So I stand here today as a beneficiary of other people's flooding and other people's destruction that they suffered. And I stand here today as someone who has not suffered a lot saying that the government was there for me when Katrina and Rita hit, and the government should be there for the people of Mississippi, Minnesota, Georgia, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, and everywhere that the tornadoes hit. So this amendment simply does what I think is the fair thing to do, a consistent thing to do, and something that's deeply rooted in our American history, and that is to help people that can't help themselves. And I would just simply ask both sides of the aisle to join together in unity and let the people of this country know that if a tornado knocks down your house through no fault of your own, we're going to be there to help you. No matter if other administrations have squandered and spent money that has left us in a deficit, we will still be there to help you. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, what this amendment would do is, under the provisions of the Stafford Act, the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, there are approximately 160,000 American citizens across this country who, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike, and Gustav, received disaster benefits through an error by our Federal Emergency Management Agency. What the government is attempting to do now, almost 5\1/2\, 6 years later, is to go back and recoup those funds which were not gained by any American citizen through fraud or theft or deceit. It was a valid application on their part on which our FEMA agency made a mistake. Madam Chair, just in these economic times we ought not, as government, go back and penalize citizens 6 years after government made an error that gave them disaster relief funds in the aftermath of the worst natural disaster that we faced in this country's history. So what this amendment does is it simply says that the government should not do it and that we will not go back and try to recoup from the 160,000 American citizens that are spread out through Texas, through Louisiana, through Alabama and through Mississippi those funds. That is simply all it does, and I would ask that we support it. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RICHMOND. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues to support an amendment and restore fiscal common sense back to government. This amendment would save the U.S. taxpayers up to $310 million, which would be paid to a private company in Avondale, Louisiana for what? For closing. And before we get too far into policy and other things, I want to actually read the language of the amendment so that the American people can understand exactly what we're doing, Mr. Chairman. The amendment simply says that the Secretary of Defense may not make any payments pursuant to section 2325 of title 10, United States Code, to a contractor related to the restructuring or closure of a shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana. Now, many people may say, well, what am I attempting to stop? Let me just take a minute and say what's going on here. We have a business in Avondale, Louisiana that employs almost 5,000 shipbuilders. They were spun off this year. Northrop Grumman received $1.4 billion for this company. By the way, Northrop Grumman made $530 million this quarter. So the new company, Huntington Ingalls, is closing the shipyard. And because they're closing the shipyard, the U.S. Government--the taxpayers of this country--will pay them up to $310 million for closing. That's insanity, Mr. Chairman. And as I met with those employees last week, they said, Congressman, we don't know if you can stop it, but the offensive part, the part that makes this very hard for us, is the fact that our tax dollars are being used to pay our employer who is giving us all pink slips. So I would just implore my colleagues to save the Federal Government $310 million in a time when we're cutting Medicare, in a time when we're cutting our children's future, cutting their education, and we're not feeding the hungry. So this is an attempt to save $310 million. And I would also add to all of my colleagues who have great ideas and are looking for a pay-for, I am volunteering $310 million out of my district so that we can put back into the Federal Government so that we can pay down the debt and do other things. But we do not need this $310 million going to a private company who made $45 million just this quarter for closing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clear up some things. I don't want this shipyard to close, but I want to be crystal clear about this. The Huntington Eagles just christened a ship a couple of weeks ago; and while they christened the ship with all of their employees there, they took the time to announce to their employees that we are closing. The 3,000 employees that are here, you will no longer be here. We are shutting down. We're closing. It's not personal. It's business. As much as I don't like it, this is a private business that has decided that they are going to close. What I don't want to do is take those taxpayer dollars and reward them for closing in the process. So when you talk about they can retool or do something in the future, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pretend or mislead the American people. They have yet to bid on a shipbuilding contract since they have acquired the yard. They have no intentions to build ships there in the future. As we talk about what they could do with the yard and this may force a closure, they have decided that they are going to close. They made $45 million in the first quarter of this year. They announced that they're not going to bid on ships, they're not going to do anything. They're not going to stay open. Why would we give them $310 million of taxpayer dollars and then pretend that we're fiscally responsible? It's not fiscally responsible. The good thing for me is I don't have to go back to my district, whether it's Virginia or Missouri, and explain to my constituents why I'm fighting to give a company in Louisiana $310 million while I'm cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all of these other things. I just wanted to clear up the fact that it's not an assumption that they're going to close. They already have informed their employees that we're closing. Hey, it's been a good ride. Thirty-five hundred employees. See you later. Six thousand indirect jobs. We wish we could stay, but we've made another decision. It is a private company's right to decide when they want to close. And I disagree with their decision, but I respect that this is America and they have a right to do that. But I have a right to be upset and to try to block Federal dollars going to them, and that's $310 million going to a company for quitting. That's not the American way, Mr. Chairman. And I would just ask my colleagues to support the amendment and not give $310 million to a company who just made $45 million in 3 months that's quitting on the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I came down here to do a public service announcement. On behalf of all Americans, I want the Republican majority to know that the elections are over. You've won the majority for now, so now start governing and stop campaigning. If you can't handle the responsibility of governing, get out of the way and let's move towards progress. This week we're considering two bills that Republicans claim would bring down the price of gas immediately. Let's just pretend that is a fact, that that is true, although we know it is not. If it's true, then why would you bring a bill to the floor that expedites drilling permits, which I could agree with, but you add in a provision to strip the American people's right to challenge drilling permits that are not environmentally sound? Let's look at the next bill, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. That isn't the name of a bill. That's the name of a campaign speech. That's the name of political rhetoric. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is now time to have the responsibility of governing and take it seriously so that the American people are not paying $5 a gallon for gas. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that you remind the Republicans that the campaign is over and it is time to govern. This public service announcement is brought to you by Americans For a Functional Congress.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I am going to start something tonight in an attempt to engage more of our American people in the process. Mr. Speaker, I know that you know that it is no secret that America is still emerging from the recent economic downturn. We still grapple with high unemployment rates and our national debt. We are doing better than we were doing 2 years ago, but we have to do much better, and we will do much better, because we are Americans. That is our history. That is what we do. We persevered through the Great Depression of the thirties and the depression of the eighties and the recession of yesterday. We supported one another and persevered through hurricanes, through floods, through tornadoes. We mourned together and persevered through the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, through Robert Kennedy, and through Martin Luther King. We persevered. In addition, I personally remember the attempted assassination of President Reagan. I remember writing President Reagan a get well note in the second grade. I even remember getting a note back saying thank you. We persevered again. Fifty years ago today, an interracial group of Americans left Washington, D.C., on a bus trip to New Orleans with the goal of desegregating bus terminals. They were the first Freedom Riders. They never made it to New Orleans. They were beaten and bloodied throughout the South, but they sparked off a movement of over 400 Freedom Riders with the same goal and the same dogged determination and perseverance. Eventually our Nation repudiated segregation and embraced equality. We persevered. If we are going to shake off this economic downturn, we need to embrace the Freedom Riders' spirit of perseverance and dogged determination. That is so very American. America will only rise up again on the strength of our collective ideas. Americans make up America, the people make up the Nation, and it is the people who will keep this Nation great. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives is the people's House, and it is time that we listened directly to the ideas from the people. Mr. Speaker, I am inviting the American people to join in this conversation. Here is how to contact me. Here is how to talk to me. Here is how to talk to Congress. You can email me at myidea@mail.house.gov. Again, that is myidea@mail.house.gov. That is because I want to hear your ideas. Or you can go to Facebook and follow me or leave a message on the wall, or go to Facebook and contact me, or you can follow me and I will follow you on Twitter so we can have a free exchange of ideas. Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due. You and the House Republicans last year launched YouCut based on a similar idea, and I applaud that again. YouCut requested that Americans identify what funding they would cut from the government's funding, and I am glad that you engaged the people. But I think we need to go further. We should and must request that Americans share how they feel about everything. What bills do they want us to champion, what laws do they want changed, what programs do they want extended or ended. Mr. Speaker, under House rules, I, unfortunately, can't directly address the American people. I must address my comments to you, Mr. Speaker. However, if I could speak directly to the American people, I would request that they send me their ideas for how to keep America great. I would request that they send me their thoughts on whatever they want to talk about. Mr. Speaker, the American people can, again, email me at myidea@mail.house.gov. I will lead a conversation with the American people in which they will be an active participant. I will bring your thoughts up here and I will talk about them. I will engage you and Congress so that people can read what you write and read your ideas. I will also put your name on it. I don't want the credit. I just want a better country for our seniors and for our children. Every couple of weeks while the House is in session I will make sure to come down here and start this conversation with America again. Although it is a conversation by me alone right now, I would suspect that we will get other colleagues joining in the conversation as we get other Americans joining in the conversation. But right now we are going to stop, and I want to talk factually for a second about our financial situation, and I want to do it as nonpartisan as I can and not lay blame on one party or one President. I just want to talk about where we are. We can start with recent history. According to the U.S. Treasury, when President Clinton took office, the national debt was $4.188 trillion. When President George Bush took office, the debt was $5.728 trillion. When President Obama took office, the debt was $10.672 trillion. Remember, the total debt is the sum of our accumulated annual budget deficits, so it shows a history of out-of-control spending. So what is our current budget deficit? Last year, the U.S. Government spent about $3.5 trillion and collected $2.1 trillion in revenue. The deficit was right at $1.2 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this fiscal year's budget deficit will be in the neighborhood of $1.4 trillion. The deficit for this fiscal year is projected to be higher than that of last year due to increases in mandatory spending and less growth in revenues as a result of the temporary payroll tax reduction as a part of last year's bipartisan tax deal. So here we are, Mr. Speaker. The total amount of U.S. debt today is in the neighborhood of $14 trillion and the current debt limit is $14.294 trillion. The Department of the Treasury estimates that the debt will reach very close to this limit the week of May 16, at which time we will be forced to do some courageous things to avoid jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the United States of America. So, what is the big picture? Well, the fact is over the last several years the U.S. experienced an imbalance between spending and revenues. As a result of the recession, we spent much more than we brought in. I would like to point out that our recent spending spurred hiring in the private sector. It also provided small businesses with unprecedented tax relief. It helped home buyers purchase homes in this tough market; it helped police, teachers and firefighters continue to get paid; and it helped cities and towns across America weather this financial storm. Last Monday night while leaving Afghanistan, I was having a conversation with a colonel in our Armed Forces. I was talking about this Special Order and I was going back and forth with him about his input and about ideas on how to engage people. He volunteered to be the first person to start the conversation and to pose a question. He didn't really have much of a comment, but he wanted to pose a question to the American people. And his question was very simple, and it dealt with how big and what we do as Americans. So, right now I will start with his question, and that was: As Americans, what do we have, what do we want the government to provide, and how are we going to pay for it? I think that that's a very basic question but it's at the heart of the debate from Democrats and Republicans and Independents. So that's what I think that we will start tonight with, Mr. Speaker, that if I could ask the American people a question, I would request of them to tell me how they feel about that statement: What do we have, what do we want the government to provide, and how are we going to pay for it? Everyone agrees that where we are now is not where we need to be. We're dealing with big issues that demand big solutions. We have an aging population, rising health care costs, crumbling infrastructure, and uneven educational outcomes. Fortunately for us, America does great things. I believe that we can find a balanced approach that combines some reductions in spending on some programs, but combining that with increases in revenues for those who are most able to afford it and other policies that will promote faster economic growth, like during the Clinton era. The current budget proposals, both the President's budget and the Republican budget proposed by Congressman Ryan, don't exactly get it right. They both leave room for improvement. We have to get this right, Mr. Speaker. The only way that we can get this right is by both parties working together and sacrificing. We know that the American people don't want to underfund education or investment to grow the workforce. We know that they don't want us to sacrifice our long-term global competitiveness for short-term gains. Americans believe that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Mr. Speaker, we can invest in tomorrow and still get our fiscal problems and our fiscal house in order. How do we move forward? There are a number of options, but one thing is for certain. We should be honest about the tax burden currently faced by Americans. I want to briefly show you another board, which we're not making any proposals but we want to talk about for a second, the effective tax rates. The Congressional Budget Office just finished completing an analysis--in fact, they finished it in 2010--about the effective tax rates, which are the actual average rates of taxes paid. What we're going to look at today is the taxes on the top earners were far lower than the top tax rates. The tax rates for the top earners in this country are right at 35 percent of their income. Well, when you look at it after deductions--and legal deductions--and policies that we set as a country, those tax rates are far lower than 35 percent. The top 10 percent of earners, representing approximately 12 million households in this country, paid an average tax in the neighborhood of 16.2 percent. Now, after paying taxes, their average income was $289,000. Let's look at, now, the top 5 percent of earners, which only represent 5.9 million households. They're taking home an average post- tax, after-tax income of $440,500. They're paying an effective tax rate of 17.6 percent. So you can see that when you look at 16.2 and 17.6, those numbers are far below the 35 percent that's in statute. Now, when we get to the top 1 percent of earners in this country, representing only 1.2 million households, they took home an average after-tax income of $1.3 million, while paying only a 19 percent individual tax rate. So they fall right at 16 percent under the tax rate that's on the books. Again, I'm not proposing what the numbers should be. But what we do know is that the top number is 35 and the lower three numbers are 16.2, 17.6, and 19 percent as the effective tax rate. So the question to America, the question to this Congress, Mr. Speaker, is: What is the appropriate number if we're going to continue to pay down the debt, stop running deficits, but at the same time continue to take care of our seniors, invest in our children, do all of those things that continue to make this country what it is? The next thing I'll talk about: What is the biggest takeaway from these facts? It's about sacrifice. What are we willing to sacrifice to do the things and allow government to do the things that government should do? What are the sacrifices we will make to take care of our seniors, to take care of our children, to invest in innovation, to protect our homeland, to spread democracy, and to do all those critical things that we want to do? These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. I encourage the American people to draw their own conclusions based on the facts--not hyperbole, not conversations from either side, not political rhetoric, but from the facts. So, as I have laid out our debt situation, I would ask that you send me your ideas on what you think the numbers should be. This is the people's House. We see how they feel in the polls, but we need to hear their stories directly from them, Mr. Speaker. I will request that the American people send me those stories, tell me about their hardships, tell me if they think they're paying too much. But give me a specific example. Tell me how that tax rate, that tax liability, that tax burden affected your family. I want to know. I think Congress wants to know. We don't presume, and I certainly don't presume to know everything. I think it's very critical. My grandmother told me a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, smart people know what they know and know what they don't know. I'm telling you today that I don't know everything, and I'm willing to listen to the people that do. After all, we need everyone's creativity, everyone's inventiveness, everyone's ideas if we're going to keep this country great. This is America, home of amazing structural feats: The San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge in California, the Hoover Dam on the Arizona and Nevada border, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. This is America, one of the most inventive nations in the world. We brought the world bifocals and the modern suspension bridge, dental floss and the doorbell, the airplane and peanut butter. America brought the world the defibrillator and the traffic light, digital recording and the Super Soaker water gun, the artificial heart and the personal computer. This is America, a Nation of firsts and a Nation where our inventive spirit rings from sea to shining sea. This is America, where we do big things because we have big ideas. As President Obama said in this year's State of the Union Address: We're a Nation that says, I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new invention; I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree; I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try; I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will. We do big things. Those were President Obama's words from the State of the Union in which he laid a course of where we are, where we need to get to, and why we all know we'll get there. Mr. Speaker, again, I wish I could directly address the American people. If I could, again, I would invite them to reach out to me on Facebook, on Twitter, or by email. Email me at myidea@mail.house.gov. We've been through rough patches before and we got through them because we're Americans. We will work together and we will listen to the American people. Our perseverance, ingenuity, creativity, and work ethic are unmatched. We're going to get through this because of our people. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan, Batumi, and Baku, and over there I just want to say that the energy and the optimism in our troops were unmatched because they were representing America. They were representing what that flag stands for. They were representing the sacrifice that stands in this country's history. We didn't always get it right since our founding, but we've always, always made it a goal to strive to be a more perfect union. I hope that through this conversation, we will continue to pursue being a more perfect union. I want to take a detour for a second and just thank the New Orleans Hornets and thank their GM, Dave Dickerson, who when they found out that I was going over to Afghanistan to visit with some troops, that they sent care packages and T-shirts and bands and stickers and magazines to our troops because they understood the sacrifice that our troops were making and they wanted to make sure that they participated in just saying to our Louisiana troops, thank you, job well done, we appreciate your sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, tonight, thank you for allowing me the time to have a conversation with you about what I believe the American people stand for, about the greatness we have inside ourselves, about the great things that I know we can do when we stand together. And thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to invite the American people to participate and become their own representative in this Congress and talk about their ideas and express their desires, their wishes and what they're willing to sacrifice and those things they think we need to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RICHMOND

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I want to first, before I start, thank the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, not only for introducing this segment tonight but for the work that she has done for people all across the country, and especially when you talk about disasters. She was there for the city of New Orleans in the metropolitan region after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to make sure that everyone was included in the rebuilding and the reconstruction, and it was a lot of her effort that made sure that we could rebuild the city of New Orleans. And as we have just suffered losses around the country with the tornadoes that hit, I'm reminded of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the people in this Congress who go above and beyond to make sure that we take care of everyone in this country. And for that I want to thank Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to focus on our brave soldiers who recently fell in Afghanistan. We want to focus on their sacrifice. We want to focus on their bravery. We want to focus on their legacy. Last week, on a diplomatic military congressional delegation which was headed up by and whose idea was Congressman Bill Shuster's, he also went the extra mile to make sure that he included freshmen Members in that so that we would get a chance to see what's going on over there. So last week while on a diplomatic and military delegation in Europe and Afghanistan, I attended a memorial service for the following heroes on this board. They are: Lieutenant Colonel Frank Bryant, Jr.; Major David Brodeur; Major Phillip Ambard; Major Raymond Estelle; Major Jeffrey Ausborn; Captain Charles Ransom; Captain Nathan Nylander; Retired Lieutenant Colonel James A. McLaughlin; Technical Sergeant Tara Brown; Private First Class Jonathan Villanueva; and Staff Sergeant Matthew Hermanson. These are just some of the faces of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting America's interests abroad and helping to keep our country safe from threats far and wide. I am joined by a couple of my colleagues who were with me on a fact- finding trip. We will focus on the sacrifice made by these brave men and women, as well as the sacrifices being made by all of our brave men and women on a daily basis. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to Congressman Bill Shuster, who will have the opportunity to not only talk about one or two or three of the individuals who gave the ultimate sacrifice but just on the experience in Afghanistan, where we are, the progress we're making.

Mr. RICHMOND. I thank Congressman Duffy for yielding, and I know that your constituent and the person from Wisconsin was someone that you wanted to talk about and you had the privilege of performing the ramp act. I wanted to give you chance to switch podiums so that you can go down now that we have the pictures presented, but I also wanted to take a minute to say what a ramp act is. And it's a ceremony performed in the country of the soldier's death. It's not a funeral but it's a memorial, and it's good-bye to a fallen soldier on their return home. So this solemn ceremony, it may have words by a chaplain or commanding officer, but it's just a very, very surreal experience in the fact that all of the troops are out there, and we had a chance to participate in that, to watch one of our fallen soldiers get put back on a plane to be sent home to his parents and the family that he left behind. So that is our farewell for them, and I will tell you that the ceremony is performed for all coalition forces, not just the U.S. military. So it was that ceremony that we had a chance to participate in, and it was one that was very humbling, something I will never forget. With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Congressman Duffy, to talk about his constituent who we had the privilege of watching and participating in that ramp act.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Duffy. And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, Congressman Chris Murphy, who was the senior Democrat on the trip who provided an awful lot of guidance as a senior Member of Congress in terms of what we were seeing and the effect of it also.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Murphy. I think that you brought up a very good point, which was the observation of the sacrifice and the fact that as we looked at all of the boots and the helmets of the nine troops during that boot ceremony, the fact that it crossed all lines. It crossed partisan lines. It crossed racial lines. It crossed geographic lines, and it certainly crossed different income levels. So I just wanted to reiterate that the reason why we are here today with such a bipartisan and diverse group showing our appreciation is because that was one of the things that was so noticeable when we participated in that ceremony, the fact that it was a very diverse group. But there was one consistent and one overwhelming issue, one overwhelming purpose, and that was to make sure that the United States of America stays the best country on Earth and to make sure that this next generation, we leave them and we give them the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to live in peace. I will just quickly read, and it was one night while we were meeting in Batumi, and we were having a deep conversation about the sacrifice that our children are making, the sacrifice that the troops were making. And there was a parliamentarian from Batumi who used the John Quincy Adams quote, and it was the sentiment of everyone. So I just thought that I would point out that quote and read it to everybody. Mr. Speaker, it is so on point that I thought people needed to hear it: ``I must study politics and war, that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.'' That is John Quincy Adams. Mr. Speaker, I would just again reiterate the fact that it seems like we have been fighting forever to make sure that we give those next generations the freedom and that they don't have to concentrate on war so much and that they don't have to ship their children off to war and we don't have to welcome our troops back home in caskets. That is the sacrifice we are making, and we hope that we make that sacrifice so that the next generations can study the arts and the culture and all of those things. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the leader of that congressional delegation, Bill Shuster.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Shuster. With that, I will yield to Congressman Chris Murphy so that he can again pay tribute to another one of our fallen American heroes.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Murphy. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Duffy. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, another Member who took the time over the Easter break to go to Afghanistan to visit with our troops. He was certainly a rock star when he appeared on the base and stopped to sign a bunch of autographs. Of course, he was the only one who was asked for an autograph.

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Runyan. I will now yield to the CODEL leader, Congressman Bill Shuster.