Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of one of the world's busiest transportation centers, the Port of Long Beach. In my District, one out of every 8 people is employed by the Port, and over 300,000 jobs across Southern California are directly involved in its operations.

As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I look to the Port of Long Beach as a model seaport, bringing business and economic opportunities to our area through ever more efficient methods of facilitating economic trade, guided by a philosophy that is sensitive to our environment and prepared for emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1911, the Port of Long Beach, located on 800 acres of marshland at the mouth of the Los Angeles River, was officially opened to the world. The S.S. Iaqua unloaded 280,000 feet of redwood lumber at a small pier of wood and concrete, becoming the first ship to call on the Port of Long Beach. The port now services nearly 5,000 vessels and handles more than $100 billion worth of goods each year.

After the Los Angeles Dock and Terminal Company, the Port's original owner, declared bankruptcy in 1916, the City of Long Beach acquired the harbor and appointed a Board of Harbor Commissioners to direct its operations. In 1925, it was decided that the Port ought to be an independent city department with its own independent board.

Since then, the histories of Long Beach and its port have been intertwined. After nearly a decade of dredging and harbor improvements, in 1926 the Port of Long Beach attained ``deep water'' port status and recorded 1 million tons of cargo having passed through its piers since the Iaqua. The 1930's witnessed the expansion of the San Pedro Bay breakwater and the discovery of oil, ushering in an era of unprecedented growth for the Port and the City of Long Beach.

The U.S. Navy established a facility in 1940 at Terminal Island that would become the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, which provided critical support to America's operations in the Pacific during World War II, and remained a major military facility until 1997.

The port continued to grow in size, capacity, and technological sophistication. It became the first of its kind in the Americas to install a shore-based radar system in 1949, and Time Magazine dubbed the Port of Long Beach ``America's Most Modern Port.'' In 1973 the Port of Long Beach became the first port in the Western Hemisphere to receive the Environmental ``E'' Award from the American Association of Port Authorities for its efforts to prevent oil spills, process sewage, clean the harbor, and monitor water quality, and received the E-Star Award from the United States Department of Commerce one year later.

In 1980, the Port of Long Beach was the first American port of call for Chinese ships following normalized relations. 1996 and 1997 saw the Port of Long Beach handling more shipping containers than any other U.S. port. Today, nearly 1 out of every 5 American shipping containers pass through its facilities.

The Port also continues its legacy of environmentally sensitive operations through its Green Port Policy and its Clean Air Action Plan which have become the model for similar facilities around the world seeking to improve water quality, reduce emissions, prevent contamination, protect wildlife, and implement sustainable practices in daily operations.

In recent years, the Port of Long Beach has taken unprecedented steps to connect with its surrounding communities, offering free tours of the Port to the public, holding community forums, awarding scholarships, pioneering trade-related educational programs, and hosting the annual Green Port Fest.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Port of Long Beach for a century of innovation and the critical role it plays in American trade with the world. I am thankful for the contributions to American shipping made during the Port's history, and I acknowledge the critical importance of the Port to America's continuing prosperity and future trade for the next 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 672, the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, which eliminates the Election Assistance Commission, EAC. I oppose this legislation because terminating the EAC risks reducing the voting and civil rights of our citizens--rights for which many have given their lives.

The EAC is charged with developing standards for voting systems, and this precedent-setting work has been recognized by nations around the world. The EAC's certification program uses its oversight role to coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to ensure that existing voting equipment meets durability and longevity standards. This relieves states and local governments of burdensome costs of acquiring new but unnecessary voting equipment.

Several countries are so impressed with our system that they have signed agreements with the EAC for technical assistance as they develop their own voting system standards and certification procedures.

The EAC has also played a central role in improving the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37 million voters with disabilities. We still have a long way to go to achieve the Help America Vote Act's mandate to make voting accessible and the EAC's leadership is essential to continuing the effort to offer all Americans the right to vote ``privately and independently.''

Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling that the EAC, an independent bipartisan commission charged with improving the conduct of elections in America to ensure that every vote counts, was born out of the 2000 presidential election fiasco with its unforgettable contributions to the political lexicon: ``hanging'' chads, ``pregnant'' chads, ``dimpled'' chads; ``butterfly ballots''; and ``voter intent.''

In response to the 2000 debacle, the EAC has performed valuable work to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of our nation's election systems. It has played a central role in collecting accurate and comparable election data. With our nation's complex and diversified election administration system, central data

collection is essential if we are going to improve our citizens' trust and confidence in election results. EAC develops and fosters the training and organization of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators.

Terminating EAC is not only an invitation to repeat the embarrassment of the 2000 presidential election, but it breaks faith with those who labored long and risked much to secure the right to vote for all Americans, particularly African Americans and other minority groups.

Mr. Speaker, if you believe every vote counts--and every vote should be counted--then we must preserve the EAC and oppose this legislation.

It is also important to note that abolishing the EAC would simply shift costs to the Federal Election Commission and local governments, not save taxpayer money. The FEC is not an agency that can make decisions in a timely and responsive fashion due to its partisan divisions. Consequently, transferring the functions performed by the EAC to the FEC is inconsistent with the national interest in ensuring election integrity, improving voter access to the polls, and enhancing the quality of election systems.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.R. 672 and I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this misguided and reckless legislation that puts the integrity of our election systems--public confidence in election outcomes--at risk.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2021, the incorrectly named Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, which, aside from creating no jobs, merely permits major offshore oil companies to skirt reasonable clean-air standards, leading to greater health hazards and a poisoned environment for my constituents in California and others living on America's coastlines.

Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, large, offshore projects that emit more than 250 tons of an air pollutant are subject to pre-construction air pollution permits, just like any on-shore installation, such as a factory. Oil rigs and their support ships are subject to regulations based on the amount of pollution they distribute into the air and the surrounding ocean.

H.R. 2021 declares that pollution regulations shall apply ``solely with respect to the impacts in the corresponding onshore area.'' This means that the ocean and all the area from the oil rig to the breakers will not be properly taken into account when a company prepares its environmental impact reports. Near-shore areas with extensive human activity such as fishing and boating sites will not matter. Companies will be regulated according to how much they pollute at long distances, allowing them to pump more toxins into the air.

We all know that air pollution contributes to adverse health effects and environmental degradation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in my home state of California where toxic air pollution is consistently linked to cancer and birth defects. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Los Angeles, where my 37th Congressional District is located, has some of the highest levels of cancer-related toxic air pollutants in the country. The Clean Air Act itself was a direct response to the issues of air quality in major American cities such as Los Angeles, and I cannot support a bill that undoes efforts which have improved the quality of life for so many of my constituents.

As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure representing a major port city, I authored the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, DERA, of 2010, which was passed in the 111th Congress. DERA provides economic incentives to retrofit commercial diesel engines, making them cleaner and more efficient without threatening trade. Instead of letting offshore drillers pollute more, we should focus on technologies and procedures that lessen their environmental impact.

I believe that, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, offshore oil drillers should be held to the highest standards. To this end, I will soon introduce the Securing Health for Ocean Resources and Environment, SHORE, Act, which will ensure that offshore drilling operations prepare comprehensive disaster mitigation and clean-up plans before they ever begin operations.

Under H.R 2021, the weak regulations the Republicans are attempting to establish would not even be in effect until ``the period between when drilling commences at a location and when drilling ends at that location.'' Support vessels, which produce the majority of emissions at these sites, would not have to apply any pollution controls or be factored into environmental impact statements. These provisions will effectively prevent the EPA and state authorities from addressing serious sources of pollution from offshore oil and gas sites.

In addition to recklessly cutting critical safeguards to air pollutants, this legislation will remove any authority for EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to review permit decisions for offshore exploration activities. Stakeholders who wish to challenge an EPA permit would have to do so through costly litigation through the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, it cuts down the time allotted for public review and places similar time constraints on state and local hearing boards.

In summary, this destructive bill would remove basic safeguards to toxic pollutants and restrict procedures used to challenge oil companies who drill in sensitive areas. There are similar operations going on just off shore from my district, and I cannot tell my constituents that I sat idly by while Congress allowed more toxic substances to fill our air and threaten our environment. I urge my colleagues to vote for the health of the American people and oppose this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Capps amendment to H.R. 2021.

I thank my colleague, the gentlelady from California for bringing this amendment to the floor.

The Capps amendment corrects a glaring flaw in this legislation by maintaining the rights of states who have already been delegated authority to continue to regulate and monitor air pollution from offshore oil and gas operations that will ultimately affect their residents.

H.R. 2021 seeks to degrade state permitting powers by cutting time frames, restricting citizen engagement, and shifting responsibilities back to the Environmental Protection Agency.

I find it interesting that some of my colleagues who campaign on small government have decided to fight regulation by stripping authority from local agencies and handing it over to a federal bureaucracy!

Under the Clean Air Act, states have the right to issue permits and regulate emissions according to their own criteria, which either meet or exceed national standards.

States and localities should take the lead in regulating pollution because they are most responsive to the concerns of their citizens and

familiar with the dynamics at work on the ground.

In my home state of California, cities such as Los Angeles, where my 37th Congressional District is located, have struggled with air pollution for decades.

Thanks to the efforts of state regulatory agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board, the region has seen a marked improvement in air quality and other environmental indicators. The number of air quality alerts has fallen from over 200 per year in the 1970s to less than 10 per year today.

For 17 years, the Air Resources Board has regulated and monitored oil and gas operations near my district. The standards they employ were developed over nearly 5 decades of experience, and, most importantly, they remain directly accountable to the people and communities of California.

Mr. Chair, I believe that if a state invests time and money towards establishing high standards and creating innovative solutions to a problem, they ought to enjoy the full support of the law.

I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.

Madam Chair, I am compelled to rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for three reasons.

First, the bill makes drastic and dangerous cuts to food safety programs and nutrition assistance for women, children, and seniors.

Second, by underfunding President Obama's request by 23 percent, this bill also makes draconian cuts to necessary conservation programs that protect our country's water supplies and manage critical natural resources.

Third, this substantially reduces funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation, the watchdog agency designated by Congress to protect consumers from Wall Street greed and predatory conduct.

Madam Chair, the funding reductions in this bill will adversely affect every American. For example, the $285 million slashed from the Food and Drug Administration will be a devastating blow to the agency tasked with ensuring food safety standards. The FDA is our country's first and most important line of defense against diseases such as E.coli and Salmonella, and with outbreaks of these illnesses on the rise, this cut endangers everyone in America.

In my home state of California, agriculture is a $36.6 billion industry that generates at least $100 billion in related economic activity. Any threat to the quality of our produce jeopardizes the economy of our state and the health of all who enjoy our products.

Madam Chair, this bill recklessly cuts funding for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission by 44% below the President's budget request. The CFTC was established to implement Wall Street reforms and is charged with policing price speculation in commodities, futures, and derivatives markets. The reduction in funding obviously is intended to deprive the CFTC of the resources needed to detect, deter, and prevent the abusive practices that culminated in the economic collapse of 2008. Crippling the CFTC will leave Wall Street speculators free to drive up the price of oil and other commodities while making it more difficult to protect the pension plans of hard working Americans from the effects of another economic downturn.

Madam Chair, this bill also hurts our environment by cutting $1 billion from conservation programs. The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) would be cut $171 million relative to its FY 2012 farm bill-mandated level, and if this bill becomes law the government would be unable to honor contracts it has already signed with farmers across the country employing environmentally sustainable agricultural methods.

The bill also cuts the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) by $350 million. The bill cuts the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) by 64,200 acres and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) by 96,000 acres. In addition, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) would be cut $50 million and $35 million, respectively. The bill would also cut the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) conservation operations budget by nearly $128 million.

Another troubling aspect of this bill is the reduction made to domestic and international nutrition programs, which hurt the most vulnerable among us.

The proposed cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) would see hundreds of thousands of low-income women, infants, children and seniors losing their food aid.

Last year, WIC provided nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating and health care referrals for over 9 million women and children under age five and saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth. Proper nutrition combats low birth weights and improves a baby's immune system, saving on healthcare costs. The Republican-proposed $650 million cut to the WIC program would deny these services for up to 350,000 low-income women and young children for the next year. In California, 31,800 to 55,700 women and children would be turned away.

Cuts to the CSFP and TEFAP would hurt low-income senior citizens who have extremely limited options when it comes to proper nutrition. There are 52,000 seniors living in the 37th Congressional District of California, which I represent, and nearly 15 percent of them depend on these programs to stay healthy and avoid hospital visits due to poor dietary health. For this reason, I offered an Amendment to H.R. 2112, redirecting $10 million to CSFP so senior citizens will not have to choose between paying for medication and paying for food.

Finally, H.R. 2112 makes drastic cuts to international food aid and poverty alleviation programs. These programs constitute a critical component of US foreign policy, expressing humanitarian goodwill to our allies around the world and promoting a positive image of America abroad. Given all the President and Secretary of State have done to improve our international standing, it makes no sense for Congress to undo this good work by lessening its commitment to combat world hunger.

I. disturbs me than in their short-sighted rush to cut spending, my Republican colleagues would take food from the weakest and the poorest among us while preserving the Bush-era tax cuts for the super-rich. The American people do not accept this trade-off. My constituents in the 37th Congressional District reject this trade-off. I urge my colleagues to join them and me in voting against this unfair and ill-considered legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2017, the FY 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. As a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring state and local officials have the resources they need in order for them to efficiently and effectively respond to national and local emergencies. This bill breaks faith with first responders, who are essential to our national security, by significantly underfunding them.

In particular, this bill proposes to cut firefighter assistance grants by more than fifty percent. The Assistance to Firefighter Grant program (FIRE) focuses on equipping firefighters with the necessary resources they need to respond to any national or local emergency in a post 9/11 environment. The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant program is designed to allow fire departments to increase their training and hiring of more firefighters. By cutting FIRE grants by 51 percent, from $405 million in FY 2011 to $200 million in FY 2012 and SAFER grants by 63 percent, from $405 million in FY 2011 to $150 million in FY 2012, we ultimately risk jeopardizing the safety of our communities. In addition, this bill takes away direct funding for nine key state and local security grants (including State Homeland Security Grants, Urban Area Security Initiative, Transit Security Grants, and Port Security Grants), combines them into a separate block grant, and slashes the funding of the block grant by 55 percent--from $2.2 billion in FY 2011 to $1 billion in FY 2012. By requiring all of these critical programs to compete against one another for essentially half the funding they each received the previous year, this bill will force many of these programs to be underfunded or zeroed out entirely.

This bill also significantly cuts Homeland Security Research and Development projects by 42 percent--from $688 million in FY 2011 to $398 million in FY 2012. By implementing these cuts, this bill would force us to eliminate more than 144 research projects in areas such as biological and explosives detection, advanced cyber security, and interoperability. In a time when our nation remains highly vulnerable to terrorism, we cannot afford to lose these essential counterterrorism research projects.

In response to our troubling debt, many cuts were already made to H.R. 1473, the FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 102-10) For example, State Homeland Security Grants were cut from $950 million in FY 2010 to $725 million in FY 2011; the Urban Area Security Initiative was cut from $887 million in FY 2010 to $725 million in FY 2011; Transit Security grants were cut from $300 million in FY 2010 to $250 million in FY 2011; Port Security Grants were cut from $300 million in FY 2010 to $250 million in FY 2011; and SAFER grants were cut from $420 million in FY 2010 to $405 million in FY 2011. By continuing to make substantial cuts, this bill will undoubtedly hinder the capabilities of our nation's first responders.

According to The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) these cuts would have disastrous effects on the safety of our communities. They have stated that ``[a]t a time when state and local public safety budgets are shrinking, it is unconscionable to implement cuts of this magnitude. Make no mistake, if this proposal is enacted, it would devastate local fire department budgets and threaten public safety nationwide.'' In addition to the cutting of research programs, this bill also makes a foolish mistake of preserving a cap on the total number of TSA screeners at 46,000--which will prevent the additional hiring of personnel needed to staff new security technology.

There will be a number of other troubling consequences if this bill is to pass:

Transit agencies would not have funding to hire additional law enforcement officers, acquire bomb sniffing dogs, or install explosive screening devices at a time when open source media reports indicate that Al Qaeda may be attempting a major attack on the U.S. rail system.

States and localities would receive greatly reduced funding (or be denied funding entirely) to harden tunnels and bridges or install surveillance systems at high-risk areas.

Ports would not have funds for vessels to protect harbor waterways from a terrorist threat or for maritime training of law enforcement personnel at the ports.

According to the National Association of Counties, a reduction in grant programs and the combining of funding would result in communities of all sizes not being able to enhance their level of preparedness to deal with all hazards, including potential nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.

As a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I refuse to stand by this bill. We as members of Congress have a responsibility to protect our communities from any possible danger. For this reason, there is no higher priority than to adequately fund our homeland security, particularly our first responders such as firefighters. It makes no sense to weaken our Homeland Security program by cutting their resources in a time when terrorist threats continue to put our nation at risk. We as members of Congress must unite and assist our brave first responders in their efforts to help contain any threats by providing them with all necessary resources, rather than turn our backs and leave them without sufficient funding. This bill not only undermines our nation's security, it also undermines our allegiance to the American people who look up to us in this particular time to protect them from any possible danger, whether it is an act of terrorism or a natural disaster. For this reason, I oppose H.R. 2017, the FY 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, the Richardson amendment adds $10 million to the Commodity Assistance Program by reducing by the same amount from the Salaries and Expenses section of the Farm Service Agency, which will provide additional funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program, which provides assistance to seniors who have incomes at or below $14,157. Ninety-seven percent of all Commodities Supplemental Food Program recipients are seniors who often receive these as the only fresh food packages that might come to their homes. Many of these seniors have no means of transportation to obtain these products. These seniors also have very limited resources with which to purchase the food that they need.

Madam Chairwoman, I don't understand why those in the majority would believe that our seniors have caused our budget problems or, worse yet, are able to fix our budget problems.

The Ryan budget proposes to make seniors pay an additional $6,000 out-of-pocket for their health care needs. Second, they increase the prescription drug costs for our seniors by proposing to reopen the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole, which Democrats closed in the last Congress. These are heartless legislative proposals that could force 136,000 seniors in the Los Angeles area to pay an additional $1.3 billion for their prescription drugs over the next decade.

Now Food for Low-Income Seniors is under attack as well. Our seniors deserve our support. They've earned it. Many of our seniors have served our country overseas during World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Their bravery and their sacrifices have made America the great country that it is. Our seniors have worked hard all of their lives to provide for their families. It is now our responsibility to help assist them.

Madam Chairwoman, the Commodities Supplemental Food Program was cut by $37 million over fiscal year 2011 levels. This cut means nearly 81,000 low-income seniors will lose their monthly food assistance. There are 6 million seniors who face the threat of hunger in this country, and with 12,000 baby boomers turning 60 every day by 2025, that number is expected to reach nearly the 10 million mark. There are 52,000 senior citizens in my district, the 37th Congressional District in California, and between 10 and 20 percent of them depend on these very programs.

The Richardson amendment restores $10 million in funding to the Commodity Assistance Program, which will help to ensure that more of our seniors will continue to receive food. We are talking about something as basic as that--food--that our seniors would be able to eat.

I urge my colleagues to support the Richardson amendment and support our seniors.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I just want you to know I am watching and paying attention carefully, sir. The other point I wanted to point out, as I stated in my comments, $37 million has been cut over the fiscal year 2011, and given the $5 million that you did earlier accept, and I am suggesting $10 million, we would still be suggesting only restoring less than 50 percent from that level.

I would just urge you, sir, in these tough times, I understand in future times, but in these tough times, not all other mechanisms could help our seniors, again who are only making at or below $14,000, and this would be a dire need, and I would strongly urge, please, your reconsideration.

I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the LaTourette amendment. But before I get into the details, I would like to speak to the comments that were just made.

I happen to have the privilege of serving currently on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I would say to any Member of Congress who would like to know about the thousands of jobs that were, in fact, created and maintained through the American Recovery Act, I would be more than happy to give them a copy of that document. Let me move into, though, the topic that is at hand, which is really the LaTourette amendment, which is not in reference to the American Recovery Act.

I strongly speak in support of this amendment because, one, it protects American jobs; two, it completes projects safely; and, three, it oftentimes saves the taxpayers money. The LaTourette amendment ensures that funds for large-scale construction projects utilize the most cost-effective and efficient process for the awarding of Federal contracts. Section 415 of H.R. 2055 prohibits agencies from being able to use all available methods to ensure that Federal contracts are cost efficient, including the utilization of project labor agreements.

Our ranking member, Mr. Dicks, just recently spoke a few moments ago about section 415, and I will only reiterate two points: One, section 1, subsection (b) says, ``Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements.'' Section 3, subsection (a) says, ``In awarding any contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis.'' And then finally, section 5 says, ``This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement.''

So, if we're going to speak on the floor of this House, it's important, if we're going to talk about facts, let's actually say those facts. So this dispels the myth that Executive Order 13502 makes requirements in the awarding of Federal contracts.

Now let's talk a little bit about those project labor agreements.

There is no substantial evidence that says that PLAs decrease the number of bidders on a project or increase the costs of construction projects. In fact, project labor agreements promote cost-effectiveness and efficiency in those construction projects. Having project labor agreements prevents labor disputes; it eliminates project delays and, thereby, helps us to get the projects done.

We can all talk about facts and figures and dates and sections, but I would like to talk about what's happening in my district. I know from firsthand experience that project labor agreements work. In California, we have seen project labor agreements negotiated and implemented with incredible success.

There have been many who have talked about project labor agreements. Here are just a few of the many examples of successful project labor agreements in California:

One, the construction of the L.A. Metro's Blue Line; number two, the expansion and renovation of the Los Angeles World Airports; the recent Middle Harbor Project at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the largest ports in this country; and then, finally, the $2.2 billion Alameda Corridor Project. That was a project that was completed on time and under budget.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask respectfully that Mr. LaTourette's amendment would be found in order and that all of our colleagues will join in support of it.

Finally, I would just like to say, for those who say that PLAs drive up the cost of construction, if they would say that, then we would simply ask: Why is it that Walmart is increasingly using PLAs and Toyota Motor Corporation has built every one of its North American manufacturing facilities under a project labor agreement?

So, when we talk about this, Mr. LaTourette has been a leader on this issue. I strongly support his amendment. I stand in lockstep.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

I strongly support the LaTourette amendment.

Project Labor Agreement Activity in California 1984 Through March 2010

This is a working list maintained by Kevin Dayton,

Government Affairs Director of Associated Builders and

Contractors of California. Identification comes from primary

documents as well as secondary sources that include web

sites, union publications, and newspaper articles. PLAs on

private projects are often not publicized, so this list may

not include all PLAs imposed on refineries, power plants,

industrial facilities, and housing projects.

Large Infrastructure

Implemented

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority--Blue

Line--1984.

San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor--1993.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--

Eastside (Domenigoni) Reservoir Project--1994.

Contra Costa Water District--Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Project--Three Components--1994-1995.

Contra Costa Water District--Ralph D. Bollman Water

Treatment Plant Upgrade--1995.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--Inland

Feeder Project--1996.

San Francisco International Airport Expansion and

Renovation--1996.

U.S. Department of Energy--Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratories--National Ignition Facility--1997.

Sacramento Regional Transit District--South Corridor

Extension--1998.

Alameda County Transportation Authority--Alameda Corridor

Project--1998.

Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Construction Authority--Gold

Line--1998.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works--Hyperion Full

Secondary Treatment Plant--1998.

Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Expansion and

Renovation--1999.

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District--

Seismic Retrofit Phase I--1999.

San Diego County Water Authority--Emergency Storage

Project--1999.

Los Angeles World Airports Expansion and Renovation--2000.

Contra Costa Water District--Multi-Purpose Pipeline

Project--2000.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works--East Central

Interceptor Sewer and Northeast Interceptor Sewer--2000.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Pier 400 Phase II--2002.

San Jose International Airport Expansion and Renovation--

2002.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--Capital

Program--2003.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District--Affholder,

Inc. (a general contractor) signed for Lower Northwest

Interceptor Northern and Southern Sacramento River Tunnel

Crossings--2004.

San Diego County Water Authority--Policy to Consider PLAs

for Projects Over $100 Million--2005.

Contra Costa Water District--Brentwood Water Treatment

Plant--2005.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berths 90-91 Cruise

Terminal Baggage Handling Building--2006.

Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District--

Three contractors signed for Napa River Flood Protection

Project--2006.

City of San Francisco--Measure A--Water System Improvement

Program (Hetch Hetchy)--2007.

Contra Costa Water District--Alternative Intake Project--

2007.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berth 408 Liquid Bulk

Petroleum Terminal--2008.

Port of Long Beach--Middle Harbor Project--2010.

Negotiations Approved

East Bay Municipal Utility District--Supplemental Water

Supply Project--1999.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--All Future Projects on Port

Property--2008.

Proposed

Temperance Flat Dam--Madera/Fresno Counties--2002.

Contra Costa Water District--Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Expansion--2003.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berth 93C-94 Boardwalk--

2003.

San Francisco International Airport--West Field Cargo

Redevelopment Project--2003.

City of Santa Paula--Wastewater Treatment Plant--2008.

City of Long Beach--Airport Expansion--2009.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority--

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension--2009.

Proposed but Rejected or Not Implemented

Los Osos Community Services District--Wastewater Project--

2003.

San Diego County Water Authority--Twin Oaks Valley Water

Treatment Plant--2005.

Palmdale Water District--All Work--2007.

Central Marin Sanitation Agency--Wet Weather Improvement

Project--2007.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority--Terminal 2

Expansion--2009.

Prohibited by Presidential Executive Order 13202

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District--

Seismic Retrofit Phase II--2001.

East Bay Municipal Utility District--Walnut Creek-San Ramon

Valley Improvement Project--2001.

Sacramento Regional Transit District--Folsom Line

Extension--2001.

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency--Interstate

405 Improvements--2006.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Highway Improvements to

Harry Bridges Boulevard--2010.

Municipal

Implemented

City of Los Angeles--Convention Center--1990.

Contra Costa County--Merrithew Memorial Regional Medical

Center--1994.

City of West Sacramento--Palamidessi Bridge--1995.

City of Concord--Police Station--1995.

City of Sacramento--Sump 2 Improvement Project--1998.

City of Concord--Concord Avenue Parking Garage--1999.

Contra Costa County--Family Law Center--2001.

Contra Costa County--All Work Over $1 Million (revised--

original policy never implemented)--2002/2003.

Solano County--Government Center and Parking Garage--2002.

City of San Jose--City Hall/Civic Center--2002.

Contra Costa County--Two Small Renovation Projects in

Richmond and Antioch--2002.

Contra Costa County--New Discovery House Facility--2003.

City of San Mateo--New Main Library--2004.

Santa Clara County--Valley Specialty Center Bid Package 2--

2004.

City of Carson--All General Contracts over $125,000, All

Specialty Contracts over $25,000--2005.

City of Santa Cruz--West Coast Santa Cruz Hotel and

Conference Center Redevelopment--2005.

Santa Clara County--Gilroy Valley, Fair Oaks, and Milpitas

Health Centers; New Crime Lab--2005.

Santa Clara County--Required Staff Analysis of PLA Benefits

for Projects Over $10 Million--2005.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works--New Police

Headquarters, Metro Detention Center, Harbor Area Police

Station and Jail Facility, Fire Station 64, Hollenback Police

Station, Main Street Parking/Motor Transport Division and

Aiso Street Parking, Automated Traffic Surveillance and

Control (ATSAC) Systems--2005-2009.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--2005-06, 2006-07 Site

Improvements--2005.

City of San Fernando--All General Contracts over $150,000,

All Specialty Contracts Over $25,000--2005.

City of San Mateo--New Police Station--2005.

El Camino Hospital District--Measure D--Hospital Bldg.

Replacement and Central Utility Plant--2005.

City of Milpitas--New Library, Parking Garage, and Other

Midtown Projects--2006.

Solano County--All Work Over $10 Million (Threshold

Increased from $1 Million Estab. in 2004)--2007.

City of Richmond--Civic Center--2007.

San Joaquin County--New Administration Building--2007.

City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency--All

Work--2008.

City of Milpitas--Senior Center--2008.

City of Brentwood--Civic Center--2009.

Solano County--321 Tuolumne Street/Solano Justice Center

and 355 Tuolumne Street Renovation--2009.

City of Vallejo--Downtown Parking Garage--2009.

Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District--Future

Capital Improvement Projects--2010.

City of Brentwood--Parking Garage--2010.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District--Corporation Yard--

2010

Negotiations Approved

City of Long Beach--All Work--2005, 2007.

Alameda County Medical Center--Highland Hospital Acute Care

Tower Replacement--2008.

Alameda County--All Work--2008.

Santa Barbara County--All Work--2010.

Proposed

City of San Diego--New Central Library--1999.

City of San Jose--Convention Center Expansion--2002.

City of Union City--Intermodal Station Mixed Use

Development Project--2002.

City of Alhambra--West Main Street Corridor Redevelopment--

2005.

City of South El Monte--All Work--2007.

City of Los Angeles--All Work--2004, 2008.

City of San Leandro--All Work--2009.

Various Projects in Ventura County (Santa Paula, Fillmore,

Oxnard, Piru)--2009.

City of Long Beach--Airport Expansion--2009.

Proposed but Rejected or Not Implemented

City of Sacramento--Sewer Maintenance Building--1996.

City of Pinole--City Hall--1996.

City of Redding--Civic Center--1998.

City of Sacramento--All Work--1998.

City of San Francisco--All Work--1998.

City of West Hollywood--All Work--1999.

City of San Diego Convention Center Expansion--1999.

City of Fresno--All Work--2000.

Sacramento County--Sacramento International Airport Parking

Garage--2000.

City of Sacramento--Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant

Replacement Intake--2000.

City of Santa Rosa--The Geysers Recharge Project--2000.

City of Santa Rosa--Downtown Hotel and Convention Center--

2000.

City of West Sacramento--City Hall/Civic Center--2001.

City of San Diego--SeaWorld Hotel and Expansion--2002.

City of Cupertino--New Library--2003.

City of Watsonville--Civic Center--2004.

City of Gardena--Gardena Transit Facility Project--2006.

City of Fairfield--All Work--2007.

Washington Township Health Care District--Measure FF--

Central Plant and Hospital Expansion--2007, 2008.

Imperial County--Green Retrofit Program--2009.

Terminated

San Francisco Housing Authority--All Work--1994-2003.

Orange County--All General Contracts over $225,000, All

Specialty Contracts over $15,000--2000-2005.

Solano County--All Work Over $1 Million (Threshold

Increased to $10 Million on 5/22/07)--2004-2007.

Prohibited by Presidential Executive Order 13202

City of Richmond--Former Ford Motor Assembly Building.

City of Richmond--Bay Area Rapid Transit Village.

City of Richmond--Former Port Terminal One.

City of Vallejo--Downtown Parking Garage (not built during

Bush Administration)--2000.

Orange County--Resurfacing of Santiago Canyon Road.

Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center Replacement Project--

2003.

San Mateo County Youth Services Center--2004.

City of Pasadena City Hall Restoration--2004.

Orange County--Glassell Street Bridge Replacement Project--

2004.

City of Hayward--Water Pollution Control Facility

Improvement Project--Phase 1--2005.

Union City--Union City Intermodal Transit Village--2006.

Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District--MetroBase

Project--2006.

Prohibited

City of Fresno--All Work (ordinance)--2000.

City of Antioch--All Work (sense of the council

resolution)--2002.

Orange County--All Work (ordinance)--2009.

San Diego County--All Work (ordinance)--2010.

Proposed but Rejected or Abandoned Prohibitions

Riverside County--All Work (ordinance)--2010.

proposed prohibitions

City of Chula Vista--All Work (June--2010 ballot initiative

for proposed ordinance)--2009.

City of San Diego--All Work (qualification for Nov. 2010

ballot initiative for charter amendment)--2009.

City of Oceanside--All Work (June 2010 ballot initiative

for new charter)--2009.

City of Roseville--All Work (proposed June 2010 ballot

initiative for proposed charter amendment)--2009.

Educational

Implemented

Los Angeles Unified School District--Proposition BB,

Measure K, Measure R, Measure Q--1999-2009.

West Contra Costa Unified School District--Measure E,

Measure M, Measure D--2000-2005.

Vallejo City Unified School District--Measure A--2001.

Los Angeles Community College District--Proposition A--

2001.

Rialto Unified School District--District High School #3--

2001.

San Mateo Community College District--Proposition C--2002.

San Mateo Union High School District--San Mateo High School

Modernization Phases I and II--2002.

Rancho Santiago Community College District (Orange

County)--Measure E--2003.

East Side Union High School District (San Jose)--Measure G,

Measure E--2003,--2008.

Solano County Community College District--Measure G--

Certain Larger Projects--2004.

Oakland Unified School District--Measure A after February

2004 (adopted by administrator)--2004.

Peralta Community College District--Vista Campus (Measure

I move to strike the last word.

I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak in support of the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment to restore funding for FIRE and SAFER grants.

I would like to thank Congressman LaTourette and Congressman Pascrell for offering this amendment that enjoys bipartisan support and which I strongly support.

The onslaught of natural disasters that we have seen all across the country has shown that the need for first responders has increased, not decreased. Many of us have been strong advocates for this program and recognize the inherent value of making sure our Nation's first responders have the people and the equipment they need in order to ensure our safety in all of our local communities.

I support these programs. Why? Because they work.

After an independent evaluation of the FIRE grant program was implemented by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture concluded that this program was ``highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the Nation.''

Additionally, at a time when many local and State governments have been forced to make drastic cuts to their emergency staff and personnel, the SAFER program has been the only resource fire departments have had to ensure that their communities would be ready if they needed to respond.

In the Appropriations Committee report, it mentions that FEMA should maintain an ``all hazards focus'' in order to ensure that FEMA concentrates its efforts on where it is needed most. I strongly agree with this sentiment, which is why I think this amendment is critical to achieving our goals.

As the Representative of the 37th Congressional District and as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, I understand the importance of having a fully staffed and equipped fire department. The San Miguel fire, the worst wildfire in California's history, burned through 90,000 acres of land and cost $15.6 million. However, thanks to prior planning and fire prevention education efforts made possible by this critical grant program, not a single life was lost in this devastation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Unfortunately, with firefighters, we cannot always plan ahead. We have to be ready to respond, to do the rescue and then to do the recovery. This amendment should be made in order so as to eliminate the burden that our local and State governments and the firefighters feel of having to do more with less.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, as former chair and current ranking member on the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee and member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I offer this amendment in good faith to save lives and to protect American citizens.

Like my Republican colleague, Chairman King, I have a strong concern with the current appropriations bill in its current form which in and of itself could potentially cause dangerous threats to our national security by drastically cutting vital response and prevention programs, leaving Americans and their visitors vulnerable when we are most in time of need.

My amendment will make great strides to remedy this danger by ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security allocates $50 million for the Port Security program, $100 million for the Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance program, $50 million for Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant program, $10 million for the Buffer Zone Protection program, and $42.3 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System.

The Richardson amendment dedicates $252 million of the $1 billion authorized, all while still preserving the chairman's original intent by allowing 50 percent of those dollars to remain flexible under the direction of what the committee had originally provided and also still maintaining the $247 million that the committee designated for Stonegarden and for training.

Mr. Chairman, each and every day, America faces threats to our national security. Certainly, the most well-known are the threats to our ports and our transit systems, which I have particularly been focused on given the fact that my district covers two of the largest ports in the entire United States.

However, these programs that I've mentioned so far go beyond the LA area. When you consider the recent tornadoes in Alabama and Missouri, the floods in Tennessee, other natural disasters, and other large-scale emergency situations facing our Nation, strong and effective security and response programs are vital to the lives of all Americans coast to coast. It therefore seems counterintuitive and shortsighted to undermine port and rail security, medical response and communication efforts by cutting the grant programs, or should I say, by not ensuring that these particular categories have sufficient funds in them. My amendment ensures that the funds will be available for port and rail security assistance grant programs.

Now, despite the recent strides that we have made in the war on terror, when we found bin Laden's diary, we learned that he was already in the process of having discussions about attacking our transportation infrastructure system.

At the heart of American infrastructure and fundamental to the success of our economy is clearly protecting our ports and our rail system. These systems have been known to be targeted in the past. All we have to think of is Madrid, London and Tokyo. Across the country, port and transit security forces are already stretched to the limit, and thanks to the substantial cuts that were already made via the end- of-the-year appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011, their jobs were made even more difficult as they were expected to do more with less. The same

is true for other important State and local grant programs, like the Metropolitan Medical Response System, which aids emergency medical first responders and interoperable communications grants that are so important to our first responders.

Finally, I also want to talk about the buffer zone grants that are available, which are important for people to understand. When you think ``buffer,'' you think maybe a sea area. Actually, they are regional assessments that are done to determine if critical infrastructure is properly protected. If it is not, those grants go out of that particular area to fix it.

Thus, while prioritizing and dedicating 25 percent of the funds to fund port and rail transit grants, medical response programs and emergency communication efforts, my amendment preserves the Secretary's flexibility to allocate funding as the committee had initially directed.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to please withdraw their points of order, and I ask the Chair to find my amendments in order where they are not cutting other programs or adding to the deficit. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and provide these key elements of national security the funding that they need.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

I thank the Chair for allowing me to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017. The Richardson amendment directs $50 million in funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program.

While the amendment is simple, it is important to keep in mind that being able to connect is a matter of life and death. In this information age, it seems inconceivable that this bill is suggesting that we would not invest in the technology to allow our first responders to communicate with one another.

How many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had New York firefighters and police officers been able to communicate? In Joplin, Missouri, and in Alabama, every day that passes without interoperable communications we put American lives at risk--those who are serving and those who are being served. Now is the time for this investment. We simply can't afford to delay.

My amendment will help ensure that public safety officials across the United States would have the resources needed to communicate with one another across jurisdictions and across disciplines, hence, being able to prevent the unnecessary loss of life and property in the event of a disaster whether it's natural or manmade. My amendment recognizes the immense importance of the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program and the work that is still required to establish a nationwide infrastructure for reliable emergency communications.

Mr. Chairman, when I talk about interoperable equipment, I am looking to preserve that when we have a first responder who picks up a radio that he or she will be able to get in touch with the appropriate people to gain critical information when it matters the most. Throughout the United States, public safety agencies--law enforcement, firefighters, emergency technicians, public health officials, and others--often cannot communicate effectively with one another even within the same jurisdiction or with other public safety agencies at the Federal, State and local levels when responding to emergencies.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our communities' first responders are equipped with the best possible equipment. Interoperable communications allow our Nation's first responders to communicate in realtime during an emergency. It has been well-documented, including in the 9/11 Commission Report, that the lack of sufficient handheld communications devices may have contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate effectively with firefighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Similarly, the lack of adequate equipment exacerbated the difficulties in evacuating people during Hurricane Katrina, where many could have been saved if effective communications equipment were available not only to public safety workers but to transit authorities and others who were involved in that evacuation. More recent national catastrophes, including the floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, and beyond, clearly continue to make that argument.

I ask of the chairman to find our amendment in order, and I urge my colleagues to join me in putting public safety first over politics and to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Offered By: Ms. Richardson

Amendment No. 59: Page 47, line 10, after ``heading''

insert the following: ``at least $10,000,000 shall be for

Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grants, $50,000,000 shall be for

Port Security Grants, $100,000,000 shall be for public

Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security

Assistance, $50,000,000 shall be for interoperable emergency

communications, $42,337,000 shall be for the Metropolitan

Medical Response System.''.

Offered By: Ms. Richardson

Amendment No. 60: Page 47, line 10, after ``Stonegarden''

insert ``, $50,000,000 shall be for Interoperable Emergency

Operations Grants,''.

Offered By: Ms. Richardson

Amendment No. 61: Page 2, line 10, after the dollar amount,

``insert (reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak on my amendment about disaster relief funding. My amendment is designed to support response, rescue, and recovery. In fiscal year 2011, the Disaster Relief Fund was funded at $2.65 billion. I was pleased to see only, finally after great embarrassment, that we restored the funding of what it was previously in full year 2011 after the disaster we had in Joplin, Missouri. This amount of funding is not enough, and we should just be honest with the American public in terms of the budget of what the real costs are.

Hurricane season has not started yet, but FEMA has already made 37 major disaster declarations, seven emergency declarations, and 54 fire management assistance declarations already this year.

Just over the last few days, 142 people were killed in Joplin, Missouri, during the tornado that struck the city on May 22, 2011. This disaster is the highest recorded death toll from a tornado in U.S. history. The Joplin tornado destroyed an estimated 2,500 homes and damaged 10,000 others. In May, flooding in Memphis, Tennessee, devastated 1,300 homes and caused thousands to be displaced. In April, a powerful storm system spawned tornadoes across seven southern States, resulting in over 300 deaths in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, Virginia, and Kentucky.

Without disaster relief funding, or not having a sufficient amount of it, many of these communities would not be safe. These funds are used to be able to rebuild lives and communities. The Disaster Relief Fund is managed through FEMA. We need to ensure that people who are in need of assistance are not waiting on Congress to debate; but, in fact, Congress is responding with the appropriate resources.

This other approach is wrong. We should never hold relief funds hostage and allow citizens to suffer from a disaster while Congress debates. I think it

is unconscionable that we would not immediately allow FEMA the ability to provide the assistance that is needed to help rebuild our communities.

Now, let me show you a more recent picture of what happened in Joplin. You'll see in this picture that it appears a man is holding a child who doesn't even have socks and shoes. So when we talk about whether it is ideologically we believe in cutting the budget, we need to make sure that we are cutting in the right places and not in places like this.

Since full year 1989, Congress has appropriated roughly $292 billion for disaster assistance in 35 appropriations bills, primarily as supplementals, two significant catastrophes that have occurred. The mean annual range that we have had to do as a supplemental is anywhere between $8.3 billion and $13.3 billion. Today we are considering only $2.65 billion. Clearly, history tells us it is not enough, and the American public should not have to wait each time that we debate when we know that what we are looking at today is not enough.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee chair and my colleagues to support the Richardson amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Richardson

Amendment No. 59: Page 47, line 10, after ``heading''

insert the following: ``at least $10,000,000 shall be for

Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grants, $50,000,000 shall be for

Port Security Grants, $100,000,000 shall be for public

Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security

Assistance, $50,000,000 shall be for interoperable emergency

communications, $42,337,000 shall be for the Metropolitan

Medical Response System.''.