Floor Statements

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. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides $690 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their hard work in bringing this bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor.

Mr. Chair, I support this bill for three reasons: (1) it restores and enhances the readiness of our troops, equipment, and defense infrastructure; (2) it takes care of our military personnel and their families; and (3) it authorizes the needed investments to keep our nation strong, safe, and respected in the world.

Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions. This legislation:

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

Because I oppose this initiative, I ask the record to reflect my intention to vote as follows:

1. On rollcall No. 344, I intended to vote ``no.'' Hunter Amendment (#11) to H.R. 1540.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of En Bloc Amendment 5 to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

I thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order and the Armed Services Committee for its work on this important legislation.

Among the reasons why I support the En Bloc Amendment is because it includes an amendment that I offered to increase the effectiveness of the Northern Command (``NORTHCOM'').

NORTHCOM was created on 1 October 2002 in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, its mission is to protect the United States homeland and support local, state, and federal authorities.

In case of national emergencies, natural or man-made, which are happening all too frequently these days, its Air Forces Northern National Security Emergency Preparedness Directorate will take charge of the situation or event.

My amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that NORTHCOM: Develop and have in place a leadership strategy that will strengthen and foster institutional and interpersonal relationships with state and local governments and; utilize training programs to teach key personnel how to lead effectively in the event of a disaster and during uncertain times.

The purpose for NORTHCOM's existence is to bring the capabilities and the resources of the U.S. military to the assistance of the American people during a catastrophic disaster.

NORTHCOM leaders will be much more effective in saving lives, protecting assets, and enhancing resilience after the disaster has occurred if they are trained in the techniques of effective engagement with civilian leadership. My amendment represents Congress's support for such training.

I am disappointed that another amendment I offered to this bill was not made in order. This amendment would have instructed the TRANSPORTATION COMMAND (TRANSCOM) to update and expand the PORT LOOK 2008 Strategic Seaports study. Although this amendment was not made in order, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that port infrastructure receives the programmatic support it deserves.

Finally, let me note my strong opposition to Section 1034 of the bill. Section 1034 is a broad and unwarranted expansion of executive power and an ill-considered enlargement of the ``War on Terror.''

This expansive new definition for the use of force is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous, particularly since Section 1034 does not require the President to obtain the express approval of Congress prior to using military force. I support efforts to strike this provision as the bill moves forward.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support En Bloc Amendment 5 to the Defense Authorization bill.

On May 23, 2011, I was unavoidably detained during the vote on rollcall No. 330. Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 330, I would have voted ``aye'' (May 23) H.R. 1627, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for certain requirements for the placement of monuments in Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 1216.

Under the guise of deficit reduction, Republicans, through H.R. 1216, are attempting to attack our Nation's vital support system for our seniors. The Republican budget would deny seniors, and those who are coming forward after those that are currently taking advantage of these benefits, health care, long-term care, and the Social Security benefits that these seniors have earned.

Sunday evening, I just got back from my district where I had an opportunity to have our annual senior briefing, and there were over 900 seniors who were there and they were concerned. I spoke with several of my seniors in my district, and they're worried about how they and even some of their parents who are in their nineties today will be able to get by once RyanCare--which is what I'm going to call it, the attack on Medicare--destroys something we all need. By following RyanCare and turning Medicare into a voucher program, Republicans would gradually eliminate the peace of mind that many of our seniors have grown to be able to count on.

We don't want to go back to the old days of calling seniors ``poor'' and not having an opportunity to live in dignity in the last years. These fixed value vouchers, which are being suggested in RyanCare, would not only not keep up with the rising costs of health care, but it would cost seniors an additional $7,000 more per year by 2020.

In California alone, which is where I'm from, under the Republican budget, seniors would pay $214 million more on prescription drugs in 2012 alone. That's next year.

The Republican budget would return our country to a time when being old was something that people would be afraid of, not look forward to.

The Republican budget would also turn Medicaid into a block grant system. Haven't we seen what that's done with community development block grants? It wouldn't work. Under a block grant system, Medicaid would no longer be able to support the elderly. By converting the current Medicaid system into a block grant index to inflation and population growth, Congress would shift the burdens of rising health care costs and aging populations to the States. All you have to do is look at the Los Angeles Times to see what's happening to my State, and I don't think we'd be able to help the seniors.

The deficit must be addressed. In fact, I've supported many bills and amendments that have been brought forward on the other side. But it should be done in a fair way. We should not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's seniors, not after Wall Street and our car manufacturers got a bailout.

I will, and Democrats will, continue to work to protect, strengthen, and save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

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

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1217, a bill that would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund established by the Affordable Care Act. The Prevention and Public Health Fund makes smart investments in state and community efforts to help the American people live longer, healthier lives.

The Prevention and Public Health Fund represents a paradigm shift in the way we conceptualize health care in this country. Instead of focusing exclusively on treatment, the fund established by the Affordable Care Act recognizes the importance of prevention and encourages Americans to lead healthier lifestyles. All 50 states are already using these funds to target the obesity epidemic, HIV prevention, tobacco usage, and nutrition and physical activity.

Not only does the Prevention and Public Health Fund promote healthier lifestyles, it also contributes to long-term savings in health care expenditures. As health care costs continue to rise, preventative care can help to rein in the out of control costs. Preventing chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and stroke does not only make sense from a public health perspective, it makes sense from an economic perspective as well.

The United States spends $270 billion annually due to chronic illness. Chronic diseases are also responsible for 70 percent of deaths in America and 75 percent of health care expenditures. Working to curb unhealthy behaviors that lead to chronic disease such as tobacco and alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and poor diet will save lives and money.

At a time when we are being forced to make tough decisions on government spending, targeting a program like the Prevention and Public Health Fund is misguided. Investing money into community-based preventative care initiatives that encourage people to engage in healthier behavior has the potential to save the country billions of dollars in costs associated with treatment of chronic disease.

In California alone, the Department of Health and Human Services has already used the Prevention and Public Health Fund to grant $42.7 million to organizations throughout the state that are engaged in prevention and wellness initiatives. Of this $42.7 million, $8.9 million has been awarded to community and clinical prevention, $7.2 million to public health infrastructure, and $26.4 million to primary care training.

The cost of treating those with chronic illness totals billions of dollars annually and leads to billions of dollars in lost productivity. Preserving the overall health of the American people should be a priority of this body. The move by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to repeal this important aspect of the Affordable Care Act is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it is also morally reprehensible.

Developing programs that will encourage Americans of all ages to lead more active and healthy lifestyles will require significant investment at the community level. The Prevention and Public Health Fund does that by strengthening the capacity of state and local communities.

Repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund will threaten the well being of millions of Americans and I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure to repeal it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3. This deceptively titled legislation is nothing more than an assault on women's access to health care.

If enacted, this legislation would severely curtail women's access to reproductive health care services. What would it do? It would impose tax penalties on women. It would narrow the already restrictive areas that the Hyde amendment has dealt with. And further, what I find most alarming, it would attack the coverage for Federal employees, including women who serve in the military. Where is all of our applause now?

The Hyde amendment clearly states that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care and has narrowly provided exceptions that state for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which would put a mother's life in danger. Are we against that?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill resoundingly, ``no'' on H.R. 3.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' This deceptively titled legislation is nothing more than another Republican assault on women's access to reproductive health care.

At a time when Congress needs to be focused on creating jobs and protecting the middle class, the Republican majority has decided to make this anti-choice bill a priority. If enacted, this legislation will severely curtail women's access to reproductive health care by:

1. Banning the coverage of abortion services in the new health care law;

2. Imposing tax penalties on women and small businesses with health insurance plans that cover abortion;

3. Narrowing the already restrictive rape and incest exceptions in the Hyde Amendment; and

4. Continuing to limit access to reproductive health care for low income women, and ban coverage for federal employees and women in the military.

If this bill were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds. If enacted, H.R. 3 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds.

This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care. Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. If H.R. 3 is made into law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly.

H.R. 3 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion. This would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care. For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--threatening 4 million small businesses. Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.

A November 2010 Hart Research poll found that a significant majority (74%) of the American population opposes the key provision of this bill, which would increase the tax burden on those who purchase comprehensive health insurance plans.

Current law requires state Medicaid programs to cover abortion care in limited circumstances, including in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy jeopardizes the woman's life. H.R. 3 would allow states to refuse abortion coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries in all of these cases, even when their life is in danger.

Women who would need to terminate a pregnancy as a result of medical complications would be forced to pay up to $10,000 or more for abortion services. For many women, being forced to pay the full cost of an abortion is not economically feasible and would lead many families into bankruptcy or force pregnant women with medical complications to take on major risks to carry the child to term. H.R. 3 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.

The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger. H.R. 3 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.'' This bill goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country.

At a time when the American people want Congress to focus on creating jobs and stabilizing the economy, the Republicans wish to focus on this divisive piece of legislation that does nothing to move our country forward.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.R. 3, a bill that represents an unprecedented step backward in women's reproductive freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative budget for FY 2012. With this budget, Congressman Van Hollen has offered a responsible alternative to the dangerous Republican approach.

The Democratic alternative offers a dramatically different vision of America's future. It takes on our deficits, but not in a reckless way. It does so responsibly, so that we can continue investing in our economy and our people. It took us years to get into this fiscal challenge, and economists agree that it would be disastrous to try to get out of it overnight. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do. Democrats believe in a balanced approach that keeps our economy growing while getting us back to living within our means.

The Democratic alternative also allows us to keep the promise of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to our seniors, the disabled, and the poor. What our country needs is to get on a more responsible fiscal path. But we cannot afford to remake the social contract in a way that harms the least advantaged in our society. Democrats want to strengthen these programs--not destroy them.

Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget is a responsible alternative to a Republican plan that would fundamentally alter the kind of society that we live in. Democrats reject the false choice between fiscal responsibility and our values. We are offering an opportunity to get serious about our deficits without turning our backs on those who can least afford it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ramon Cortines, a great educator who has spent more than a half century serving America's youth at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. His remarkable career as an educator dates back to 1956 when he began teaching in the small town of Aptos, California. Since then he has worked for seven school districts, spanning the country from New York to Los Angeles.

In his 55 years as an educator, Mr. Cortines has held many titles: professor, administrator, principal, chancellor, senior advisor, deputy mayor, superintendent--you name it, he's done it. But if you were to walk up to him on the street and ask him what he does, his response would be simple: ``I'm a teacher.'' Now the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Mr. Cortines will soon begin a much- deserved retirement. It is therefore my pleasure to publicly thank him for all he has done for our children. I highlight his career with the hope that many bright young Americans follow his example of service.

Mr. Cortines earned a bachelor's degree in speech and education as well as a pair of master's degrees in school administration and adult learning, from Pasadena College. After serving in the U.S. Army from 1953 to 1955, he took his first teaching job in Aptos, CA. In the following years he served as a teacher and administrator in Covina, CA; an administrator and superintendent in Pasadena, CA; a superintendent in San Jose, CA; and a superintendent in San Francisco, CA.

In 1993, he was appointed Chancellor of the New York City Schools, where he served for two years. He soon went on to become the Senior Advisor to U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley under the Clinton Administration.

For several months in 2000 he served as the interim superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, then went on to become Los Angeles' Deputy Mayor for Education, Youth, and Families. In addition to advising numerous non-governmental organizations and working at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, and Brown universities, Mr. Cortines accepted his most recent post as the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District on January 1, 2009.

Superintendent Cortines assumed this position with the same goals that he advanced as its interim director in 2000. He consistently challenged Los Angeles' lowest-performing students and schools to perform at a higher level, improving overall academic achievement and ensuring that every classroom and child is properly equipped to learn. He streamlined internal operations and encouraged greater decision- making among the administration of every school in the nation's second largest school district.

Mr. Speaker, Superintendent Ramon Cortines is one of this country's great educators, and though we are sad to see him go, we are thankful for his years of service and the impact he has made on the American system of education. I commend him for his remarkable achievements.

Madam Chair, the Republican budget for FY 2012 continues the reckless Republican fiscal policy. It takes a slash and burn approach to the budget, rather than going line by line to see where we can afford to cut and where we cannot. This is a budget that favors Big Oil over the middle class, asks for sacrifice from seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social contract in our America.

The budget would open an enormous hole in our country's social safety net by turning Medicare into a voucher program. These fixed-value vouchers do not account for the yearly increases in health care costs and will increase seniors' annual out-of-pocket expenses by nearly $7,000. Their budget would decimate our primary assistance to the poor by turning Medicaid into a block grant. This is the Republican vision: to balance the budget on the backs of the seniors and the poor.

Madam Chair, Democrats have a better way. We understand that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach that protects our fragile recovery. Our plan would take on our deficits in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong: education, health care, innovation, and clean energy. Democrats will balance the budget without reneging on the bedrock promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Madam Chair, this Republican budget moves us backwards. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it and taking a more sensible approach.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the alternative budget of the Congressional Black Caucus. This budget makes smart investments in our future by focusing on education, workforce training, and advanced research and development for clean energy technologies.

As you all know, minority communities took the hardest hit during the economic recession. In my district, we suffer from rates of unemployment and home foreclosure that are significantly higher than the rest of the country. Although our nation's economy is showing positive signs of growth, we must continue to make critical investments in our communities to facilitate our recovery. The CBC's alternative budget does this by investing $20 billion more than the President's Budget in education and job training programs that will prepare our young leaders to win the future.

While the CBC recognizes the importance of creating a budget that is fiscally responsible, we cannot slash spending and investment on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. The CBC's alternative budget reduces the deficit over the next decade and makes smart investments in education, job creation, and transportation and infrastructure. Without these investments, the United States will lose its competitive edge.

Unlike the Republican budget proposal, the CBC's alternative budget protects Medicare and Medicaid, and ensures that the most vulnerable in our society have access to quality healthcare services. The CBC's alternative budget also restores cuts to programs like the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, Community Development Block Grants and Pell Grants for students.

The CBC's alternative budget will also provide $20 billion more than the President's Budget for needed transportation and infrastructure projects. These investments will help to create jobs, facilitate the movement of goods, and help keep our economy moving forward.

I urge my colleagues to support the CBC's alternative budget plan, which reduces our deficit responsibly over the next decade and invests in the future prosperity of every American.

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was struck down by an assassin's bullet as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee.

He was in Memphis to march in solidarity with African American sanitation workers during their 1968 strike for better working conditions.

Despite the shock and sorrow of losing the country's most celebrated civil rights leader, the march went on and the strike proved ultimately successful.

We are here today to remember Dr. King, the workers in Memphis that he stood with, and the victory they achieved for themselves and working people everywhere.

Over the last 40 years, this country has seen more than its share of tragedies: assassinations, bombings, terrorist attacks, and all manner of natural disasters.

It is easy to become desensitized to evil and some of us may drift away from the lessons of the past. We should remember that in 1968 Dr. King's murder threw the country into chaos and threatened the civil rights movement he had labored to build through peaceful protest. But it was not to be, as Dr. King's message was too powerful for hate, and today we remember that nothing eclipses his message that all humanity has dignity and worth.

Dr. King, Jr., recognized that the struggle for civil rights and workers' rights were inextricably linked. Both required that the basic rights of all people are equal and ought to be honored equally, whether by an employer or by the United States government. Organized labor is a cornerstone of our democracy and a guiding force in our nation's history. It is the natural right of a free people, as workers rightly expect a degree of safety, security, and just compensation for the work that they do. We should not sacrifice their quality of life to fuel the myth that doing so will somehow balance the budget.

In closing, I urge my colleagues and my fellow Americans to always remember the significance of this day. Dr. King received criticism from all sides, some saying he was too soft; others saying he was too radical, and many fearing widespread violence and social upheaval in the wake of his death.

It was human nature, some argued, that violence is a more effective means to effect change than passive resistance. They were wrong. Dr. King understood that the moral force of non-violent direct action was so powerful that it could bring down the modern-day walls of Jericho.

And he was right; it brought change to America. And to Poland and the nations of eastern and central Europe. And we saw it at work in Tunisia and Egypt. As Dr. King said: ``The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.''

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today, our nation mourned the loss of one of the greats of the age. But while an assassin may have felled the Dreamer; the Dream of Dr. King still lives in the hearts and minds of people of goodwill everywhere in the world.