Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire of Mr. Hall as to whether he has additional speakers; otherwise, I'm ready to close.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It seems so fitting that we're here today to recognize Neil Armstrong. And I want to thank Mr. Hall both for his leadership of our Science Committee and the opportunity that we've had to work together. He is a good friend. I look forward to working with our new chairman, Mr. Smith, in the next Congress. And it seems that we will have an opportunity to work on the things that Neil Armstrong believed in and felt so passionately about: about making sure that the United States remains at the top of the leader board when it comes to space exploration; making certain that, as he expressed in our committee, NASA remains at the forefront of our technology development, of our research, of our capacity. There are few of us who will get to see or to know what Neil Armstrong saw and knew. There are few of us, though we want to, who will be able to see the universe in the kind of way that Neil Armstrong did. But what we do know is that we have the ability here in this Congress and in future Congresses to actually preserve what it is that we do in space and how we use technology, and that we build on the great promise of Hugh Dryden and Neil Armstrong and our great capacity as a Nation for research and development and technology. I know that our leaders will be committed to preserving the names of these great heroes in the work that we do in the future, for our children and for generations to come. It also seems very fitting that in honoring Neil Armstrong--and I will just say personally, there are few opportunities here in the Congress where you feel like you really get to both touch the past and look to the future, and for me, that came in just being able to meet and to talk with Neil Armstrong when he came before our committee, Mr. Chairman. And I will say, having watched all of those missions as a little girl sitting in front of a black-and-white television, in a classroom, seeing the promise and capacity of our universe and our scientific endeavors and creation, that Neil Armstrong was at the center of that. And so I am pleased that we're able to honor him today, but I hope that we can honor him and his legacy in the future with the work that we do to preserve the great work that's done at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for all of our future generations. To the chairman, I know that, to Chairman Hall, Neil Armstrong was a special friend of his as well and quite an inspiration, but an inspiration for generations. And so it gives me great pleasure to be able to present H.R. 6612 in renaming the Dryden Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Center, and I look forward to continuing to support the great work of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for your leadership, and I share in your absolute sorrow, and to honor the memory of the 20 children and six educators who lost their lives in this really horrific attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and our first responders, and all of those both in Newtown and across this country who were affected by this tragedy. First, as a mother, my heart truly aches for the parents who lost their children. Young and old lost their future. But as a Member of Congress, I also know that we're not doing nearly enough to protect our children and to protect our communities from gun violence. In cities and rural areas, schools, offices and homes, this has happened far too many times in far too many communities all across our country. In my district alone there have been over 160 incidences of gun violence this year. Forty-six people in my district have lost their lives to gun violence this year. I think about 6-year-old Amari Perkins, who lost his life to gun violence just miles from the Nation's Capitol, and 17-year-old Amber Stanley, who lost her life to gun violence. This is a really complex problem that requires complex policy solutions, but the complexity should not keep us from doing what it is that we need to do to protect our children, whether those children are in Newtown or any town across this country. The question I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is how many more tragic and senseless acts of violence have to take place before Congress is compelled to take truly meaningful action? We must do all we can by working together to ensure people are safe in their schools, that our children are safe, that our educators are safe and our neighborhoods, our public spaces and our houses of worship all throughout our communities. To my colleagues of the Connecticut delegation and especially to Mr. Murphy who represents Newtown, my thoughts and prayers are with each of you during this really difficult and incomprehensible time. But be assured that as a Member of Congress, I'm going to work with you, I'm going to continue to pray with you, and I'm going to make certain that this doesn't happen again because we have an obligation, we know what our to-do list is, and we have only to do it before year's end.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Davis Motion to Instruct Conferees that would include the Casey/Hutchison amendment in the final conference report on the NDAA bill. I want to thank the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Davis, for her strong leadership in engaging the women of Afghanistan in their reconstruction. I first traveled to Afghanistan with Mrs. Davis for Mother's Day in 2009 and have returned each of the past three years. As co-chair of the Afghan Women's Task Force, I have met with women parliamentarians and civil society members eager to achieve the common goal of a secure and stable Afghanistan. These women and their advocates always raise security as the number one challenge to progress. The failure to ensure consideration of women in the security framework is an ongoing challenge to taking advantage of the opportunities in education, politics, and overall public life necessary for the long-term stability and prosperity of Afghanistan. Yesterday's assassination of the acting head of women's affairs in Laghman Province less than six months after the previous head was killed exposes not only the threats to the security of women in the country, but the deep concern about the impact the transfer of responsibilities from coalition forces to the Afghan government will have on the gains made by women over the last ten years. The Casey/Hutchinson amendment promotes the security of Afghan women and underlines the need for the United States to strengthen its commitment to ensuring that plans to improve, monitor, and respond to women's security are imbedded in the Department of Defense's strategies. In addition, the amendment aims to establish achievable goals for the recruitment and retention of women to the Afghan National Army and Afghanistan National Police which have fallen far below expected targets. The United States has worked hard to dramatically improve the lives of Afghan women. The greatest indicator of this progress is the 2.7 million girls who are now being educated after years of restriction by the Taliban. Afghan women and girls have stated their goals and desires for progress. The transition process gives the United States and our international partners an opportunity to strengthen women's rights and lay the foundation for women's full participation in all aspects of Afghan society in the future. Losing those gains will have a major negative impact on all Afghans and jeopardize the future security and stability of the country. I urge inclusion of the Casey/Hutchinson amendment to send a supportive message to the women of Afghanistan and to enhance U.S. and international efforts to create a safer, more prosperous future for the country. Vote for the Davis Motion to Instruct Conferees.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House last Friday (November 30th) due to a family funeral and missed rollcall votes 612-613. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 612 (motion to recommit H.R. 6429, the STEM Jobs Act) and ``no'' on rollcall vote 613 (final passage of H.R. 6429).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry to inquire as to whether it is not the case that during these pro forma sessions legislation may be considered by unanimous consent.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, should it not be possible to consider legislation and to complete work on behalf of the American people including middle class tax cuts, which we all agree upon should be extended, jobs legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, the farm bill, and the fiscal cliff looming causing individuals and businesses uncertainty? For the purposes of a parliamentary inquiry, the list goes on and on. Should it not be possible to consider legislation that the Republican leadership has decided instead to schedule only 8 days of votes between August 3 and November 13? Should it not be possible to consider legislation given the fact that the Republican leadership has left town for 7 weeks, the earliest Congress has recessed for an election in over 50 years? Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a parliamentary inquiry, the American people deserve answers and they deserve action. They deserve more than simply a pro forma session and a do-nothing Congress and Republican obstructionism. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a parliamentary inquiry, Democrats are committed to return to Washington to continue the work of the people, and I would ask my Republican colleagues to join us. Mr. Speaker, is it possible for us to return to work and do the business of the people rather than this pro forma session?

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, September is National Infant Mortality Awareness Month, established to highlight the tragedy of infant deaths across the nation and to raise awareness about programs that help save young lives and ensure our children are healthy. Infant mortality, the rate at which babies die before their first birthday per 1,000 live births, continues to be a key measure of the nation's health and a worldwide indicator of health status and social well-being. Although the overall infant mortality rate (IMR) in the United States steadily declined for several decades, it has leveled off in recent years. Preliminary data indicate that infant mortality rate in this nation declined very slightly to 6.14 in 2010. Unfortunately, this rate continues to be higher than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average and that of most European countries. While modest improvements in the infant mortality rate, along with a national and local focus on preconception health for women of childbearing age, provide welcome changes, much work remains to be done. In Maryland, infant mortality continues to impact women and families at startling rates. For the second year in a row, the infant mortality rate in Maryland remained at 6.7. Though a drop from the 7.2 rate of 2009, the number of infant deaths in the state remains high. Of greater concern, is the disproportionate impact infant mortality has on some communities. In 2011, the infant mortality rate for Prince George's County was 9.5, while in neighboring Montgomery County, the rate stood at 5.3. Though both counties have made significant progress in reducing infant mortality in recent years, our collective attention must continue to focus on making further gains. Of the state's five regions, the National Capital Area, comprising Prince George's and Montgomery counties, had the second-highest rate of infant deaths. Only the Eastern Shore Area experienced a higher rate at 8.9. Across our nation, African American communities experience more than double the rate of infant mortality compared to other populations. In Maryland, the infant mortality rate among African Americans last year was 12.0, fully three times the rate among white infants. Despite efforts to address this disturbing gap, high rates of loss occur among African Americans of all income and education levels. National Infant Mortality Month gives us an opportunity to raise public awareness and to educate women about ways they may reduce infant mortality. With good preconception health, as well as access to good health care during the mother's pregnancy and the early years of the child's life, women can work to lower the incidence of infant mortality. Research indicates that a number of federal programs may reduce the IMR. Programs such as the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and Healthy Start are vital programs tasked with bringing awareness to factors that contribute to the nation's high IMR, including low birth weight, congenital abnormalities, and sudden infant death syndrome. With the support of local organizations and services offered in the 4th Congressional District of Maryland, including the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services and the Suitland Health and Wellness Center, we can advance a number of strategies to reduce infant mortality and help mothers and children live long and healthy lives. I will continue to support and bring awareness to programs that increase access to health care and improve the quality of prenatal and newborn care to prevent the causes of infant mortality. As our nation recovers from these difficult economic times and families may experience gaps in health coverage due to job loss or financial instability, it is especially vital that we continue to support adequate funding for these programs. We need to ensure that our babies get a healthy start and are able to celebrate their first birthday and a lifetime of birthdays.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the congressional career of our colleague, the gentleman and legislator from Illinois' 12th Congressional District, Jerry Costello. It is hard to imagine this Congress, the Science, Space and Technology, SST, Committee, and the Transportation and Infrastructure, T&I, Committee without him as he retires at the end of the 112th Congress. I am happy that he is leaving on his own terms and I wish him every happiness as he moves on to the next phase of life. When I became a Member of the House of Representatives in 2008, I was new to elected public office. I was given the opportunity to serve on the SST and T&I Committees, both of which I have had the honor of serving with Representative Costello. As a new Member of Congress, there are certain members you observe and seek to emulate. Right away, I admired Rep. Costello's preparation, diligence, and his quiet and tempered leadership. Throughout my time in the House, I have seen Representative Costello exhibit these qualities time and time again. That is likely why he has managed a feat rare in this day and age, being admired by both Democrats and Republicans as a man who exemplifies public service. On the T&I Committee, Rep. Costello fought to make air travel safer with the passage of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2007. Responding to the crash of a commuter airplane outside of Buffalo, NY, he sought to improve safety standards to ensure better pilot training in 2009. He has fought tirelessly over his 26 years in the House of Representatives for his constituents by expanding critical infrastructure in the 12th Congressional District of Illinois, growing the local economy, and bringing good paying jobs to the region. Southern Illinois is better off to have had such vigorous and able leadership. All of us in this institution are referred to as the gentlelady or gentleman from the day we are sworn in as a Member of this body. However, Rep. Costello truly deserves that title since he is a true gentleman. His retirement will leave a void in this House that cannot be filled. My first four years in Congress, the House of Representatives, and our country are better off thanks to Jerry Costello's public service and efforts. I wish you Jerry, your wife Georgia Cockrum Costello, your children Jerry II, Gina, and John Patrick, and your eight grandchildren continued success, happiness, and hopefully some well-earned rest. I know they have been of tremendous support to you in your service to this House and our nation. You leave behind a legacy of service that others can and should aspire to.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, can you believe it--Republicans are on their planes, trains, and automobiles headed out of Washington for a month when they haven't provided tax cuts for middle class Americans and for small businesses. That's right, Mr. Speaker: absent without cause, AWOL, while the American people wait. And here they are, we had a chance to provide tax cuts for middle- income families. We had a chance to make sure that middle-income families aren't stretched in this economy; but, instead, they've added nearly $1 trillion to our deficit and debt over the next 10 years because they are interested in protecting millionaires and billionaires. And now they're high-tailing it out of Washington. Well, I can't believe it. Republicans are leaving with the postal service in default; the Violence Against Women Act not reauthorized, leaving domestic violence victims in limbo; jobs legislation undone, leaving Americans who want to work out of work. Well, Jiminy Cricket, Mr. Speaker, what is going on with this do- nothing Congress, with this do-nothing Republican Congress? The American people deserve more, and it's time to get back to work.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, you know, they say that he who pays the piper plays the tune; but unfortunately in today's campaign finance system, it's just like one Johnny One Note, and it's about millionaires and billionaires. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to speak on an important issue. The fact is that our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder. Super PACs, millionaires and billionaires are taking over our election. They're doing what ordinary individuals don't have any capacity to do, and the impact on policymaking and on elections is debilitating. It makes voiceless the very people, Mr. Speaker, who most need a voice in these very troubling times. Our seniors, young people, poor people, working people, women, middle-income families, and small business owners, all of them have just been shut down because of this system. But it's worse now than it was even in the dark days of Watergate. Now, before coming to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I spent nearly 15 years of my career actually working on issues related to campaign finance reform, election law, voting rights, and government ethics, from my time as a lawyer to my service as executive director of several nonprofit organizations; and I just can't think of a worse time than this time that we're living in now. The complexity of balancing important constitutional considerations is really important, but appropriate public policy is also important; and we're just not striking that balance. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you think about it, in the days following Watergate and the reforms that came thereafter, much of the way that we thought about our campaign finance system and that we thought about the role of money in politics and its relation to policymaking was almost completely circumscribed by pretty much one decision and a couple of others, the Buckley v. Valeo decision and all the cases that followed. During that time, we could not have imagined a more desolate campaign finance landscape, in fact, than the one we have here today, Mr. Speaker. Here we are facing the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. Now, you would think that a lot of people would not really be familiar with any one Supreme Court decision, but in fact all across this country people are outraged by that decision because it has been devastating to the political system. Now, Mr. Speaker, my congressional district is in the metropolitan Washington area, in the Maryland suburbs, and so we get the benefit in this area of hearing advertising that comes on television from Virginia. Now, Virginia is a battleground State in the Presidential elections, and so that means that we get to experience in Maryland, where we wouldn't ordinarily, all of the election advertising. What we see is ad after ad. And you can't even read the small print on the ad. You don't know who's paying for it. You don't know where it's coming from. You don't know what's behind it because none of that is disclosed. You hear hammering one candidate or hammering another candidate. And so here you sit, as an ordinary person at home just wanting to get up and take care of your family and make sure that your kids are okay, and this political system has gone amuck and awash in campaign dollars, money coming from all sorts of sources. But what Citizens United did was it upended the role of the people in the process and took away our voice in the face of unlimited, undisclosed sources of money that did not, in the past, have a place in the campaign finance mix. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this can't continue. We can't allow it to go unchecked. It's just been too debilitating to people at home. It has an impact all across the board on participation, on whether people feel that they have a voice in policymaking, on the candidates who choose to run for elected office or not. I can understand why the American people feel like, you know what, I just want to shut down because the system simply isn't working for me. So here we are, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad to have this opportunity to say a few words this evening because we're 97 calendar days away from the November 2012 election, but we're 16 legislative days away. That means that Congress--every elected Member of the House and the Senate-- has 16 legislative days, 16 days of opportunity to restore sanity to the campaign finance system, to let the people know that we actually care about whether their voice is important, versus the voices of the millionaires and the billionaires who get to set the agenda. Sixteen days. There's a lot that you can do in 16 days--or you can do nothing. That's the choice that we have today. So there can't be any doubt that in fact we've entered a really unprecedented era in our political system, where super PACs rule. I didn't even know what a super PAC was, most Americans probably didn't, but we sure do now, where one person, one vote has been more appropriate for a history lesson than a description of the electoral process. How did we get to this framework that allows a free rein to outside organizations, to corporations and their treasuries, to the wealthy, allowing them to raise unlimited amounts of cash to influence American elections? The question really is that we got here because of Citizens United. So, 2 years ago, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, said, you know what, we're going to invalidate everything we've known about the campaign finance system; the Federal Election Campaign Act--which has been rendered pretty much useless; the bipartisan--and I'll repeat that, bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, Campaign Reform Act that was a way that Republicans and Democrats came together for things like disclosure and limiting contributions and circumscribing the role of money in politics, and in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court threw it all out. In doing so, what the Court did was it struck down long- time prohibitions against corporate use of general treasury funds for independent expenditures and for communicating in elections. Now, what the American people need to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that means that no matter what corporation you are, maybe you represent insurance companies or the financial sector or the energy sector or any number of sectors that certainly hire a lot of employees, and they have shareholders, but what the Supreme Court said is we're going to reach into the corporate piggy bank and we're going to allow corporations-- for the first time ever, really, in our modern-day politics--to spend their money directly on campaigns. Now, Mr. Speaker, corporations have name-brand identity, so they don't do this willy-nilly. So what do they do? They pass it through an organization that's a shadow organization so we don't know where that money is coming in directly until after the fact. Maybe we see three- point type on a television screen that flashes right by, Mr. Speaker; but the fact is the American public doesn't know. Now, there had been long-settled cases in this country that said that corporations actually didn't have the ability to spend out of their corporate treasuries when corporations are formed for all kinds of reasons, but not really to spend out of their treasuries like people, real people can and should in the political process. But Citizens United changed all of that. Then came another case. Now keep in mind, this is just in the last 2 years that our system has been completely upended. Then came another case called speechnow.org v. the Federal Election Commission. And what the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided was that contributions to political action committees that only make supposed independent expenditures can't be limited. That's right: unlimited contributions from political action committees. These have come to be known as super PACs. And why are they so super? Because it's unlimited money, and it's just gushing into the political system. In States all across the country that are the favored battleground States, people in those States, and States like North Carolina and Virginia and Ohio and other States, can actually see that money firsthand because it's just being spent like crazy. And you know what? With 97 days, Mr. Speaker, left until the election, there will be more. In fact, I think that the American people will be so sick and tired of the advertising and not knowing who's behind it and the cross- messaging and things that may or may not be true, but you have no way of checking it, the American people are going to be so sick and so outraged that they will continue to demand, as they have been, that we return some sanity to the system. These court decisions, of course, have said that corporations have equal rights to those of an individual. Can you imagine that your local corporation that does a great job of hiring people in your community is on par with an individual when it comes to making a political contribution? But that is, in effect, the land that we live in right now. The result has been a stunning influx of money that threatens to erode our democratic process and leads us to even lower voter participation rates. The danger of Citizens United and the cases that followed was actually heralded by Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in the case. And he couldn't have been more prescient. Here's what he said. He warned that it would ``undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the Nation.'' Well, you don't have to look very far, Mr. Speaker, to know that the American people understand and believe that our institution is about as low as you can go. I mean, all of us have seen the numbers; and it can't be separated, the way that the American people feel about our elected officials, feel about our elected institutions, feel about the ability of our institutions to respond to their everyday needs. We must know that that is deeply connected to the role, the perverse role of money and politics. I don't have to tell the American people. Mr. Speaker, you don't have to tell the American people because they know. They know in their gut that it's actually wrong for corporations to reach in their treasuries and spend on campaigns. They know in their gut that it's wrong for a handful of millionaires and billionaires to control the agenda, to control the policy, to control the message. They know it's wrong. Now, Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion--and, remember, the majority won in Citizens United--stated that ``independent expenditures simply do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'' Clearly, the Justice has not really participated in politics because you don't have to look very far to know that, in fact, the corruption is actually rampant. Now, there is the appearance of corruption, maybe not out right. Nobody's buying or selling a vote. That's not the point. But the point is that it appears to be just really dirty. Most people look at our politics, they look at the nastiness, and you know what, Mr. Speaker? They just want to wash their hands. Now, it's possible that this flow of super PACS into elections would allow for independent expenditures; but the fact is there's nothing independent about it. It's not independent when a family member starts a super PAC. It's not independent when a former business partner starts a super PAC. It's not independent when former colleagues and coworkers start a super PAC and then begin spending on elections not very far from the candidate. And the American people understand this. Now, we can try to pretend that it's something different, but it's not different. The operations of these super PACs provide a stark contrast to the flawed assumptions that the Court made in its ruling. It's up to us in the Congress, in 16 legislative days, 97 days before this important election, to change that dynamic, to say that for the future, that for going forward, we understand that there is no role for this kind of money in our politics. There's no role for it in our elections. And so, although these organizations have been supposedly declared independent by the courts, the reality is that they flout the coordination rules that have set up, that supposedly would keep them independent, staffers, family, friends of a particular candidate that the super PAC is supporting. No great secret. In fact, coming out of the Republican primary elections, it was no secret at all who the millionaires and the billionaires were putting their money behind. And so, while the official campaign and the candidate are allowed to keep their hands clean, and I use that term loosely, clean, these shadow arms of a campaign are used to launch unrelenting attacks against an opponent that they pretend or that are unaffiliated with a particular candidate or an election strategy. It's almost laughable. And in fact I think people at home, when they're not tuning out, in fact they're laughing at us. Justin Stevens' warning materialized initially in the 2010 election. I know that I recall that because for the first time in our history, corporate and wealthy individuals really began to flood the airwaves. And here we are in 2012, and in that 2-year interim, boy, have they figured out this system, Mr. Speaker. And it's all over the place, flooding the entire electoral process. In the 2010 election cycle, the spending by corporations and outside groups actually multiplied fourfold from the 2006 election, going to nearly $300 million, astonishing at that time. But you know what? You haven't seen anything yet. Let's take a look at where we are today. From 2008 to 2010, the average amount spent for a House seat, that is, for a winning candidate, increased 32 percent, from about $2 million to over $2.7 million. But as we know, the worst really was yet to come. At the start of the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries, we really began to see the creep and the crawl and the impact and the danger of Citizens United. And the results, as I said, were on full display in Iowa. Super PACs there actually outspent candidates 2-1. That's right, the so-called independent expenditure groups outspent the actual candidates. The super PACs had a bigger voice than the actual candidates for the Republican primary. Republican Presidential hopeful and former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich, who, at the time, actually supported the Supreme Court's decision, what did he see? He saw his poll numbers plummet after a barrage attack of about $4 million in negative advertising that was paid for by Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting former Governor Mitt Romney and run by his former staffers. The same group then poured nearly $8 million into the Florida primary, with Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting former Speaker Gingrich spending a $6 million ad buy. Let's look at the numbers. And I'm sure the American public, Mr. Speaker, must be saying, I can't believe they spend that much money on politics. But surely they do. And after being targeted by Restore Our Future, former Speaker Gingrich, who, keep in mind, said that he had supported Citizens United, concluded, ``I think,'' referring to the anonymous ads, ``that it debilitates politics.'' He said, ``I think it strengthens millionaires and it weakens middle class candidates.'' I couldn't agree with him more. I could not agree with him more. Mr. Speaker, the landscape has continued to darken as we march toward the general election with groups that are collecting and planning to spend enormous sums of money. American Crossroads and Priorities USA reportedly plan to raise and spend $240 million and $100 million respectively on the election. Just recently, National Public Radio reported that Republican super PACs and other outside groups, including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--supposedly independent--plan to spend a combined $1 billion before election day. That's right. The American people need to understand that. $1 billion. Unless we think that this is just about Republicans, Democrats are trying to play, too. It doesn't matter who is playing. It's wrong. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of August 1-- that's today--705 groups have organized as super PACs and have reported receipts of over $318 million and independent expenditures already of more than $167 million in the 2012 election cycle. That's as of today and here we are. They've got 97 more days to raise more money, to spend more money and to do all of that undercover. I want to put it into stark contrast because just a couple of weeks ago, just 2 weeks ago, the numbers stood at 678. Today, it's 705--who knows what it will be next week?--with receipts of $281 million. Now those receipts are $318 million. Can you do a little math on a multiplier? Because this thing is like rapid fire all across the country in this election cycle. The growth is really out of control. Citizens United will continue to allow super PACs to permeate the airwaves with distortions and with half-truths, all of it in an attempt to alter the political discourse. This is not about what candidates are saying individually. It's hard to even hear directly from them because we're hearing so much from the super PACs. I can recall many years ago when I began working on issues of campaign finance reform, it was the Republicans who said, Do you know what, we don't want all that other regulation, but we love disclosure. It turns out that now, in the day when the majority opinion in Citizens United declared that the one thing that wasn't off limits is actually disclosure, Democrats have put forward a disclosure bill called DISCLOSE, introduced by my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen. Many of us have signed onto it. That disclosure bill was brought up in the Senate. It has been brought up over here in the House. And do you know what? It has gone nowhere. It's the same people who over the last 20 years or more, even since Buckley v. Valeo--certainly more--said we support disclosure. We are robust supporters of disclosure, but not today. Not today, Mr. Speaker. Not today. They don't want to disclose anyone--any individual, any corporation--that's behind these contributions. Why is that? It's about politics, Mr. Speaker. It's because maybe it's working in the favor of those who don't want disclosure, who don't want their names out there, who don't want the American public, whether it's in my district or in any other district, to know who they are and to know what's being spent. Of course, I envision that, like many Members of Congress, you could run the risk as a Member of Congress, to be sure, in speaking out against this nasty, dirty, unlimited money in our politics, and they'll all gang up on you. I'm going to take that risk, Mr. Speaker, because I happen to believe that the American people are sick and tired of it. They want us to do something about it. It's important for us to speak out about that because otherwise we lose everything. We lose participation. We lose people wanting to be involved and engaged in politics and wanting to run for elected office. Those who pay the piper just get to carry on in the process. We can't allow that to happen. So I believe in disclosure, but I don't think we can end at disclosure. I think we have to go a step farther. We want to promote that kind of transparency, though, in the political process. We want to enhance the public reporting by corporations and unions and all outside groups. I'm happy to let anybody know who is funding my elections. All of us should be pleased to do that because we know that it contributes to the public confidence in us as elected officials. I want to stand by any ad and say I approve of this message. Well, a corporation should stand by and say that it approves of that message, too. I want to know who is behind those ads. I think we still have 16 legislative days left in this Congress. Bring DISCLOSE to the floor. It's time to do the right thing. Now, I don't control the agenda on the floor, Mr. Speaker. The Republican majority does. They do have the capacity to bring reforms to this floor before we do anything else. I also think this campaign finance problem requires some other things, too, which is why I've supported the Fair Elections Now Act. It's in the Senate as S. 750, and here in the House it's H.R. 1404. It's modeled after successful programs in the States. There are some people who believe the States are the laboratories for democracy. I share that belief. The States have experimented with ways in which you could fund campaigns to encourage different and more diverse people to run for elective office and with ways that you could clean the dirty money out of the system so that we're not governed by making phone calls and asking people for money to fund our campaigns. I think that the Fair Elections Now Act actually does that, and it's why I've supported it. What would happen is we would create a voluntary program where congressional candidates could actually qualify for funding to run for competitive elections and campaigns. In exchange, what those participating candidates would do--and what I would do as a candidate-- is agree to strict campaign limits and to forgo all private fundraising. To the American public, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is, If you don't own your elections, then who does? Right now we know that we don't own our elections. We need that kind of reform. So I believe those interim reforms are really necessary. Yet as an attorney and as somebody who has spent decades working on campaign finance, I think that we have to go farther. I think that what the Court says is, Congress, you don't have any authority to regulate except by doing disclosure. To me, what that means is that it requires the serious consideration of an amendment to the Constitution. I don't take that lightly. In fact, as an advocate and as a donor long before I came to Congress, I spent the better part of my career shunning attempts by reform groups who would come to me and who wanted me to work on reforms that required us to amend the Constitution. I always said no. The reason is that I think amending the Constitution is a serious step and requires serious consideration, but here the Supreme Court really hasn't left us any choice. In fact, in a couple of cases from Citizens United, they inasmuch have said so. They said pretty directly, Congress, you don't have the authority to regulate campaigns except to the extent that you do disclosure. So I have made a proposal to amend the Constitution. I worked with Laurence Tribe, a noted constitutional professor. I worked with colleagues here in the Congress, including the then-House chairman of the Judiciary, John Conyers in the last Congress. I reintroduced that amendment in this Congress because I think that the time is now. I've always questioned the rationale for the Court's decision, but I've done a reality check because writing this decision requires us to start in the Halls of this Congress. It requires us to continue on to the States with a constitutional amendment. So I've introduced this amendment. I know that, since then, there have been a number of other constitutional amendments introduced. Just last week, I testified over in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution where there is the consideration of a constitutional amendment in the Senate. Now is the time. The other thing that we could do in these legislative days, in addition to bringing the DISCLOSE Act to this floor, is to convene serious hearings among serious people about amending the Constitution so that we can restore sanity to our system and to make sure that our citizens' voices count more than those voices of those just digging into corporate treasuries. I don't think there is even one way to do this, but I think it's important to put something on the table. I urge the consideration by this House of House Joint Resolution 78, which is an amendment to the Constitution. It goes on the very limited track of saying that Congress, indeed, has the authority that it needs under our Constitution to make the changes that we need to of the campaign finance system in order to make sure that elections are owned by the American people. It's a really simple thing to do, and let's take it to the legislatures. Because so many of my colleagues have introduced constitutional amendments also, many of us have actually joined with people all across this country. In fact, millions of people across this country are calling for us to be on the side of democracy, and we've signed on to a declaration for democracy. I'm a proud declarant for democracy. We have 275 cities and towns from New York to Boulder, to Los Angeles, all across the country, big cities, small cities, who have called on a declaration for democracy to pass anti-Citizens United resolutions. We might differ on the subtleties on what this resolution might be, but that's the job of the United States Congress, to hear it out, to hear all sides, to hear from constitutional scholars about how we need to do this, but to do this together for the American people. Over 1,854 public officials across the country, including 92 Members of the House, 28 senators, and over 2,000 business leaders across the country have said it's time for us to take a stand for democracy. They've signed their name to our declaration for democracy. I would encourage all of our colleagues, before you leave town, sign your name to the declaration for democracy. Show the American people that we stand on their side. There's no doubt that it's a bold step to amend a document that's only been amended 27 times, and some would question the need to fix the problem with a constitutional amendment. But the Supreme Court pretty much answered that question unequivocally. The Supreme Court has also said, You know what, if Congress wants to do something, then Congress has to act in this way. I don't question that the Supreme Court made this decision. I accept that. It was a 5-4 ruling. That's the way our system works. The other part of our system is that free thinking Members of the United States House of Representatives and of the Senate come together to do what's right for the American people. Mr. Speaker, here's what I would say in closing. Millionaires and billionaires are really doing simply what ordinary citizens can't do anymore. They've got all the strings. I can understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are people at home who just really aren't sure where they fit in this system. They're not sure what it means for their elected officials to be responsive to them because they believe that there's somebody out there who has more money and, as a result, more power and, as a result, more influence than they do at home. I've traveled all across this country, and I have to tell you that it doesn't matter whether you're in Maine or Montana, or you're all the way down through the South of this country and all across this great landscape, people really want to feel that they have some power, that they have some influence. Mr. Speaker, they just don't have that right now. I just don't even know another way to say that there's a ``for sale'' sign on the doors. I see poor old Uncle Sam here. He's looking mighty sad, Mr. Speaker. I've never seen a more sad looking Uncle Sam. Part of the reason is because he's shackled. He's shackled by $100 million from Priorities USA Action. Uncle Sam is shackled by $300 million from Karl Rove and American Crossroads. Uncle Sam is shackled by $61 million from only 26 billionaires. Uncle Sam is shackled by $39 million from who knows who else. And poor Uncle Sam, sad with his hand out, is shackled by $400 million from the Koch Brothers, shackled by $100 million from Sheldon Adelson. We could put a lot more up there, Mr. Speaker, but it's time for the United States Congress to remove the shackles of money from Uncle Sam so that we don't continue to sell our democracy. It's time for us to remove the shackles. It's time for us to say to the millionaires and billionaires, You've got to play just like the person who gives $5 or $1. Not a lot of people give money to political campaigns. I can certainly understand that. Mr. Speaker, I would close by urging us to use the 16 legislative days that are left to restore democracy, to restore sanity, by acting for the American people to restore the campaign finance system. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House Tuesday afternoon (July 24th), due to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 502 (the motion on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 738) and 503 (H. Res. 738, the rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 4078 and H.R. 6082).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge us to reclaim the security that middle class Americans have lost over the last decade. Beginning in 2001, Republicans passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts, primarily benefiting the wealthiest Americans. We were told these tax cuts would unleash a torrent of job creation and economic growth. That was baloney. It failed miserably. The wealthiest Americans experienced unprecedented gains while middle class families saw their budgets shrink in tandem with rising poverty and the slowest rate of job creation in half a century. Well, lesson learned. It's time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, but not at the expense of middle class families. It's time to extend, without delay or uncertainty, tax cuts for all families, for all income up to $250,000. If we don't, it will be a disaster, and a tax hike will result for those middle class families. Mr. Speaker, it's unacceptable, particularly when Republicans are holding these tax cuts hostage so that wealthy Americans can continue to reap the benefits of a broken system that hasn't worked to the advantage of most Americans and has exploded our deficit. Lesson learned. Let's not let tax cuts expire for people whose income is up to $250,000.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, on my way home from work, I stopped at the local grocery store, and I stopped at the bank. My bank is located conveniently between my grocery store and the gas station, only minutes from my home. I thought about the last 4 years and the fights that Democrats in Congress are waging to make sure working families can see more money in their bank accounts. It's been tough, but we've had some successes: reducing out-of-pocket health care expenses with preventive care, closing the prescription drug doughnut hole, protecting consumers from overdraft and ATM fees, even getting the American auto industry back on track as a mainstay of American manufacturing. But we have some important fights ahead us. We are fighting to keep in place critical middle class tax cuts. We know Americans can't afford those tax hikes. We know American seniors can't afford the drastic cuts in Medicare in the Republican Tea Party budget. Democrats are focused on growing the economy, creating jobs, and ensuring that Americans see more money in our neighborhood bank accounts--not on some other shore, not in some other country, and not on some island. Republicans say they worry about the same things, but today they're repealing health care and protecting the interests of millionaires because they care more about those folks than they do about hardworking Americans and their local bank accounts.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, and join her in opposing the rule and the underlying bill. This is the way it's supposed to work. Passed by the House, passed by the Senate, signed into law by the President, and upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The ruling provided certainty for Americans and businesses all across the country, knowing that the popular provisions they've already enjoyed are going to remain in place, and we can continue to implement the law of the land. So America, here's what Republicans want to take away from you today. They want to take away covering 7 million children, young adults who can remain on their parents health insurance plans until they're 26. They want to ban insurance companies from denying coverage to 17 million children with preexisting conditions. They want to end tax cuts that benefit 360,000 businesses that employ 2 million workers, all provisions that have popular and bipartisan support. But rather than building on and moving forward from last month's ruling, nope, the Republicans, not surprisingly, decided to spend yet another day in Congress considering the repeal of the Affordable Care Act; 31 times that the House will vote on repeal. What a waste of America's time. Thirty times that we haven't voted on jobs bills. Thirty times we haven't focused on extending tax cuts for the middle class. For the American people in congressional districts all across the country, this is also the 31st time that the Republicans have put in jeopardy their access to quality, affordable, and comprehensive care. And so 250 million Americans could lose their benefits and protections with the vote today. It's a step backward for Marylanders like Doug Masiuk, who watched the Affordable Care Act because he couldn't afford to keep paying a third of his income for health care and had started using bags of coins to pay for his medicines. The Affordable Care Act saves Americans like him $4 billion. Families like the Mosbys in my county, in Prince Georges County, who suffered three traumatic health events and fell behind on their mortgage, almost lost their home. But the Affordable Care Act saves 105 million Americans who would reach lifetime limits but for the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans today want to repeal. It's time to get on with it. It's enough. It's time for Republicans to move on, approve the settled law of the land, and start to implement the law. I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule and to vote against this repeal.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is pursuing an unprecedented and a partisan constitutional confrontation today, and it's unnecessary. The contempt resolution that's before the House is both disgraceful and it really is demeaning to this House. It's being brought forth by the other side simply to drag Attorney General Holder through the mud and to publicly accuse him and the administration and, frankly, by extension, the President of the United States, of a coverup, claiming that our Attorney General was obstructing justice. Republicans even went so far as to call him a liar on national television. This is unheard of, it is hyperbolic, and it's disrespectful to the office and disrespectful to this House. The fact is that Chairman Issa and Republicans have continuously moved the goalpost and disregarded the good intent and good faith shown by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the President's administration. As has been said before, the Department of Justice has provided the Congress with over 7,600 pages of documents and made numerous officials available for testimony, but that's been rebuffed. Just last week, the Attorney General offered to provide even more internal documents and requested a show simply of good faith on the part of the Republican majority that they wanted to resolve the contempt issue, but they refused, choosing this constitutional confrontation instead. That's because the Republicans, to be clear, are not interested in a resolution. They're not looking to compromise. They're only looking to score political points at the expense of the integrity of the House and the good name of the President and the Attorney General. So I would ask us to carefully consider what we're doing here today and to raise into question what we're doing to this House, to the institution, and to the Presidency. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ask themselves whether the American people want us to focus on their business, to focus on the business of moving the country forward, or to simply play politics because you can't win any other way. It's a really simple proposition that's in front of us today. And I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: it is time for us to simply walk away from the nonsense that is not doing justice to the American people. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is pursuing an unprecedented and partisan constitutional confrontation today. The contempt resolution before this House is disgraceful and demeaning to the House. It's been brought forth by the other side to drag Attorney General Holder through the mud and publicly accuse him and the Administration by extension the President of the U.S. of a ``cover-up'', claiming that Attorney General Holder was ``obstructing justice.'' Republicans even went so far as to call him a ``liar'' on national television--unheard of, blatantly hyperbolic, and disrespectful to the office. The fact is that Chairman Issa and the Republicans have continuously moved the goalposts and disregarded the good faith shown by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the President's Administration. All told, the Department of Justice has provided Congress with over 7,600 pages of documents and has made numerous high profile officials available for public congressional testimony. The Attorney General himself has answered questions at nine public hearings. Last week, the Attorney General offered to provide even more internal documents, including documents outside of Chairman Issa's subpoena. All the Attorney General requested was a show of good faith on the part of the Republican majority to resolve the contempt issue, but they refused. That's because the Republicans are not looking to compromise. They are looking simply to score political points at the expense of the integrity of the House. And so, on June 11th, Chairman Issa announced his intention to hold a contempt vote. On June 20th, just nine short days later, Chairman Issa called the vote after the President invoked executive privilege. From George Washington to George W. Bush, Presidents of both political parties have asserted executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of certain kinds of executive branch information in response to demands by Congress. In fact, dating back to President Reagan, Presidents have asserted executive privilege 24 times. In previous situations, Committee Chairman put off contempt proceedings in order to conduct serious and careful review of Presidential assertions of executive privilege. Then Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Waxman put off a contempt vote after President Bush asserted executive privilege in the Valarie Plame investigation. Chairman Waxman did the same when President Bush asserted the privilege relating to EPA ozone regulations--on the same day as the contempt vote. Mr. Dingell, as Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee held two hearings before proceeding to a contempt vote, after he received President Reagan's assertion of executive privilege. But on June 20th, after the invocation of executive privilege by President Obama, and over the requests of several committee members to delay action, Chairman Issa proceeded with the contempt vote. One question that comes to my mind is why the rush? The Committee recently ``completed'' a 16-month investigation, one in which the committee refused all Democratic requests for hearings and even for a single witness. Then one week and just seven days after the committee reported out the contempt resolution on a party-line vote on June 20th, the House today will vote on this privileged resolution. The last time the House voted on contempt resolution against executive branch officials was during an investigation in the Bush administration into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. In that situation, the House Judiciary Committee cited two officials for contempt of Congress in July 2007. The full House did not actually consider and vote on those contempt resolutions until eight months later in February 2008. The Obama administration has argued that the documents in question in this instance fall within the executive privilege because they have been generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Justice Department's response to Congressional oversight, not because the President knew more about this matter than he admitted to or that there was a conspiracy in the White House, as Chairman Issa falsely asserts. For some reason, the Republican majority feels that this is a pressing issue. But I can think of a large list of other issues that I feel that Americans would rather we address. It is hard to imagine that the House Republican majority's actions are anything else besides election-year politics designed to make this administration look bad. This resolution will not create jobs, nor will it strengthen our economic recovery. It is far past time to getting around to solving the real problems that the American people sent each of us here to resolve. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider what we are about to do today. Never in our nation's history has the House voted to hold a sitting Attorney General in contempt. I urge my colleagues to vote down this partisan and political contempt resolution.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, our country continues to recover from the worst recession we've faced in generations. This progress is being made despite the best efforts of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who stated that their singular goal is not creating jobs, but in making President Obama a one-term President. In the 18 months since they took the majority, the Republicans have had one constant, and that's been to obstruct, obstruct when it comes to commonsense legislation to move the country forward. Having a transportation bill, passing a long-term surface transportation bill would put 2 million people back to work. They are obstructing in their unwillingness to keep college loans affordable, making sure that on July 1, 7 million students across this country will have their student loan interest rate double. They have been obstructionist when it comes to the Paycheck Fairness Act, the simple task of making sure that women who do the same job with the same experience are paid the same money. Obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. They could have done their part to make things happen for the American people, but they haven't done that. Mr. Speaker, the actions of this Congress will speak louder than words. It's time for the Republicans to show their concern for the American people and not just with partisanship. Stop the obstruction. Let's create jobs for the American people.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague Mr. Moran's amendment to strike this rider in the fiscal year 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. For 40 years, the Clean Water Act has helped remove pollution from our drinking water and protect our precious natural resources. The act regulates the discharge of pollution into navigable waters; but put simply, it makes sure that a glass of water you get from the tap or the fish you catch in any fishing hole or river isn't contaminated by pollutants. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle forget that, before the Clean Water Act was passed, rivers caught on fire; oil spills in inland waters were rampant; and few communities had modern wastewater treatment facilities. The ill-conceived rider in this bill would have a severe impact on my home State of Maryland. In fact, the EPA estimates that 55 percent of the streams in Maryland either do not flow year-round or are ``first order'' headwater streams. These are waters most vulnerable to pollution or destruction if the Army Corps and EPA are not able to adopt policies to restore the longstanding protections for these waters. Without these protections, sewage and industrial waste discharges, oil spills and completely filling in streams for development may not be subject to Federal law even when streams provide drinking water, as they do in the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland. The EPA says that 3,990,016 people in Maryland receive some of their drinking water from areas containing these smaller streams. In Montgomery County alone, 1,846,500 residents are at risk of having their drinking water polluted. These residents use surface water supplied by public drinking water systems that rely on smaller streams that are at risk of losing clean water protections. Also, many waters in Maryland, from small streams to the Chesapeake Bay, are interstate waters. Without strong Federal safeguards for waters of the United States, those States that want to or are able to take State-level steps to protect waters will be unsuccessful. Even with the Clean Water Act, the Potomac River--I live on the banks of the Potomac River--is listed as the most endangered river by the group American Rivers as part of their America's Most Endangered Rivers of 2012. The river receives this inauspicious award because it's polluted by agriculture runoff, sewage runoff from roadways and from enough pharmaceuticals that male fish have been caught with female characteristics. The Anacostia River, which also flows through my district, is polluted by trash, sewage, and other contaminants. A cleanup of the Anacostia is slowly taking place due in no small part to the guidance provided under the Clean Water Act. Urban rivers like the Potomac and Anacostia are affected by runoff from streets and parking structures. I want to pause here for a minute because all of us here in this Capitol receive our water, our tap water and our drinking water, from those waters that I am talking about, from the Anacostia and the Potomac. So keep that in mind, Members of Congress, when you're drinking a glass of water. It's one of the many reasons that I favor public transportation, transit-oriented development, and bike riding. Our air and water are protected when we make smart transportation decisions, and I have to say that we haven't made a single smart transportation and jobs decision in this Congress since the Republicans took over. This is why I support a bipartisan and Senate-passed MAP 21 and hope that the conferees agree to a report that reflects the priorities in that bill, because that's about protecting our drinking water. So let's be clear about what's at stake. The Clean Water Act protects almost 60 percent of U.S. streams, and that's why 33 States joined a brief in the most recent Supreme Court case on the issue urging the Court to uphold Federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non- navigable tributaries. These States noted that Federal safeguards were critical because water flows between States, because maintaining a Federal floor of pollution control creates parity among States, and because States have come to rely on Federal protections and would face significant administrative and financial burdens if they were solely responsible for these requirements. Now the success of the Clean Water Act is being threatened by a dirty-water rider attached to the FY 2013 Energy and Water appropriations bill. I hope you'll join with me and millions of people across the country to stand up for clean water, for safe drinking water, for the health of fishermen, and for fish and wildlife. Future generations will not remember the industries we've made slightly wealthier by rolling back this bipartisan passed bill, but our future generations will know that we are the reason their drinking water is making them sick. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Moran-Dingell amendment and to strike this dangerous and reckless rider. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, from an early age, my parents instilled the importance of obtaining a quality education. They cultivated a love of learning and made it clear how important an education is to success in life. They could not have been more right. Higher education is the single biggest determining factor for lifetime earning potential, with those holding a bachelor's degree earning double the yearly salary of someone with a high school diploma. And yet, while the benefits of education are clear for America's families, my Republican colleagues seem deaf to the message. Even as college tuition has increased 28 percent in the last decade, Republicans continue to play partisan and ideological politics that will only ensure that 7 million students across the country will see their interest rates double in July. They're more concerned with gutting health care reform and protecting the wealthiest 2 percent and Big Oil and corporations than making college more affordable for America's students. And the one time House Republicans put the student loan issue to a vote, they insisted on slashing critical funding for women and children's preventative health care in exchange. If you're thinking, ``Oh, no, not again,'' you're right. It's time for my Republican colleagues to recognize that students deserve better, and it's time to take action to ensure that student loan rates don't increase, don't double by July. Actually, time is running out.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the 45th anniversary of the dedication of the Crossland Vocational Center located in Prince George's County, Maryland. On April 27, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson dedicated the Crossland Vocational Center at Crossland High School in Maryland. President Johnson, as he landed his helicopter on what is now known as Presidential Field, used the dedication to mark the 50th anniversary of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which provided Federal support for vocational schools and helped form separate State boards for vocational education. President Johnson stated during his dedication, ``Once we considered education a public expense. We know now that it is a public investment.'' I couldn't agree more. The world we live in has never been more competitive. Other countries are making investments in their infrastructure, space agencies, and tax codes. We must do the same. We must have an education system that prepares our children for success in the 21st century, and we must do this with our community colleges and in conjunction with building and trade unions, beginning at vocational schools like Crossland Vocational Center. From President Johnson's vision in 1967 to President Obama's commitment today, we have the future in our hands.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I join the United States Conference of Mayors and the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination in opposition to the bill, and I ask unanimous consent to submit their letters for the Record.