Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last week, one of our colleagues who represents a portion of my alma mater, Wake Forest University, stated that she has ``little tolerance'' for those who graduate with high student loan debt, based on her personal experience of working her way through school. I want to share my personal experience. I come from a military family of six children. My father served nearly 30 years. My parents, like many across this country, couldn't afford to pay for all of my college education. But they knew that a college education was our way to achieve the American Dream. And so I had to take out student loans in addition to scholarships and work. I took out nearly $100,000 in student loans from undergraduate school to graduate school, and I borrowed that. I only paid off my last student loan payment 1 month before my primary election in 2008. I was struggling as a single mother and meeting my other responsibilities, but I was thrilled when I made that last payment. Contrary to what's been said about those who take out student loans to finance their education, I'm glad the Federal Government now directly issues all student loans rather than through private banks. Comments that disparage college students and would deprive middle class families like mine to live their American Dream are just out of touch with what's happening across this country and minimize the lengths to which Americans seek higher education to better themselves and their families. The rungs of the ladders of opportunity must be stable and available to all of us--the Federal student loan program, Pell Grants, work study, private scholarships, and, yes, work all provide the package that so many of our students need for college success.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House yesterday (Monday, April 16th) and missed rollcall votes 152 153. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcall votes 152 (H.R. 3001, the Raoul Wallenberg Centennial Celebration Act) and 153 (H.R. 4040, which would provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, budgets are about priorities, and the Budget for All sets priorities for the American people. It's about creating jobs and opportunity, investing in education, investing in our infrastructure, investing in our future. The Budget for All, the Progressive Caucus budget, also makes significant investments in our military that actually prepare our defense forces for the 21st century. The Budget for All is about priorities. And make no mistake, the Republican budget sets completely different priorities. It says to our seniors, we want you to pay more out of your pocket for Medicare; destroys Medicare as we know it; creates a system that's not fair, where young people who want to go to college won't be able to do that because there won't be Pell Grants available for them. The Republican budget says to you that if you actually want to work hard and play by the rules, that you're not going to be treated fairly. It's time for us to have a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people, that makes investments in the American people. The Budget for All makes those investments. I urge my colleagues to read the budget, read the Budget for All, and support the Budget for All, the Progressive Caucus budget that makes important investments in the American people and does not destroy Medicare as we know it.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to our Parliamentarian, our friend John Sullivan, for his service to this Nation and to the United States House of Representatives. His departure as Parliamentarian of the House comes as a sad note to many of us who have come to know John and who have come to depend on his wise counsel and expertise, as I have since I first entered this Chamber in 2008 and as many others have through the years. I am happy that John is leaving on his own terms, and I wish him every happiness as he moves on to the next phase of his life. As has been said, John was born in Chicago, Illinois. He graduated from the Air Force Academy, received a law degree from the Indiana School of Law, and served honorably in the United States Air Force. John has dedicated his life to the noble calling of public service. Whether as an officer in the Air Force, as counsel of the House Armed Services Committee, or as a member of the Parliamentarian's Office for the past quarter century, he has ably served this House for 27 years. Some of my colleagues say 28 years. Others say 25 years. It has been a long time. He served the people of this country, the Nation, for nearly 40 years. The job of the House Parliamentarian is an exceedingly difficult one. We Members would, no doubt, be a rather unruly lot without our Parl. One must have a scholarly grasp of our Constitution and of the rules and legislative procedures governing this Institution, the integrity to be an honest and fair arbiter at all times, and possess the ability to work with both sides of the aisle at sometimes contentious moments. Throughout my time in the House, I've seen John Sullivan exhibit these qualities time and time again. It's a testament as to why he is so well respected by both Republicans and Democrats, which speaks volumes as to how successfully he's handled this job. I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know John, learning from him the importance of the rules and precedent in this institution that he so clearly loves and respects and how to serve fairly and effectively as Speaker pro tempore. Indeed, I tried mightily to imitate his calm and tempered demeanor. I spent quite a bit of time in the 111th Congress doing just that, and it helped me during one of my most proud moments as I presided under John's wisdom and guidance during passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I remember well John's skilled mastery of our House rules when I presided during a blizzard, and our Parliamentarian called to our attention a never-before-used rule to enable us to remain in session without disrupting a lot of winter holiday plans. I also learned that John likes to use sports analogies to describe his work almost as much as I do. He stressed to me and to other Members the importance that when serving as Speaker pro tempore, we become umpires and have to make rulings irrespective of partisan considerations. As important as it is to celebrate and honor John's professionalism, we honor him also as a person. Since John is an avid basketball fan, I wonder if it's a mere coincidence or if there is some deeper meaning in his resignation taking effect this Saturday, March 31, the date of the Final Four of the 2012 NCAA men's college basketball tournament. Though I'm not certain for whom John is cheering in this year's tournament, I do know that he has closely followed former Indiana and Texas Tech Coach Bobby Knight's career since Coach Knight was at West Point decades ago. They have met on numerous occasions, and John has a couple of basketballs signed by Coach Knight. So I wish him an uninterrupted time through the finals. And here, John, through the Speaker, I would just say that it's okay to choose sides. As we say good-bye to John, I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome his respected successor Tom Wickham, the Deputy Parliamentarian, whom John has mentored. And I know Tom and the rest of their team will continue to guard the principles and rules that keep our democracy, our Republic, and this Chamber functioning with the level of dedication and integrity we witnessed from his predecessor. My first 4 years in Congress, the House of Representatives, and our country are better off thanks to John Sullivan's public service. I wish you, John, your wife, Nancy Sands Sullivan, and your children, Michael, Margaret, and Matthew, continued success. John Sullivan has made me a better Member, more willing to heed the gavel, more respectful of the Chair, more able to value this institution, as he does, and more confident as a Member of Congress. I wish you much happiness. I know that your family has been a tremendous support to you and your service in this House and to our Nation. And to John Sullivan, you leave behind a legacy of service that others can and should aspire to, and I thank you.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Prince George's County Fire and EMS Department and to firefighters across this country who are committed every day to keep our communities safe by putting their own lives at risk during times of our greatest need. They each have made the ultimate contribution to our communities--the contribution of personal sacrifice to ensure our safety and well-being. On February 24, 2012, a house fire in Riverdale Heights, MD, took an unexpected turn for the worse. The Prince George's County firefighters advanced into the home searching for victims. High winds that Friday night are believed to have caused a sudden rush of fresh air into the home, creating a ``fireball'' that engulfed the firefighters on the first floor and forced the crews to evacuate the structure. Unfortunately, seven firefighters from three Maryland Volunteer Fire Departments were injured, transported, and treated at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. Six of those injured have been released, with one still remaining at Washington Hospital Center's burn unit. On behalf of the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District, I want to send my appreciation to these individual firefighters and all their colleagues for their relentless dedication to public service. I would also like to recognize the paramedics and the doctors and nurses at the Washington Hospital Center for their compassionate care and treatment these firefighters received. I would like to discuss briefly each of these brave men: Firefighter Kevin O'Toole, 22 years old, a member of the Bladensburg Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad remains hospitalized in stable but critical condition with burns over 50% of his body; Firefighter Ethan Sorrell, 21, of the Bladensburg Fire Department sustained burn injuries to his airway and was released last week; Firefighter Michael McClary, 19, a member of the Riverdale Volunteer Fire Department suffered injuries to his ribs and burns to both hands and was hospitalized overnight before being released; Firefighter Michael Olszewski, 22, of the Riverdale Fire Department sustained burns to the side of the face and was treated and released that same evening; Firefighter Roberto Ramirez, 21, of the Riverdale Fire Department suffered ear burns and was treated and released that same evening; Firefighter Michael Naples, 24, of the Riverdale Fire Department sustained ear and face burns and was treated and released that same evening; and Assistant Chief Ari Schloss, 36 years of age, of the College Park Volunteer Fire Department suffered burns to the hands and was treated and released that same evening. I have seen firsthand how difficult a job our local firefighters have. They are tasked with the tremendous responsibility of meeting the increasingly diverse needs of growing populations with diminishing resources. Today, our first responders are being asked to be the first line of defense in our war on terror, in addition to carrying out traditional fire and public safety work. I want to thank them for their commitment to the citizens and families of this great State. They are Maryland's heroes, and they have my utmost respect and support.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and honor the life of David N. Boddie, a resident of Bowie in the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, who passed away on February 16th. As he is interred at Arlington National Cemetery today, I want to remember the legacy he leaves behind. For more than 40 years, Dave--as he was affectionately known to his colleagues--was an employee of the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), which supplies us with the Congressional Record and the documents to conduct the business of this House. Before arriving at the GPO, Dave Boddie served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam, where he was seriously wounded in combat and received the Purple Heart. After returning home, he worked at the Afro-American Newspaper Company in Baltimore. Dave joined the GPO in 1970 as an apprentice and three years later was converted to a career employee. In 1976, he was promoted to a new position as a Photocomposition Machine Operator, taking his place within one of the greatest technology changes in the GPO's history, as the agency converted from hot metal typesetting to electronic photocomposition. Two years later, Dave entered the management and supervisory ranks at GPO, and he became a Foreperson in 1987. In August 1999, Dave was named Foreperson-in-Charge, and in 2003, he was promoted to Assistant to the Production Manager, Night Operations, on the second shift. He continued to rise through the management ranks, becoming Printing Officer and Assistant Production Manager in December 2005. In 2006, Dave was named the third-shift Assistant Production Manager, effectively becoming GPO's Night Production Manager, with the key responsibility for ensuring the completion of the Congressional Record and other congressional work by morning. Dave was the first African American employee ever named to this position in GPO's 150-year history of service to Congress and this Nation. He retired from Federal service in 2011. Dave Boddie's record of service to our country, both as a Marine and through his accomplished career as a Federal employee at GPO, was characterized by sacrifice, by hard work and dedication to duty, and most of all by achievement, which was recognized by his promotions leading ultimately to one of the most critically important positions of leadership within GPO. He leaves behind a legacy of service that others can aspire to. Now that his time on earth has come to an end, it is my hope that David N. Boddie has found the peace he has earned. On behalf of this House, I extend our sincere condolences to his wife, Kim and daughter Monica, and the thanks of a grateful Nation.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to a previously scheduled doctor's appointment, I was absent from votes in the House last Thursday (February 9th) and missed rollcall votes 47 and 48. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcall votes--47 (the House Amendment to S. 2038--the STOCK Act) and 48 (motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3630--the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I'd like to enter into the Record three letters from representatives of public employees and retirees who are wondering why it is that they've had to sacrifice $60 billion of reductions over the last decade when they didn't create the deficit and yet they're asked to pay for it. The National Treasury Employees Union, February 16, 2012. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 150,000 federal employees represented by NTEU, I am writing to urge you to VOTE NO on the conference report on H.R. 3630, the payroll tax extension legislation. This conference report singles out one group--federal employees--to offset fully half the cost ($15 out of $30 billion) of the unemployment insurance extension included in the bill, while there are no offsets included for the payroll holiday extension. Federal employees are in the second year of a two year pay freeze that is contributing $60 billion to deficit reduction. It is unconscionable to come back to them for a second $15 billion hit, while no other group has been asked to sacrifice. Under this agreement, millionaires and billionaires continue to keep their tax cuts and corporations that have shipped jobs overseas keep their tax loopholes, but middle class federal employees who guard our borders, keep our food and water safe and protect our financial systems will get a 2.3% pay cut due to increases in pension contributions with no increase in benefits. While the payroll tax holiday extension and the unemployment insurance extension only last for the next 10 months, the loss to a new federal employee making $50,000 a year that is $1,000 per year, every year for the rest of their career. This is not shared sacrifice, it is targeting one group of middle class workers for an extremely disproportionate burden. We urge you to vote no on the conference report on H.R. 3630. For more information, contact Maureen.Gilman@NTEU.org. Sincerely, Colleen M. Kelley, National President.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 3 million seniors represented by the Alliance for Retired Americans, I rise with my Democratic colleagues to accept their valentine for our vote to improve Medicare under the health care reform law. Our seniors deserve love, care, and support every day. But today, on a day when people all across the country are celebrating with their loved ones, let us stand together and show our appreciation to the more than 47 million seniors who make up the fabric of our country. In my State of Maryland, the Affordable Care Act is already working to provide more than 70,000 seniors with preventive care benefits and offers a 50 percent discount for prescription drugs to nearly 4,000 beneficiaries who enter the Medicare part D doughnut hole. The Ryan budget, lauded by Republicans, would replace Medicare with an inefficient voucher plan and increase the out-of-pocket costs of Maryland seniors by more than $6,800 in the first year alone. And while they charge the health reform bill cut Medicare, Republicans fail to admit that they adopted in their plan the same $500 billion in ``cuts''--actually cost savings--included in the health care reform law. So I stand with my colleagues to assure seniors that we'll protect Medicare today and in the future. And to all of those seniors I visited this morning, Happy Valentine's Day.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to a previously scheduled doctor's appointment, I was absent from votes in the House yesterday afternoon (Tuesday, February 7th) and missed rollcall votes 40-42. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 40 (the Tonko Amendment to H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act) and 41 (motion to recommit H.R. 3581), and ``no'' on rollcall vote 42 (final passage of H.R. 3581).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my support for the administration's ruling that provides women and families across this country, no matter their faith, the opportunity to take control of their own reproductive health and to gain access to contraceptive services. The opposition we are hearing--although very vocal, from very few voices--does not adequately reflect the voices of the millions of women across this country who rely on contraception. Mr. Speaker, 99 percent of women in the United States and 98 percent of Catholic women already use birth control; and it's estimated that, on average, women use birth control for 30 years. Polls conducted across the country over the last week also have found that more than half of the United States population believes that employers should provide health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. Unfortunately, over the last week, since the administration's ruling, I believe religious leaders have misinterpreted and misled the American people on the rule's implications. The exemption in the ruling actually very carefully protects the rights of churches and church associations. The administration justly limits the exemption of institutions whose main purpose is for spreading religion and employ and serve people of the same faith. Clearly, the opposition doesn't express this. Extending this exemption beyond these churches to other religious institutions would directly undermine the intent of the health care reform law for the more than 640,000 individuals employed, in particular, by Catholic hospitals. And let's be clear: Contrary to what some have said, this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. In fact, the ruling will save women up to $600 per year and keep their employers from absorbing a 15 to 17 percent increase in health care costs simply not to provide women with contraceptive coverage. Women and families across the country deserve the option to receive comprehensive contraception coverage if they desire. The rule doesn't prescribe contraception to women. If a woman chooses to exercise her faith and not use contraception, she's free to do so under this ruling. However, limiting access to contraception to any subset of the population would be a direct affront to the scientific and medical recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. Catholic institutions are in an untenable position. After all, where is it that we would draw the line? Should those institutions exercise their role as employers rather than their role in their faith tradition? I would argue that of course this is about their role as an employer. What, for example, would the government do if these institutions also believed that they should exempt themselves from paying payroll taxes because they believe that under their faith tradition people's responsibility is to tithe instead? Would we allow them to self-exempt from payroll taxes? I don't think so. Contraception and maternal health is all a part of a woman's comprehensive health care, just like breast exams, screenings, and well-woman visits. Fifty percent of pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and it's widely understood that these unplanned pregnancies are not as healthy as planned pregnancies. This can cost taxpayers up to $11 billion a year. And at a time when the other side is slashing budgets and proposing reforms to shift costs to States, this ruling is about as smart as we get for our health care system, for women and families, for babies, and for American taxpayers. Making certain women and families have the opportunity to plan pregnancy is critical for our society. The administration's ruling protects women, families, and babies, eliminates discrimination of one group of women over another, and it's important for us. The ruling respects the religious beliefs and freedoms of all Americans and health care providers while it ensures that women have the full option to pursue contraception. I stand with my colleagues in support of the administration's rule and look forward to working to expand health care coverage and women's health care coverage. At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague from Connecticut, the Honorable Rosa DeLauro, who is a true leader for women's health care, and I appreciate her leadership.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, with another deadline approaching, we're reminded again of the debacle that was the end of the last session when Members on the other side stood in the way of extending tax cuts for 160 million Americans and unemployment benefits for millions more. This is really unacceptable. Madam Speaker, I want to share with you the sentiments of Mary Hill of Maryland. I received a letter from her this week. She's a single mother. She's a construction worker, and she's a member of Laborers' Local 657. She writes to me that she's been out of work for most of the last 3 years. In her first year here, she writes: I went through all my savings as well as my children's savings. I went from visions of having my skills, education, vocation, certifications, and ethics embraced to receiving food stamps, a medical card, and watching my unemployment run out. I want to work. I need to work. I work every day as a volunteer organizer. My passion is for myself and others to achieve and live the American Dream. Hard work should be rewarded, and it is rewarding. Nevertheless, my rent is due. I owe credit cards and a student loan. I thought I would own a house by now. Madam Speaker, we have to restore unemployment benefits for millions of Americans like Mary Hill.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the resolution previously noticed.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I didn't think I'd have to take to the floor again; but now that the House Republicans have walked away from the American people, it bears notice. There are 160 million American people across this country who are going to see their taxes go up come January 1. There are 2.3 million Americans, including 46,000 of them in my home State of Maryland, who will not get an unemployment check. There are 48 million Americans, mostly our seniors, who are going to see their benefits essentially ripped out from under them in Medicare as their doctors won't be able to treat them because their doctors are getting a cut. I'm not really sure which Christmas House Republicans are celebrating, but in my house it's a Christmas of charity and of goodness. I am so saddened that here in this House we have ripped out from under the Christmas tree the Christmas for millions of American families who will not get to go into the New Year with a tax cut and who will go into the New Year without an unemployment check. The House Republicans have done a great disservice to this country.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a) paragraph 1 of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to offer a resolution to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas an article on December 15, 2011, on the ``Politico Pro'' newspaper website quoted the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, as saying, ``If Joseph Goebbels was around, he'd be very proud of the Democrat Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine. I think that you have, and let's be honest, you know, some of the people in the media are complicit in this, in enabling them to get that type of message out.''; Whereas Joseph Goebbels served as the Third Reich's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933-1945; Whereas Joseph Goebbels openly used xenophobia and racism in his quest to dehumanize European Jewry; Whereas Joseph Goebbels made Jews the scapegoat of German economic insecurity, fostering flagrant anti-Semitism; Whereas the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reports ``that Joseph Goebbels delivered a passionate anti-Semitic speech to the Nazi party faithful in Munich on November 9, 1938 . . . After the speech, Nazi officials order the Storm Troopers (SA) and other party formations to attack Jews and to destroy their homes, businesses, and houses of worship. The violence against Jews lasts into the morning hours of November 10th, and becomes known as Kristallnacht--the `Night of Broken Glass'. Several dozen Jews lose their lives and tens of thousands are arrested and sent to concentration camps.''; Whereas Nazi Germany and their collaborators killed six million European Jews and millions of others as part of their ``Final Solution''; Whereas by invoking the specter of Joseph Goebbels, the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, thoroughly belittles the horrors and suffering experienced by the victims and survivors of the Holocaust; Whereas the American Jewish Committee issued a December 15, 2011, statement saying ``To make a linkage between any mainstream political party in the United States and the heinous atrocities committed by the Third Reich should be simply beyond the pale, whatever political differences may arise in a heated electoral season . . . By invoking the image of Joseph Goebbels and the Gestapo, Representative West has displayed a complete lack of understanding of the worst genocidal era in human history. Moreover, he has diminished and trivialized the unique evil perpetrated by the Third Reich through his unfortunate use of language''; Whereas the Anti-Defamation League said in a December 16, 2011, letter to the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, ``We were deeply dismayed by Rep. West's remark comparing the Democratic Party's attempts to articulate views to the American people through the media to the efforts of the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels . . . Such outrageous Holocaust analogies have no place in our political dialogue. They are offensive, they trivialize real historical events, and they diminish the memory of the six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust''; Whereas the Representative from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, wrote in a letter to the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, that the Representative from Florida should ``help raise the level of congressional discourse in a vigorous debate''; Whereas the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, responded back in a letter to the Representative from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, that ``The Democrat Party does indeed have a vicious propaganda machine, it espouses lies and deceit and the Master of deceptive information would be truly proud''; Whereas in the repetition of this abhorrent and outrageous sentiment to the Representative from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, demonstrates not only the willful and malicious misapplication of history, but also his disdain for the decorum of the Congress; and Whereas the conduct of the Representative from Florida was repugnant: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from Florida, Mr. West, for bringing discredit to the House by offending the memory of those who died during the Holocaust.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. 160 million Americans are wondering why Republicans want to raise their taxes on January 1. There are 2.2 million Americans wondering why the Republicans think that what unemployment people need is a drug test instead of a job or, in the absence of that, unemployment benefits. Doctors all across this country who treat Medicare patients, Mr. Speaker, are wondering why it is that Republicans want to ensure that their doctors receive 25 percent less than they should for treating Medicare patients. I have to tell you, I am with the American public. I'm completely confused about why Republicans in this Congress want to send Americans into January 2012 without an unemployment check, with a raise in their taxes, and cutting their Medicare benefits. That's what the American people want to know and don't understand. And they want to know why these House Republicans can't go along with what House Democrats want to do, what Senate Democrats already voted to do, what Republicans in the Senate already voted to. And it's time for us to do the business of the American people.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our servicemen and -women who end their mission in Iraq. Like many, I woke this morning to the End of Mission ceremony, and I thought about Corporal Benny ``Gray'' Cockerham, III of North Carolina. He was the son of my good friends Ben and Jill Cockerham. He lost his life at age 21 in al-Anbar province in Iraq on October 21, 2005. Like his father, he joined the Marine Corps in service to this Nation, and he is survived by Ben and Jill; his wife, Amanda; and his brother, Adam. And like the 4,486 other men and women who lost their lives in Iraq, the mission has ended. I want to pay tribute today to all of our servicemen and -women for their service and for their sacrifice and especially to my friends Ben and Jill for the loss of your son. I remember when he was born on June 28, as we shared a birthday, and I want you to know that the Nation is ever grateful for all your sacrifice and for your service.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as families prepare for the holidays, many will gather to watch some of our favorite holiday movies. In my family, we always enjoyed watching ``How the Grinch Stole Christmas,'' tuning into ``A Christmas Carol,'' and one of my favorites, ``It's a Wonderful Life.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it won't be necessary to visit the local Redbox or scour the TV Guide listings or order the movies on Netflix. Americans across this country can tune in to C-SPAN and watch our own version of the Grinch and Ebenezer Scrooge and Henry Potter, our House holiday humbugs right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. The American people can only hope, however, that they can redeem themselves, our holiday humbugs, the way these characters did. But I fear that's not possible. Yesterday, House Republicans brought to the floor a payroll tax credit and an unemployment insurance proposal trimmed in controversial riders and deceit. The holiday humbugs, the GOP leadership, decorated the payroll tax credit and unemployment insurance bill with a controversial Keystone pipeline rider to sweeten the deal for their caucus. But that wasn't enough. The majority gilded the proposal with cuts to essential health care reform funding, a freeze in Federal employee pay for yet another year, and a cut in the length of emergency unemployment insurance and blocking the administration from moving forward on environmental protections that will help our families breathe, drink, and live more healthfully. Now, today, we heard from the House holiday humbugs that the big problem facing the unemployed that House Republicans tried to fix yesterday was drug testing for the unemployed. Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem for the unemployed isn't drugs, it's a job. And in the absence of a job, it's an unemployment check. So for the holidays, my Republican colleagues put on their list a proposal that would dip further into the pockets of low and middle- income families that buy health insurance in the new health exchanges. And during this holiday season, at a time in our Nation's economy when consumption has grown by only 5 percent since June 2009, our Holiday Humbug proposal by Republicans would cut holes in the pockets of millions of our Nation's consumers. The legislation passed in the House yesterday would freeze the compensation of 2.65 million Federal employees all across this country, Federal employees who are consumers, Mr. Speaker. So while the special interests and the Wall Street fat cats and the big oil companies are enjoying their large Christmas bonuses, Federal employees who have already contributed $60 million in forgone pay for deficit reduction will be required to give up even more. The Republican plan hits struggling families even harder. In fact, the bill passed yesterday by our holiday humbugs eliminates 40 weeks of unemployment insurance. The funding for this program not only helps families check off items on their Christmas list--things like rent, things like childcare, and things like groceries--but the funding brings money back into the American economy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that every dollar of benefits spent on unemployment compensation generates about $2 of additional economic activity. That's money directly into our economy. The Republican proposal passed in the House yesterday would eliminate over $22 billion in economic growth and result in the loss of 140,000 jobs in 2012. That's what happened in this House yesterday. My colleague, Sander Levin from Michigan, recognized that the legislative ``holiday gift'' that the Republicans thought they were providing the American worker this Christmas is just one big lump of coal. Their proposal would leave millions of Americans out in the cold this holiday season while imposing additional barriers to receiving assistance and diminishing the protections of unemployed workers. Throughout the day yesterday the holiday humbugs kept trying to point to places where we could compromise. Well, the American people are asking: Why not simply compromise on a clean extension of the payroll tax credit for 160 million workers and unemployment insurance? Why not ensure that 160 million hardworking families can benefit from the average of $1,000 they will receive from the payroll tax credit--again, right into the economy. Yesterday the Republican majority decided they would rather risk raising taxes and digging into the pockets of families all across this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, not even Scrooge could do what we saw on the floor yesterday. In the end, our holiday humbugs--the Grinch, Mr. Scrooge, and even Mr. Potter--learned that there is redemption. It's time for our House Republicans to do the same. I urge the majority to instead bring to the floor a sensible and thoughtful piece of legislation to extend unemployment compensation and the payroll tax credit.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Joyce Timmons from Suitland, Maryland, called my office to say that the extra money in her paycheck from the soon-to-expire payroll tax cut is important to her and her family. Joyce and 160 million workers are wondering why my Republican colleagues are now for raising taxes on working people before they were against raising taxes. That's right. The Republicans oppose extending the payroll tax cut except by blackmail. By extending the tax cut, working people like Joyce Timmons would receive, on average, a thousand dollars next year. It's not a $10,000 bet; it's real money in the economy. Republicans go out of their way to block job creation and protect tax cuts for the 1 percenters, but they want to raise taxes for the 99 percenters. And they won't stop there. More than a million Americans have been out of work for a really long time, including 25,000 Marylanders; yet Republicans want to be the grinch who stole Christmas by denying an unemployment check so that people who want to work but can't find work can buy groceries, pay rent and utilities, and tide their families over. Republicans want to go home for the holidays, but they want working people to pay more in taxes next year and lose out on an unemployment check. The Grinch became a good guy; Scrooge found a heart; even Mr. Potter changed his tune. It's time for Republicans to change too.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding. I want to congratulate Congressman Hanna. It's been a privilege to be able to work with Mr. Hanna on his efforts in resolving some issues that have held up the passage of H.R. 2061--and I'm glad that we're here today--the Civilian Service Recognition Act. When Federal civilian servants take the oath of office, they solemnly swear to ``defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies, both foreign and domestic.'' This legislation would authorize the head of an executive agency to give a U.S. flag to the next of kin of a deceased employee who dies at home or abroad of injuries incurred in connection with his or her employment with the government. The bill specifies that the employee would have to die due to injuries sustained with a criminal act, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or other circumstance as determined by the President. The legislation is a well-deserved reminder of the important work done by our civilian employees, particularly when Federal employees have been so criticized and placed on the chopping block during the recent debates. H.R. 2061 is a modest but significant show of gratitude to our Federal civilian employees and the families of deceased public servants for their duty to the United States Government. According to the Office of Personnel Management, over 100,000 civilian Federal employees have served in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside our military forces. As the daughter of a career servicemember, I know well the numerous sacrifices that members of our armed services, public servants, and their families make, and this doesn't in any way diminish the service that they engage in every day. What it says, though, is that for those who serve in harm's way and who lose their lives, that we value their service as well. And very similar to members of the Armed Forces, members of the Federal civilian workforce often risk their lives to carry out official duties critical to the Federal Government's foreign and domestic missions. OPM reports that more than 3,000 Federal employees have been killed in the line of duty since 1992. In 2008, as the gentleman from Virginia mentioned, an FBI special agent was tragically shot and killed during a joint DEA, FBI, and local police department raid. This special agent began his law enforcement career with the Ocean City, Maryland, Police Department and later served with the Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department. Another brave Marylander, a DEA special agent who graduated from the University of Maryland, was killed in 2009 when the U.S. military helicopter he was in crashed while returning from a joint counternarcotics mission in western Afghanistan. I want to recognize the dedication of these civil servants. This is a long-overdue recognition to the 146,000 Federal employees living in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District, many of whom place their lives on the line every day. I know that when I had the privilege of joining our servicemembers and our civilians in Afghanistan, I found many employed with the Department of Agriculture, Homeland Security, the IRS--virtually every agency of the United States serving in that dangerous and hostile theater. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Hanna and the chair and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their work on this bill. I commend passage of this legislation and urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2061, the Civilian Service Recognition Act.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, designated as such in 1987. Since then, victims and their advocates have come together each October to shed light on this insidious and still far too pervasive social ill. As co-founder of the National Network to End Domestic Violence and its first Executive Director, I worked with domestic violence advocates and policymakers to bring about critical programming and changes in national public policy through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 for victims of domestic abuse. Since passage, great strides have been made to call attention and provide resources to address domestic violence. But the fight is far from over. Millions of women continue to suffer from assaults and rapes that cause long-term physical and mental health problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year, victims experience about 7.7 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes at a cost of $5.8 billion, including $4.1 billion in direct health care expenses. As our economy recovers, it is important to appreciate the impact that the economic downturn has had on services providers due to increased demand, but limited resources. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, domestic violence is more than three times as likely to occur when couples are experiencing high levels of financial strain. The sad truth is service providers struggle to serve victims with constrained budgets. According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, 92% of victim service providers have seen an increased demand, but 84% reported that cutbacks in funding were directly affecting their work. This past Tuesday, October 25th, I was joined by the Prince George's County State's Attorney Office, Congressional staffers, victims' rights advocates, law enforcement, and providers on a tour of the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Center (DV/SAC) at the Prince George's Hospital in Cheverly, Maryland. The tour not only commemorated Domestic Violence Awareness Month, but provided all participants with a better understanding of the vital work being done by victim advocates in my State of Maryland and across our country, as well as the growing demand for special services for victims in this economic climate. Established in 1973 and expanded in 2010, DV/SAC is located in the 4th Congressional District of Maryland, which I have the honor of representing in this Chamber. It offers a full range of hospital-based domestic violence services. The Center operates 24 hours a day and includes crisis intervention, crisis and follow-up counseling, safety planning, danger assessment, referral services, and victim advocacy. In 2010, DV/SAC provided sexual assault forensic exams and counseling to over 300 new victims, 1,700 individual and group counseling sessions, and over 1,000 crisis line inquiries answered, in addition to training medical staff and collaborating with community partners. It is vitally important that we quickly reauthorize the life-saving and essential programs that protect so many women and families across our country. These programs save lives, contribute to our Nation's economic well-being, and break the devastating cycle of violence for future generations. We also need to maintain and even increase critical Family Violence Prevention and Service Act (FVPSA) and VAWA funding in these challenging economic times for not only our Nation, but also all the families across the United States. The prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault throughout the country takes the work of a community and a commitment to providing women and men with resources and information to protect themselves. I look forward to continue working with victims, advocates, providers, and other Members of Congress in obtaining the necessary funding for these vital programs, while also working to strengthen VAWA through its reauthorization.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last month was National Infant Mortality Awareness Month and was established to highlight the tragic occurrences of infant deaths across the nation and to raise awareness about those programs that can help save lives and ensure our children are healthy. As we know, infant mortality, the rate at which babies die before their first birthday, is an important 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 (U.S.) steadily declined for several decades, it has leveled off for the past several years. In 2009, the rate of infant deaths before age one for the U.S. was 6.4 per 1,000 live births. Unfortunately, the U.S. IMR is higher than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average and that of most European countries. Though the rate for Maryland has dropped from 7.2 to 6.7, the rates throughout the state remain astoundingly high. Last year, the infant mortality rate for Prince George's County was 9.0 or 22% of all infant deaths in the state of Maryland. Montgomery County realized a decline from 5.5 the previous year to 4.3 this year, but still had the fourth highest number of deaths in Maryland (behind Baltimore City, Prince George's County, and Baltimore County). In our nation, minority communities are especially affected by higher IMR. For example, across the country African Americans have higher incidences of infant mortality than do their white counterparts. In Maryland, the IMR for African American mothers was 11.8 compared to 4.1 for white mothers. These statistics bring to light the staggering disparities between race, ethnicity, age, education, and socio-economic levels. National Infant Mortality Month gives us an opportunity to raise public awareness about the levels at which this problem continues to affect our communities, and to educate women about ways they may reduce infant mortality with good health care during the mother's pregnancy and the early years of the child's life. 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 infant mortality rate, including low birth weight, congenital abnormalities, and sudden infant death syndrome. With the support of local organizations and clinics like 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, transitions, and 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 to celebrate their first birthday and beyond. I am pleased that even though the House of Representatives did not recognize National Infant Mortality Awareness Month by passing a resolution, the Senate did. By doing so, it brought much needed attention and awareness to the importance of reducing our infant mortality rate.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. What I'd like to say is that, given that we know that in poor minority populations they have the worst health outcomes by any measure and coal ash impoundments are disproportionately located in low-income communities that are less likely to have medical access to insurance and care, we have to be concerned. This body needs to be concerned. And if we pass this bill, we will unfairly expose these vulnerable communities to higher levels of threatening health and property risk than the rest of the population. I think, Madam Chair, we can do a lot better; and in this Congress, we should be looking out for people, not failing to create jobs, contaminating their water, and poisoning their air.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chairwoman, it seems that hardly a day goes by in this Chamber when the Republican majority fails to create jobs, endangers public health, and deep sixes the environment, and today is no different. Coal plants are usually accompanied by coal ash ponds and dry coal ash landfills, and they're disproportionately located in impoverished areas. Two-thirds of all of the ash ponds in the United States are located where household income is below the national median, according to Earthjustice. What that means is that poor people don't have a voice in what the majority is trying to do; and we can't rely on a voluntary patchwork of State regulations, which is what this bill would have us do. Now, in my own home State of Maryland, we have a decent record of environmental regulations, but I can't say that about our neighboring States. We need a national way to look at how we're contaminating or not our environments. The contamination of groundwater at the Gambrills coal ash plant in Maryland resulted in the single largest fine ever imposed by our State's Department of the Environment, and a $57 million settlement for the affected homeowners and businesses. The problem is that money can pay for medical treatment and compensate for the loss of property value in the right way, but it can't bring back health. It can't reverse the developmental disabilities or preserve the sense of home for people who are displaced. Now, I said some of the affected homeowners in that settlement, because even in this case we see discrimination. The neighboring population of Odenton, Maryland, is a rural African American community, and it's still battling contamination from the Turner Pit site belonging to the same power plant. Their drinking water aquifers and creeks feeding into the Patuxent River, which is an important source of potable water for the entire metropolitan Washington region, remains polluted. They've seen no cleanup. They've yet to receive any compensation for lost health and property values. What they got instead is a steady supply of free bottled water, courtesy of the polluting power plant--I mean, it's absurd--and an extension of a shopping mall to cover the contamination site; not to cover the contamination, but to cover the contamination site.