Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on just 25 Republicans to join 195 Democrats to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and to raise wages for tip workers whose $2.13-an-hour wages haven't been raised in 23 years. The current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour has failed to keep pace with the cost of living, leaving families struggling to fill the gap. Even if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you still live below the poverty line. You rely on taxpayer-funded programs such as nutrition assistance, energy assistance, and housing assistance. In short, the profit lines of multinational corporations are being subsidized by taxpayers who fill the gap between the mandated minimum wage and what constitutes a fair wage, what people need to live on. This has an even greater impact for women, who often work for only 77 cents on a dollar; for African American women, 64 cents on a dollar; for Latinos, 58 cents on a dollar. Seventy percent of low-wage workers in this country are women. So, essentially, we need to raise the tip minimum wage and raise the regular minimum wage. It is the fair thing to do. I call on my Republican colleagues, just 25 of them, to raise the minimum wage.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Women's History Month and to recognize the important role that women play in our workforce, businesses, and homes. In fact, 40 percent of working women are the primary breadwinners in their families, and it is just a fact that the success of our Nation relies on the economic security of women. Unfortunately, outdated policies are constraining the ability of women to participate fully in our economy. Many face a lack of good-paying jobs, a high cost of education and child care. In fact, two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, and the poverty rate for women is 14.5 percent--the highest in two decades. Women earn just 77 cents on the dollar. For African American women, it is only 64 cents on the dollar. For Latinas, it is a shocking 58 cents on the dollar. That is why House Democrats have launched an economic agenda for women: When Women Succeed, America Succeeds. We have got to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, increase tipped wages which haven't been raised in 23 years, have equal pay for equal work, paid sick days, and access to quality, affordable child care. Women are playing an expanded role in our economy and in our country. It is time we recognize their contribution because, when women succeed, America succeeds.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in opposition to H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. It sounds good, but it should be known as the ``Preventing New Parks Act.'' This bill would severely restrict this and any future President's authority to establish a national monument, eliminating a crucial part of our Nation's conservation strategy. In this current poisonous climate, the majority has made it nearly impossible for Congress to conserve land for future generations using the legislative process. This past Congress, in fact, was the first since World War II to not protect a single acre of land as a national park, monument, or wilderness area--not one single acre. Just last year, there was a significant bipartisan effort on the part of the President and others to designate the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, of which I am an original cosponsor, but that bill failed to even make it out of the committee--with public support and with family support, failed to make it out of committee. Just yesterday, we celebrated the first anniversary of the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument located in my State of Maryland and designated as a national monument by President Obama using his authority under the Antiquities Act. I was in the Oval Office with the descendants of Harriet Tubman and the people of that community who had been working for years for this designation. I saw what it meant to the community. They believed that it meant economic development, also. Had H.R. 1459 been passed a year ago, this monument to a national hero would probably be stuck in the arbitrary hurdles and redundant research this bill proposes. National monuments are an important part of telling our American story, and yet, currently, only 26 of our Nation's 460 national parks have a primary focus on African Americans, and just eight are dedicated to women. That includes the Harriet Tubman Park.

Ms. EDWARDS. Rather than rolling back the President's ability to preserve both our national history and our natural heritage, we should be encouraging this and future administrations to continue to work for the common good--for the public good--that this necessary preservation work entails. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to attending a previously scheduled meeting at the White House with President Obama, I was absent from votes in the House on Wednesday afternoon (March 12) and missed rollcall votes 1201-124. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 120 (Conyers amendment); ``yea'' on rollcall No. 121 (Nadler amendment); ``yea'' on rollcall No. 122 (Jackson-Lee amendment); ``yea'' on rollcall No. 123 (Motion to Recommit H.R. 4138 with Instructions); and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 124 (final passage of H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to attending a previously scheduled event with President Obama in the 4th Congressional District of Maryland, which I have the honor of representing in the House of Representatives, I was absent from votes in the House this morhing (Wednesday, January 29th) and missed rollcall vote 31. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 31 (final passage of the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 3824, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. It is unencumbered; it is unconditional; and we could put that on the floor today to extend unemployment benefits for all of those Americans--1.3 million of them--who lost their unemployment benefits as of December 28. In the couple of weeks since then, another 218,700 Americans have also lost their unemployment benefits. We are talking about a modest benefit here, Madam Speaker, $313 a week, on average, to pay for food, housing and gas to look for a job. Over the holidays, I spent some time with unemployed workers at our local electrical union; and every time a job appears, 200 workers show up to try to get that job. These people are hardworking, and they have earned the benefit. It is time to put H.R. 3824 on the floor today. Americans must be saying, Come on, Congress, get your act together, and pass an extended unemployment bill.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you to the gentleman from Maryland, my friend and my colleague, for all of your work in getting us to this point. Thank you to my friend also, Chairman Ryan, for getting us to this point, and to all of the conferees. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the bipartisan Budget Act. Though I support the agreement, it isn't the bill that I would have written. It is not the bill that I would have written to fully protect Federal employees, today's employees and future employees. It is not the bill that I would have written to protect 1.3 million Americans who are about to lose their emergency unemployment insurance--22,900 of them in Maryland--just at the holidays. It is not the bill that I would have written that would reduce cost-of-living adjustments for our Nation's military retirees. It is not the bill that I would have written to protect the commuter tax credit. But do you know what? I didn't write this legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is a compromise. It is a negotiation. It is not perfect, but I support it. The agreement does ensure that current Federal employees will get their cost-of-living increases this year. They won't face the uncertainties of furloughs, and they will face stability for the next couple of years. This compromise rejects the draconian proposal in the chairman's budget that would have made Federal employees pay 5.5 percent more for retirement at a cost of $20 billion, but that is not in this bill. This agreement does roll back sequestration cuts using spending cuts and new revenue. And the agreement increases nondefense discrimination spending by replacing almost two-thirds of this year's cuts, bringing the funding down to $77 billion above the Republican's preferred budget levels. The agreement doesn't cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits, not by a single penny. What the agreement does is it allows Congress and this Nation to get out of the dysfunction and the obstruction and to get on to other business of protecting the American people, perhaps allowing us to focus on unemployment insurance extension, immigration, infrastructure investment, and all of the things that it takes to protect our economy. I support this legislation. Let's get on with it.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California because every week you are here talking about what we can do and what we should be doing to create jobs in this country. Now, I have heard it said by some that there is nothing that the Congress can or should do to try to create jobs. Well, that is just a bunch of hooey. We know that the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, has a lot of capacity to help spur private sector job creation, but we haven't done it in this Congress. We have had an opportunity, but we haven't done it in this Congress. I thought as you put that quote up there by Franklin Roosevelt, when I think of all the memorials there are here in Washington, D.C.--and there are plenty of them, free to the public, paid by the taxpayers. One of my favorite is the FDR memorial, and the reason is because as you are walking through that memorial, you have there, in bronze, replicas of people standing in line: standing in line waiting for assistance, standing in line waiting for a job. When President Franklin Roosevelt saw what was happening in this country, try to come out of that Great Depression, he didn't say, oh, well, there is nothing we can do. Now, it is true, he did have some Members of Congress who were fighting him every step of the way, who didn't want to do what it would take to wholesale the Federal Government all in, investing in the American public, investing in job training, investing in rebuilding this country. Franklin Roosevelt knew the difference, and he pushed for that so that all of those people standing in that line would have jobs. And that is what I see when I go to the memorial. Now, if you take the trail along from the FDR memorial, you can walk along the pathway and it brings you to the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial--another great man who stood at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial, calling for us to put people to work for equality, right on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Each man, including Lincoln, in their time calling on the Congress: do the right thing. Well, now, Mr. Garamendi, it is our time. It is our time to invest in our infrastructure that by all accounts is crumbling. And you know what, we don't even need experts to see that our roads, our bridges, our railways are crumbling. We don't need those experts because we can see that for ourselves. I see it when I drive over some of our bridges in Maryland. I see it across our roads. I see the crumbling bridges. Now we wait. When a bridge does in fact fall, potentially injuring or even killing people, and certainly killing the economy around it, oh, we are all in. The Congress is right there, injecting the Federal resources that it takes, but why do we have to wait until a bridge falls for the Congress to do the right thing to invest in our infrastructure, knowing that every investment of a billion dollars creates 35,000 new jobs in the economy? If we were doing what it would take just to keep up, we would be investing about $200 billion. Think of the millions of jobs we could create by making those investments.

Ms. EDWARDS. Go right ahead.

Ms. EDWARDS. Bridges falling down.

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. Because what we can see is that with that decades-long disinvestment in our infrastructure, not only do we have new needs, but we have the old ones, the old repairs stacking up. I am glad that you mentioned unemployment, because as the gentleman from Nevada mentioned, unemployment in so many areas is still up there. Now, across the country, I am proud to say that last week unemployment numbers were reported 7 percent--the lowest since November 2008, the lowest since when I first came into this Congress. In some ways, it has been despite us. I think the President, the administration, have done all of the things that they can do, the private sector that they can do. But think if we had those infrastructure investments. We could tick off 2 more percentage points on unemployment with a robust investment in this Nation's infrastructure. That is about building for the future; that is about building for the 21st-century economy. Yet here we are-- and as the gentleman from Nevada pointed out--unemployment benefits end for about 1.3 million people; 1.9 million Americans' unemployment will end December 28. Now, here we are in Congress--and we have taken a lot of breaks this year without creating any jobs, and we are about to take another one, another really long one--and on December 28 some of our Members will be finishing up their holiday leftovers. Some people will be sitting with their children looking through their toys and the goodies that they have gotten over the holiday season, and then there will be 1.9 million Americans who will lose their unemployment benefits in the first half of 2014, 1.3 million who will lose those benefits on December 28, and we will be opening up gifts. That is an embarrassment; it is an absolute embarrassment. So while we could be doing things that create jobs and opportunity for the American people, instead we are doing something that is actually going to cost jobs. Not extending unemployment benefits, not only is it bad for all of those people who will lose their benefits; it also is going to cost the economy another 200,000 jobs. So what we are doing in our inaction in Congress is actually counterproductive to putting the American people back to work. Do you know what? I would like to say that it is the responsibility of all of us as Members of Congress; but the fact is, much to our chagrin, Democrats don't control the gavel in this House; the Republicans control it. And tomorrow, and certainly within the next 72 hours before we leave town for vacation, Republicans could put a bill on the floor that would extend unemployment benefits that would expire on December 28 for the American people so that those unemployed persons can afford to have a Christmas, a holiday, for their families. But I don't see it in the offing. I can tell you this right now: if Democrats controlled that gavel, Mr. Speaker, we would be extending unemployment benefits, but we are not doing that. I want to close very quickly and have a little bit of a dialogue, because I want to tell you what unemployment means. It means 37 percent of the unemployed workers in this country have been unemployed for more than 6 months. So it is true, our unemployment numbers have ticked down; but for 37 percent of those unemployed workers, it has been a long time. These are skilled workers. They are laborers who because the construction jobs are not quite up to par they are not working the way that they were. They are people who have scientific and technical skills. Because we are not making the kinds of investments we need in research and development, and I know that has been of particular importance to the gentleman, those workers are unemployed. The gentleman put up the picture there of the people who were standing in line in his district at a job fair. Well, I held a job fair in my district. Over 2,000 people, 100 employers, job seekers, people who want to work, who are unemployed now but who want to work. What is the harm in providing unemployment benefits for those workers? Now, I have heard some on the other side of the aisle say things like, well, if you provide unemployment benefits, then it will make people less likely to go out and find a job. Well, clearly that is somebody who has never received unemployment benefits. I had the misfortune of having to apply for unemployment at one point in my life. I didn't want to be unemployed, but I sure needed that benefit to get me to the point where I could then find a job. That is what our job seekers do--1.3 million of them who will not have unemployment benefits come December 28, who will not be able to provide. Forget providing for a holiday or a Christmas celebration. How about putting food on the table? And this, Mr. Garamendi, at the same time that there are some who are contemplating taking away $40 billion from food stamps. So take away unemployment benefits, take away food stamps, the nutrition program that also supplies our food pantries, and then say, do you know what, unemployed Americans, you are on your own. Well, that is not the kind of America, Mr. Garamendi, that you and I believe in. We believe in the kind of America where as a Congress we make a decision about investing in our infrastructure, supporting research and development so that all of those innovators and creators out there can create more jobs, making sure that we have a manufacturing sector that really works in this country, and putting people back to work. I will just close by saying I don't really get this. But I tell you what, the Grinch is in full force right now. The Grinch is out there saying, I am taking your unemployment, I am taking away your food stamps, I am not going to create any jobs. Do you know what? That is not good for America. But we are saying, Happy Holidays, and in 72 hours the Congress goes home and people who are on unemployment lose their benefits.

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. EDWARDS. As the gentleman was speaking, I thought to myself: What could the American people do if they learned that on December 28 unemployment benefits will end for 1.3 million of their fellow Americans? Is there something they could do? Well, I always thought when I wasn't in Congress that the one thing people can do to stop this atrocity so that we can fix it before we leave town in 72 hours, they can call their Members of Congress. They can use social media and reach out to their Members of Congress. That is what they can do because this should not be allowed to happen. We can create jobs so that, come the spring construction season, workers go back to work. But in the meantime, people can call their Member of Congress and say: Extend unemployment benefits, or don't go home for Christmas.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and service of Sheila Leigh Stewart, a former resident of Laurel in the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland. She died unexpectedly and tragically on October 24, 2013. A memorial service for Sheila will be held on Friday, December 6, 2013, at First Baptist Church of Glenarden in Landover, Maryland. I want to remember the legacy Ms. Stewart leaves behind. Ms. Sheila Stewart had a long and distinguished career of more than 25 years in the broadcasting industry. She epitomized the traits of a good citizen, serving our communities as an organizer of engagement and charitable giving. I join all of the metropolitan Washington area in mourning the loss of a great woman and unparalleled public citizen. Ms. Stewart was born in Fairfield County, South Carolina, on February 28, 1969. She graduated from Benedict College in Columbia, South Carolina, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Broadcast Journalism, and also worked as an adjunct Professor of Journalism at several colleges. Known by radio listeners as ``Ms. Community,'' Ms. Stewart worked for years in Charlotte at Power98, WPEG-FM, where she served as on-air- personality and news and public affairs director. When she relocated to the Washington, DC, area, Sheila worked as the news and community affairs director for Radio One. She was at the helm of news programming at WKYS, Radio One's DC station, and the company's other affiliates, including Praise 104.1, WPRS-FM. At Radio One, Ms. Stewart was instrumental in advocating on behalf of community issues, nonprofit organizations, and events that helped improve neighborhoods throughout our region. She was guided in every way by her faith. Her energy and passion to make change will be missed. With her passing, it is my hope that Sheila Leigh Stewart has found the peace earned from such a wonderful life. Ms. Stewart made a difference in our community with everything she did, and I am grateful for her life and service to Prince George's County, Maryland, and our country. On behalf of this House, I extend our condolences to her entire family, especially her precious young son, Jonathan Henry Russell; her mother, Dorothy Stewart; her four sisters; her three brothers; and Radio One, and the thanks of a grateful nation. I will miss her tremendously.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I probably will not use all of the 5 minutes, but I wanted to be here today, Mr. Speaker, to support H.R. 3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. I want to thank both our chairmen--the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Palazzo, and Chairman Smith--and, of course, our ranking Democrat on the committee, Ms. Johnson, because we would not have been able to get to this point if we hadn't been able collectively, across the aisle, to work on a 1-year extension that would be provided for in Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 1988 that established the government-private risk-sharing regime for third-party liability. Should a launch accident occur, the effects that involve the public and property on the ground in this indemnification provision would cover such losses. It turns out that commercial space launch capacity in the industry is really at a critical point in our Nation's development of our space infrastructure. Both the Federal and commercial customers rely on commercial space launch, the industry for safe, reliable, and effective service, and delivering payloads in orbit and providing related space transportation services. Just recently, in September of this year, a commercial space launch provider successfully lofted a cargo capsule into space to carry supplies to the international space station. This is exactly what we have in mind when we talk about integrating our commercial launch capacity with what we do already at NASA in terms of our scientific endeavors. Mr. Speaker, commercial space transportation services have really always been carried out in partnership with the United States Government through the use of Federal launch ranges and services, for example, and through the government risk-sharing regime for protecting the uninvolved public and property should an accident occur. So it seems quite fitting that we have reached this point today. Unfortunately, the reason that we are only able to do a 1-year extension and can agree on that is because there are also some other things that we need to figure out for the future with respect to the involvement of the commercial industry. It is my hope that over the course of this 1 year we will use that time wisely here in the Congress to have the kind of oversight hearings that we need to bring in the FAA so that we can make sure that we are venturing in this direction in the right kind of way that really takes into consideration what we are doing in the 21st century. New entrants are delivering spacecraft to orbit, commercial resupply services to the international space station, and companies are working toward providing commercial human spaceflight on both reusable suborbital vehicles and orbital human spaceflight systems. In fact, although I have been, admittedly, a skeptic, I am excited about the potential of the industry and I want it to succeed. Just last year, in a hearing on launch indemnification before the committee's Space Subcommittee of which I am the ranking member, a senior official representing the Aerospace Industries Association characterized the continuation of U.S. space launch indemnification as providing ``substantial upside potential to enable new markets, create jobs, and assure U.S. space technology leadership for the 21st century.'' It is easy to see how that upside is both national and local in scope. The launch capability at nearby Wallace air facility on the eastern shore is becoming a critical link to resupplying the international space station. Commercial space companies make investments in our economy and create jobs all across the country. Specifically, in my home State of Maryland, companies like Lockheed Martin, Orbital, and Northrop Grumman employ thousands of people in my district alone creating high-tech jobs, high-skilled jobs in the local community. ATK is a leading aerospace provider and has its main headquarters right up in Beltsville, Maryland, not very far from here. Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure that our legislation and policies regarding commercial space transportation reflect the changing industry, changes and activities that may not have been contemplated when the liability indemnification regime was first established. This 1-year extension provides Congress the opportunity to consider any potential changes that might be needed to ensure the continued safety of the public. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join us today in supporting H.R. 3547.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last month was National Infant Mortality Awareness Month. With the theme A Healthy Baby Begins with You and You and You, the month is established to highlight the tragic occurrences of infant deaths across the nation, and to bring attention to programs that can help save lives and ensure our children are healthy. Measured as a rate of infant deaths per 1,000 live births, infant mortality refers to deaths that occurred during infancy, in the first year of life, or from a live birth to age one. Not all infant deaths are preventable, but with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), we can begin to reduce the risk of infant death. The ACA is an investment in both the health of women and the health of newborns. Health care for women, preconception health, reproductive health, and maternity and well child care are covered benefits. One in five women of childbearing age is currently uninsured. With the enactment of this law, approximately 17 million women will have an increased opportunity to access and receive regular preventive services and prenatal care. Although the overall infant mortality rate (IMR) in the United States declined steadily for several decades, it has leveled off for the past several years. In 2011, the rate of infant deaths before age one for the U.S. was 6.05 per 1,000 live births. According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the U.S. IMR continues to be higher than the rates in most other developed countries, and the gap between the U.S. IMR and the rates for the countries with the lowest infant mortality appears to be widening. In Maryland, infant mortality profoundly impacts women and their families. The most recent Maryland Vital Statistics numbers indicate an overall IMR in our State of 6.3 in 2012. The average IMR dropped from 9.5 to 8.6 in Prince George's County during 2012, while it rose from 5.1 in 2011 to 6.4 in 2012 in Anne Arundel County. While Prince George's County experienced a decline in the African- American IMR last year--from 10.5 to 9.3--the rate remains significantly higher than the white IMR of 6.4. Likewise, while Anne Arundel County experienced a steep drop in the African-American IMR-- from 13.0 in 2011 to 9.0 in 2012--the rate remains nearly double that of the white rate, which in 2012 increased to 5.5. And, in nearby Montgomery County, the IMR was reduced to 5.1 last year but the African-American rate stood at 8.2, almost double the rate for white infants at 4.2. This alarming and ongoing disparity across our region challenges us to continue seeking answers and solutions. National Infant Mortality Month provides us a chance to raise public education and 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. A number of federal programs strive to reduce the IMR, by improving the health status of low-income women and children. These federal programs include Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grants, Medicaid, and Healthy Start. Local organizations and clinics like Bright Beginnings of Prince George's County, Mary's Center, Anne Arundel County Department of Health, and Storks Nest in Anne Arundel County, and Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services and SMILE in Montgomery County offer a number of approaches 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 improve access to health care and increase the quality of prenatal and newborn care to prevent the causes of infant mortality. Communities can play an important role in this endeavor by encouraging women to seek care before they become pregnant and during their first trimester. Also, we can all share information about some of the factors that affect infant mortality including smoking, substance abuse, poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, and sudden infant death syndrome. We must ensure that our babies get a healthy start, to celebrate their first birthday and beyond, and bring much needed attention and awareness to the importance of reducing our infant mortality rate.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Dr. Sarah Leonhard, who retired last month after more than 18 years of dedicated service to the Greater Baden Medical Services (GBMS) and the surrounding community of Southern Maryland. Sally, as she is known to many, received a bachelor's degree from Loyola University in New Orleans, a medical degree from the University of Miami School of Medicine, and a law degree from the University of Maryland in Baltimore. Few people can claim to embody the spirit of compassion and community engagement as completely as Sally. An active participant in the Regional Primary Care Coalition, she was also the president of the Community Health Integrated Partnership. Sally is licensed by both the Maryland Board of Physicians and the Maryland State Bar. The state of Maryland has long benefited from Sally's tenure in the health care field. In addition to serving as the Chief Executive Officer of GBMS for the past 12 years, she previously served as the Medical Director for the multi-site Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). Under her leadership, the FQHC has grown to provide primary health care services to more than 15,000 patients annually in Prince George's, Charles, and St. Mary's counties. Sally has played a pivotal role in ensuring uninsured and underserved individuals and families throughout Southern Maryland have access to affordable primary care, and her leadership will be greatly missed. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Dr. Sarah Leonhard on an exceptional career in the field of public health. On behalf of all Marylanders, I wish her the best in all future endeavors.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. I know that you join with your colleague, Mr. Poe of Texas, in hosting this hour so that we can have an opportunity to remember why it is that we identify and commemorate Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and to make a commitment from this day forward, and from this coming year to the next time we have this observance, to do what we can to end domestic violence. I think, after all, that is the goal. I can't remember, Mr. Green, when I first became interested in domestic violence, or even aware of domestic violence, but I look back to the times when I was growing up. I grew up in a military family. We lived in very close quarters. We shared a wall in that military family housing with our neighbor. In our neighbor's house, there was clearly something going on. My sister and I shared a bedroom, and we could hear what was going on, and it was violent. It was clearly violent. I don't know that I understood that at the time, Mr. Speaker, but I have come to understand it as an adult. It frames my commitment, lifelong commitment, to ending domestic violence. I remember at that time the military police being called. They would come and they would drive the gentleman around the block, and then he would be delivered right back home. Then a few nights later, the exact same thing would happen again. I remember my sister and I seeing the woman who lived next door, and we were friends with their children, and I remember seeing her. I was always intrigued by her dark glasses and her great makeup and the scarves that she wore around her neck. It wasn't until later that I understood that she was covering her black eye, she was covering the bruises on her neck, she was covering the bruises on her face from having been a victim of domestic violence. It was many, many years, in fact, as an adult where I came to really process and understand what was going on. I think because domestic violence affects so many around the country, and most particularly it affects women, that there is almost a chance that in any given family or at a family reunion or family gathering, if you probe just enough, you will find someone who has experienced domestic violence. Very sadly, you will also find many young children who have witnessed domestic violence. I think that we have only to look at the children who are growing up in homes where mostly their mothers are being abused, and then we wonder why it is that when we look at the population of young people who are incarcerated, and when you ask them one by one--and I have done this, I have visited incarcerated youth-- almost to a one they will tell you that either they have been the victims of violence or they grew up in a violent home. I think, Mr. Speaker, it must resonate with us that we have to ask ourselves why it is that we continue to have violence, and what it is that we can do to get to the root cause of that violence. So in addition, during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, to identify the fact that we lose about $8 billion a year in productivity that is lost because of domestic violence--lost time off of work, medical expenses, and the rest--we know that it is a social ill that is very pervasive. We also know that there are other kinds of crimes that are associated with domestic violence--stalking is one of those, sexual assault within a relationship. Mr. Speaker, we also are aware that our young women, ages 16 to 24, are more likely than not to experience some form of violence in those relationships. So earlier this year--and it took us some time to get there, Mr. Speaker--we did finally reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The Violence Against Women Act, which was first authorized in 1994--I was a part of that, helped to lead that effort on the outside, where our leaders in Congress were leading on the inside, leaders like our now Vice-President Joe Biden, who was in the Senate and who took this bull by the horns and led us to the passage of the first Violence Against Women Act that was signed into law by President Clinton. It was the first time ever that the Federal Government came forward and said, we have a real commitment to ending domestic violence by providing resources for shelters and services, training law enforcement, making sure that our judges were equipped to handle these cases in court, providing advocacy services for those who are experiencing violence, and going through the system. Over each successive couple of years, we have reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. We did that just recently. As I have said, in these tough economic times, it has been very difficult. All of a sudden, domestic violence became partisan and political. I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that we did finally reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act again. We are providing those resources to those who experience violence. But it should also come as no surprise that as we engage in the fiscal debates that we have here in the Congress, that because of sequester and shutting down the government even, that many of those shelters and services and programs are, in fact, experiencing a really difficult time at the same time that they are experiencing more demand. I don't say that, Mr. Speaker, to call out one side or the other, but I am glad we are back at a point where in this Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we take the politics out of domestic violence, and we say to women, whether you are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, or you don't think about politics at all, that we care about ending domestic violence, we care about the fact, Mr. Speaker, that more women are placed in a much more dangerous circumstance when there is a weapon in the home and that weapon is used to either kill or harm or threaten the lives of those who are in the home. That is something that we can do something about. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this last year, we lost a really powerful advocate for those who experience domestic violence. When Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey died earlier this year, we remembered him in a lot of ways as a leader, Mr. Speaker, but on this Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I would like the Nation to remember Senator Lautenberg because he was the one who spearheaded the domestic violence firearm prevention that said that if you are committing domestic violence and you have a domestic violence offense, that you cannot purchase or possess a weapon. The Federal Government and the Congress recognized the importance of removing a weapon from a home where there is domestic violence. Senator Lautenberg was the champion. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close--I know that we have other speakers--and just say that this Member of Congress, and I know that our colleagues here today, remain committed to ending domestic violence, to making sure that women can achieve their fullest potential by living in a home that is free of violence. And, in fact, as we look around the world, whether it is in Afghanistan or Iraq or it is in South or Central America or in Africa, in many nations women experience violence in relationships in their homes. But, Mr. Speaker, if we can end that violence in the home, then we would do a lot to make certain that children are growing up healthy and able to have healthy relationships and that women are able to achieve their fullest potential. So I join you today in calling attention to Domestic Violence Awareness Month and to redoubling our commitment to end domestic violence. I say a special thank you and salute to an organization that I started--now I don't know--15 to 20 years ago, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and all of the networks of advocates around the country who are committed to the same things that we are. And if only we can provide the resources that they need to do their work, I am convinced that we can end this scourge.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today generally in support of the reauthorization of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, but I do want to express a couple of concerns that I have. One is this discussion about reforms that I think really put in jeopardy what it is that we are trying to do, both in terms of developing our water resources and also protecting our environment. I am concerned about the streamlining under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. It doesn't slow down projects. In fact, it ensures that the general public, State and local government officials, and industry have a seat at the table when Federal agencies make decisions that impact our communities. Indeed, I am offering an amendment, along with my colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. DeFazio, that would restore our confidence in the system to make sure that we are really protecting our environment. My other concern, Mr. Speaker, is an amendment that is going to be offered, the Young and Petri amendment, that would, in fact, go back to the private sector for services instead of leaving that to the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers. I look forward to further working on these issues.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Nevada for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what my colleagues have said: it is time for us to bring a clean funding resolution to the floor of the House that would get a majority of Democratic support, and it would get strong Republican support to reopen the government. Not to reopen it in pieces, but to reopen all of government for all Americans. It's time for us to do that now. We've had several funding bills that have come to the floor to fund bits and snippets of the Federal Government, but that's really not the way to do it. In fact, as the gentleman knows, the government was shut down by Republicans, and it wasn't shut down piecemeal. So it should not be reopened piecemeal; it should be opened in full. I represent a district in Maryland that has a lot of Federal workers, workers who work at virtually every agency of the Federal Government. And I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought forward piecemeal funding bills that fund a handful of agencies. There are 486 Federal agencies, and we haven't brought 486 funding bills to this floor. So it's rather silly to propose funding the government in these little snippets. These three workers were in my office. One of them works for the Environmental Protection Agency. The other works for the Department of Health and Human Services and, in fact, at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, and the other one works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As I talked to the workers, I cannot even begin to explain to you how devastated they felt being tagged nonessential, knowing that their work is vital, but not really feeling validated as workers. That was kind of one thing. The other thing is that they're doing their jobs because they believe in their jobs. They believe in the work that they're doing for the government. They believe in the work that they're doing for taxpayers. Lastly, they're worried about all of the work that goes undone. They're worried at EPA about letting the public know that inspections about conditions of water and other things in the environment in communities across this country are not happening because the EPA is not in business. The worker who was in my office, Julia, who works at the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Speaker, is worried because in the work that she does, her specific job is to train Medicare providers so that they indicate the right codes when they submit for payment so that there's not fraud. The other part of her job is that she's supposed to look through those claims and make sure that if there is any indication of a problem or fraud, that it gets referred to the inspector general and gets referred to the Department of Justice. At a time when we're both implementing health care, but also when Medicare is being used, it's really important that Julia's job actually saves taxpayers money, and yet she's at home. The worker who came to my office today, Emma, from NASA, is very concerned because part of her job is working on systems that would help deliver us our next generation of weather satellites because we have a gap in our satellite coverage. The farther we get behind in developing that new weather satellite, it means that it puts all of us in jeopardy in terms of receiving the information that we need. Mr. Speaker, as Americans know, we don't get our weather from The Weather Channel; we get our weather from the National Weather Service, from the folks at NOAA, from the people at NASA, and yet they are at home. The other thing that these workers explained to me is the great personal cost to them. Seconda, who works at the Environmental Protection Agency, told me today that she takes care of her mother, in addition to herself and other family members, on her salary, and that she has been worried and up nights and unable to sleep because she's not really clear how she's going to be able to meet those expenses. Julia, who works at CMS and HHS, has an 11-year-old child who had brain damage when he was born, and he's a special-needs child. Aiden has a wonderful smile and a beautiful face and voice, and he needs his mom, but they've also been able to take care of services for him with the salary that she makes at HHS. Emma at NASA said to me that her 12-year-old and 14-year-old really don't understand why she's at home instead of going to work. These workers aren't just a faceless bureaucracy. They have lives and they have responsibilities. With the Federal Government shut down, we're not enabling them to meet those responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that they said to me is if you open up the government piecemeal, it doesn't really help them out. Take the example of Julia at HHS. If her job is to make referrals to the Department of Justice and to the Office of the Inspector General, and she's at her job, if by some fortuitous chance our Republican colleagues decide to restart HHS, what that means is that she doesn't have anybody to refer that fraud to because they're not on the job at the Department of Justice. If NASA is working and NOAA is not, then that joint work that takes place between agencies can't. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that every week that the Federal Government is shut down, it costs taxpayers $10 billion. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has been shut down now for a week. Chalk up $10 billion to the taxpayers. So you can see that the entire purpose of the strategy to shut down government is, in fact, costing taxpayers money. Finally, I will share with you what I read in the paper today, Mr. Speaker. Three scientists and researchers won the Nobel Prize for medicine. They won the prize for developing a way to track cell traffic so that it could make determinations about when appropriate packages of cells in the body are being delivered for certain purposes. In doing that, it would help us make discoveries for immunological diseases, for neurological diseases, for things like diabetes. Some of these scientists had been working under a grant from the National Institutes of Health for about the last 30 years. It made me think that if we are not funding the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that do research right now, that the work that they've been doing for the last 30 years is work, if you think forward 30 years, we're going to be missing because we've failed to fund the kind of research that we need. So there are ripple effects to the cost of shutting down the Federal Government. Finally, in my district, I plan every year to have a college fair for the students in my district. Usually about 2,500 to 3,000 students show up. Our college fair is supposed to come up this weekend. We usually get assistance from NASA. They bring all kinds of projects and experiments to the science fair to get young people engaged in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields so that we can get them invested in tackling these jobs for the 21st century. We usually get assistance from the Department of Education to educate young people about loan and grant opportunities that might be available to them as they decide to make their college selections. I just got an email, even as I was sitting here on the floor, that none of these agencies will be able to participate in a college fair for our young people who are preparing to go to college next year, and they're going to miss out on those opportunities about learning of what's available to them and the challenges that they face because the Federal Government has shut down. This is a really sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, on the impact of the shutdown and the ripple effect that that has both throughout our economy and in our local communities. So I will close by urging Speaker Boehner, Mr. Speaker, to please bring a clean funding bill to the floor of the House of Representatives, let it come up for a vote. You know what? If it fails, it does. But I know that in this body Republicans and Democrats like me will support that bill, and we'll do it, even though I don't agree with the number, I never supported the number. But I know that even though it is a Republican number, I'm going to agree with it because it will restart government. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for us to open up all of the Federal Government for all Americans.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I rise in support of H.R. 3223, and I speak in support of Tracy in Laurel who lives in my district who works at HHS. She helps her mom out every month with her Federal salary; and Christopher and his wife, both of whom work at the Department of Homeland Security, live in Millersville, and they are both on furlough. And Dini, who is a single parent in Oxon Hill, she has already been furloughed this summer and suffers mightily. So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the right thing to do; but let's keep in mind that the longer we stay out, meeting the day-to-day needs of our Federal workforce is really tough. Some of these people will really struggle even if they are guaranteed retroactive pay. It's time for us to get the entire government back to work.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we are in day five of the Republican shutdown, without an end in sight. Let's be clear that this is a manufactured crisis designed to promote ideology at the expense of needs of our constituents, the American people. Today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. I am an original cosponsor of this vital piece of legislation to ensure furloughed federal employees receive back pay for the duration of the government shutdown, regardless of their work status. I would like to thank my Virginia colleagues, Representatives Moran and Wolf, for their leadership on this issue and I am proud to be a part of the bipartisan Washington-area delegation that drafted and introduced this bill that will provide some certainty to federal workers and their families. Roughly 800,000 federal workers across the country, who work hard to make our nation a safer and better place to live, will lose their pay because they have been furloughed as a result of the government shutdown unless Congress and the President enact legislation to ensure their pay. Under this legislation, federal workers would get retroactive pay, regardless of their furlough status, once the government is funded. Federal workers should not be held responsible for Congress' inability to pass a budget. Yet, it is the American people, including millions of federal workers, and the U.S. economy who will pay the price. They are workers like Tracey out in Laurel, Maryland, who has contacted my office. She works at the Department of Health and Human Services and besides meeting her own obligations, she helps her mother pay bills each month. When she called my office, she was crying, she was in tears, because she wants this shutdown to stop so that she can get back to work and to pay her bills. As Tracey knows all too well, government employees have already shouldered a great deal of the burden of past deficit reduction measures and have lived through the pain of sequestration. Civilian federal employees already have been subjected to a three-year pay freeze, and automatic, across-the-board budget cuts resulted in furloughs for thousands of workers this summer. They are workers like Dini who lives in Oxon Hill--and I too live in Oxon Hill. She is a single parent who was already furloughed earlier this summer, and now she isn't sure how she is going to pay the bills or take care of her child. In fact, some of these federal workers still have to pay childcare to keep the spot in daycare, even though they are not being paid, they are not working, and may not even have their child at the daycare facility. Then there are workers like Christopher from Millersville: He and his wife are both employed at the Department of Homeland Security in support of the security of this nation. They were both furloughed earlier this summer, and they find themselves furloughed once again. That is why this legislation is so critical to ensure our federal workers receive the back-pay they deserve. The time is long over-due to provide certainty to our dedicated public servants, who we rely on for public safety, research, and national security. Today's proposal shields family pocketbooks and reaffirms our commitment to our federal workforce--providing these employees with retroactive compensation, as we have historically done in past shutdowns. Federal workers who stay on the job during a shutdown are paid but not until the government is back up and running. Authorizing back pay is an important step for furloughed federal workers. So with passage of this legislation, all federal employees will be paid and treated the same. However, to be clear this doesn't solve all of their problems. Their paychecks will be delayed depending on how long the shutdown lasts. So, they may not be able to meet their bills on time if the government remains shutdown and they don't receive their paychecks. This legislation by itself won't address the funding lapse or its consequences. We still must end the shutdown and open the government so federal workers can get back to work and receive that back pay in a timely manner. I urge the House Republican Leadership to immediately bring up the Senate-passed clean funding compromise, which could go directly to the President and open up the entire government for all of the American people today.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we are in day four of the Republican shutdown, an irresponsible and manufactured crisis designed to promote ideology at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear about why House Republicans have so knowingly, carelessly, and recklessly shut down our government. We have heard it on this floor today, Mr. Speaker. It is because they continue to be obsessed with eliminating the Affordable Care Act, the law of the land that is being implemented right now. It has become apparent that they are willing to sacrifice the basic functions of the U.S. Government just to prove that point. Again, ideology and politics over people. Right now there are nearly 1 million men and women who work for the Federal Government, good people, my neighbors and family, who signed up to do a job in the service of their Nation, and today they are not at work. They have had to either take a furlough, now missing four days of work, some of whom were already furloughed earlier this summer with the sequester. That means they are laid off, and they are not working because their work isn't essential. They are not getting paid. Now, for those of us who are old enough to remember it, it kind of reminds me of the cartoon character in Popeye: I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. Now, the Capitol Police and many other Federal employees that are deemed essential are in fact working. We heard that yesterday with their courage and their valiant service to this Capitol. But they are not being paid. Many have worked what would equal overtime this week due to the various protest rallies and yesterday's car chase, but they are not being paid. Now, this shutdown is not just about faceless bureaucrats. It is about real people, about public servants who are directly affected by the shutdown, and I want to tell you about a few of them who live in my congressional district. Pat from Gambrills, he and his wife are both Federal employees so in that household it is about 8 days of furlough. They, like many of their fellow colleagues, will experience extreme difficulties if the government defaults in just another couple of weeks. Pat contacted my office and he urged the President, my fellow Democrats, and me not to bargain with Republicans in regard to increasing the debt limit and getting government operating. It is our job, he said. Though they are experiencing difficulty, Pat stated, I believe it is more important not to negotiate or bend to blackmail. Republicans must learn that they must follow the same rules as the rest of us or there will be consequences. Those are Pat's words. But I also want to tell you about some others who contacted my office like Tracy out in Laurel. She works at the Department of Health and Human Services. She helps her mother pay bills every month; and when she called my office, she was crying, she was in tears, because she wants this to stop so that she can pay her bills. Then there was Dini who lives in Oxon Hill--and I live in Oxon Hill-- who is a single parent who was already furloughed earlier this summer, and now she isn't sure how she is going to pay the bills or take care of her child. In fact, some of these workers still have to pay childcare to keep the spot in daycare, even though they are not being paid and they are not working. Then there was Christopher. He and his wife are both employed at the Department of Homeland Security in support of the security of this Nation. They were both furloughed earlier this summer, and they are furloughed now. So those are just some of the stories, and I could go on. I have sheets and sheets of calls from workers who live in my congressional district; and, you know, those Federal workers have already paid a great price. They are the folks out at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which is located in the county I live in, in Prince George's County, a premier research institution; and 3,397 employees who would normally be at work aren't there. Only 104 of them are, and only 60 are working full time while the other 44 are working part-time. That means that also 250 of them are on call, and so 90 percent are actually furloughed out at Goddard Space Flight Center. But it doesn't just affect Goddard. It affects all those small businesses, restaurants, shops, gas stations where civilian employees normally go to do their business, but they are not going there now. So the impact isn't just for the Federal workforce. This is a really terrible situation, Mr. Speaker, and I really implore the leadership of Speaker Boehner. I know that he is a good man, and I want him to have the courage to put a clean Senate-passed CR on the floor of this House so that the majority of the House can work its will. Now, I know 40 or 50 won't, but the majority of the House should be allowed to work its will.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying amendments. I want to be very clear. I don't even have a voice, but I want to let America know that House Republicans are shutting down the government. They are doing it intentionally. They are doing it on purpose. Mr. Speaker, 1.4 million Active Duty personnel won't get their paychecks. About half of the Federal civilian employees won't get paid. Those who do show up at work won't be paid. House Republicans are shutting down the government. Even as we mourn the tragedy at the Navy Yard here in Washington, Active Duty military would be guaranteed to receive their pay, but their civilian counterparts, who risk their lives in service to the mission, would not. House Republicans are shutting down the government. We are losing waves of Federal employees in furloughs. We are undermining their benefits and freezing their salaries. I urge my colleagues to reject this. Tonight, I want it to be known that the Senate won't take it up. The President won't sign it. House Republicans are shutting down the government.