Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join us in this bipartisan effort to make sure that we can get signed into law the TREAT Act for our current, former, and future astronauts. I would like to close by expressing my gratitude to Chairman Lamar Smith, to Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, and to our Subcommittee Chair Babin for their graciousness and for their leadership. It has truly been a joy to work on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. It is one of the few places in the United States House of Representatives where our charge is really to think about the future, and it is in this spirit that this legislation is in front of us today. I hadn't anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that I would have a moment on the floor of the House, my last moment on the floor of the House before I depart my service to the United States House of Representatives, but I am grateful for that. As I reflect on the last 8\1/2\ years, it has really been a pleasure, particularly, to work on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and to do that in what seems like a contentious environment sometimes but has been a lot of collegiality. As I close my service in the Congress, I am, Mr. Speaker, reminded that, as a little girl, I used to picnic with my father and my mother and my siblings on the west front of the Capitol. My dad was in his Air Force uniform, prepared to go back to work after we had had our little picnic. As little girls, we would run around to the east front of the Capitol, Mr. Speaker, and climb the steps, when you could climb the steps. And we would sit there in between my father and look out on the United States Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. I never would have imagined, Mr. Speaker, that I would have an opportunity to serve in the House of Representatives; and it has been a great privilege and a joy to represent the people of the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland. I wish for my colleagues here in the Congress that, as we approach the 115th Congress, and in the spirit of service to this great Nation, that we work together in service to the Nation. When we come to work every day, Mr. Speaker, people think about things that are big and small; but for a lot of people out there, a lot of our constituents, it is about their health and their life, their safety and their security, the ability of them to raise their children, and to move forward. And I wish that, in the upcoming Congress, that we have an opportunity to do those things together, and that you do. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the staff of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and the Space Subcommittee, Allen Li, Pam Whitney, Dick Obermann; Anne Nelson on the minority staff, and the majority staff for all of their work; to the people who serve in this institution and serve us tremendously, from the Parliamentarians to the stenographers and the Clerk's staff, and the Marshals Service and the Capitol Police, and all of it, because it makes the trains run, and it means that we can get the job done of the people of the United States. God bless the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6076, as amended, the TREAT Astronauts Act. The House-passed, bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2015 set the long-term goal of sending humans to the surface of Mars. The amendments to the TREAT Astronauts Act being considered today will help provide the research results needed to achieve this goal. As Chairman Babin noted, the amendment reflects compromise language agreed upon with the Senate in good faith. Committee Ranking Member Johnson and I thank Space Subcommittee Chairman Babin and his staff for working together to achieve bipartisan and bicameral consensus on this amendment. Chairman Babin and I both want to do the right thing for the health of our current and future astronauts. That is why I was pleased to be a cosponsor of this act to provide for monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment of former astronauts. Our astronauts are heroes. They serve this Nation in the face of extreme risks. Some of those risks involve the potential for medical conditions that may not reveal themselves for years or even decades after an astronaut's service. It is our responsibility to ensure that we, as a nation, acknowledge the risks that these heroes have taken and, in return, provide our astronauts with the medical monitoring and treatment they need. It is also our responsibility to mitigate the risks for future NASA explorers, especially as we put in place the systems and missions to prepare the way for human exploration to Mars. Such risk mitigation requires data about astronauts' mental and psychological health. H.R. 6076, as amended, maintains the three principles I identified as critical to this legislation in the original bill. The first principle is getting care to former astronauts under this program as soon as possible. NASA has indicated that some former astronauts could already benefit from this new authority. As Chairman Babin noted, this bill provides NASA with supplementary authority. As such, I would expect that monitoring provided by NASA's Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health program will continue to be made available to any former astronaut or payload specialist electing not to participate in the program being established by this legislation. The second principle is being respectful of astronaut rights and privacy. As we expand the amount of data collected on former astronaut health, it is important that we place a priority on ensuring the privacy of the data. NASA is tasked to report on how the agency will ensure the privacy of astronauts in the program when data is shared beyond the Federal Government. The third principle is ensuring that the program is in sync with the goal of sending humans to Mars. Expanded data acquired from the monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment of former astronauts and former shuttle payload specialists will be invaluable for informing the requirements for new spaceflight medical hardware and developing controls to prevent disease occurrence in the astronaut corps. Mr. Speaker, it is also my hope that Congress and the administration will enable NASA to get to Mars sooner rather than later. As part of that effort, we must establish the safeguards that will get our astronauts there and back safely. Supporting this bill will allow us to stay on that vector. I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with Chairman Smith that I am so grateful for his remarks today on the floor. He beat me to the punch, but it has been a pleasure both to work on the committee since the beginning of my time here in the Congress. It is the most fun I think that I have ever had, and I have truly enjoyed the collegial working relationship and friendship that we have shared on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) the ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today because it does seem that this amendment and the others that are being offered underscore a problem that I didn't think we were going to have with the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act. We have spent quite a bit of time in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee under the leadership of the chairman trying to come to some common understanding and bipartisan agreement about this. Unfortunately, that is not where we are today. In my view, water transportation and infrastructure has always been a bipartisan priority in the country. I agree with the comments of some of my colleagues that moving forward with a bipartisan bill is vital to the public health, the safety, and the economic welfare of our communities and this Nation. I have the distinct honor of being able to represent Maryland in Congress. I know how important this bill is to our State since we have such a long coastline, the Chesapeake Bay; and several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Severn River, and the Potomac, all flow through the Fourth Congressional District, all requiring support under the Water Resources Development Act. These resources provide billions of dollars of economic activity for our State. Maintaining and modernizing Maryland's waterways and its ports, including the Port of Baltimore, is essential. Unfortunately, we reported a bill out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in May that focused on such authorization and on Corps compliance with the new project selection process that was created in the 2014 law. Under that law, as well, we would have been able to allow the Corps, beginning in 2027, to use the funds collected in the harbor maintenance trust fund for eligible harbor dredging and other activities, removing those expenditures from the annual appropriations process. Very sadly--and as we heard today here on the floor--by dropping the trust fund language, Republicans have effectively undermined the measure by removing a key provision that originally created bipartisan support for the bill. This is really a sad moment, indeed, because now, yet again, money that should be used for our harbors and our ports is being used in a trust fund as a piggy bank for completely unrelated spending. These kinds of spending restrictions have created a large surplus in the trust fund, even as critical harbor dredging needs go unmet. I rise today in opposition to the bill, unfortunately. It is a bill I thought I would actually be able to come to the floor and support with the chairman's leadership. Unfortunately, we are also not able to include in our House bill aid for the Flint water crisis: $100 million to repair and replace the city's drinking water infrastructure, $20 million in loan forgiveness for prior Flint city loans taken out to build its water infrastructure, and $50 million for various public health activities. That is what the Senate did. It is what we could have done, and it is unfortunate that we could not do this here today. I hope that before we leave out of this Congress in the lameduck session, which we anticipate later after the election, that we are going to be able to find a resolution to these problems that indeed cross the aisle. Again, as I said, I am not in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment, but I think that it is really important for us to understand and underscore that where we should be here is with the bipartisan bill that we agreed to in May in our committee. It is really unfortunate that we find ourselves once again lining up in partisan lines and not able to support a harbor maintenance trust fund for the use of the money for which it was intended, and that is to maintain and upgrade our Nation's ports and harbors. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, here we are, House Democrats, right here in the House, ready to work. Where are House Republicans? Well, they have escaped for 52 days without taking care of the Nation's business. That's right, escaped--you know, left, fled, absconded, disappeared, departed, dodged, bolted, bailed, ducked out, burst out, shipped out, made off, cut and run. That is what House Republicans have done. But here is what is left undone: the opportunity to protect our children and families from the spread of the Zika virus, from a concern to a public health crisis; the opportunity to provide clean drinking water for over 9,000 children in Flint, Michigan, poisoned with lead. This is serious. In fact, it is sobering. In the next 52 days that the House Republicans have escaped, 4,732 American men, women, and children will lose their lives to gun violence, including 67 who will be killed with a gun as a result of domestic violence. Mr. Speaker, 6,780 perpetrators have already gotten their hands on guns through the loophole. Where are House Republicans? You got it. They are on vacation. So shame on House Republicans for not acting to protect our communities from the epidemic of gun violence by passing 100 percent background checks no matter where a gun is purchased and preventing terrorists from buying a gun when they can't even get on a plane. Shame on House Republicans for cutting and running on the American people.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation to honor the memory of Keiwuan Murray, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on this House floor.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Jadarrion Spinks, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Betty Mungin; her daughter, Alexis Mungin; her daughter, 8-year-old Armani Mungin, victims of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, years before coming to Congress, as many of my colleagues know, I cofounded and served as the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Twenty years ago, we worked with a bipartisan Congress to pass the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. It became law in 1996. It was known as the Lautenberg amendment, after the late Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. Since that time, we have made a lot of progress in preventing domestic violence, but, sadly, there are several Mack Truck-size loopholes that prevent the law from coming to its full effect. In fact, just last week, in a fight against the gun lobby, yet again, over these last 20 years, the Supreme Court upheld the domestic violence offender gun ban in a 6-2 decision. As many know, leaving an abusive relationship is the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim, and adding a firearm to that situation severely heightens the risk of injury or death. In fact, in America, the majority of fatal domestic violence homicides are committed with firearms. At least 52 percent of American women murdered with guns are killed by intimate partners or family members. Despite impressions from media coverage, mass shootings in which at least four people are murdered with a gun are also typically acts of domestic or family violence. An Everytown, USA, analysis of every mass shooting between 2009 and 2015 found that 57 percent were committed by intimate partners or the family of victims. Research shows that commonsense gun laws have a marked effect on improving women's safety from gun violence. In States that require background checks for all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are murdered with a gun by an intimate partner. And State laws ensuring that convicted abusers or those subject to domestic violence restraining orders are separated from their firearms are also associated with reductions in gun violence against women. But because of loopholes in these laws and failures to enforce them, they do little to curb the uniquely lethal American problem of guns and violence against women. Four gaps in the law are particularly harmful. First, Federal law does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners or convicted stalkers. The Federal law prohibits domestic abusers from buying or owning guns but doesn't apply to dangerous people convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses or to dating partners, even though more women in the U.S. are killed by their dating partners than their spouses. Second, in 35 States, State law does not prohibit all people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes and all people subject to restraining orders from buying or using guns. Third, and importantly, Federal law allows domestic abusers and stalkers to easily evade gun prohibitions by purchasing guns from unlicensed private sellers. That is the Mack Truck loophole. Federal law only requires background checks for gun sales at licensed dealers. Sixteen States require checks on all handgun sales, but in the remaining States, prohibited abusers seeking to avoid a background check have very little trouble purchasing a gun from an unlicensed dealer they meet online, at a gun show, or in a parking lot. Prohibited domestic abusers know about this loophole and they have taken advantage of it to deadly effect. And, in fact, in a first-of- its-kind investigation of illegal gun sales, Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that one in four prohibited purchasers seeking guns online had a domestic violence arrest. Finally, 41 States do not require prohibited abusers to relinquish the guns they already own, so I have joined in legislation to prohibit these guns from falling into the hands of domestic abusers. We know that a proven way to help with people who are not eligible to purchase guns, such as felons and domestic abusers, is to expand and strengthen universal background checks on all firearms sales no matter where that sale takes place. And, very tragically, our lax gun laws make it easier for abusers to acquire a firearm than it is, in fact, to purchase a box of Sudafed. So you ask, Mr. Speaker, why do we protest? Why did we take the dramatic action of taking to the floor of this House? It is because we have had enough, and we know that, working together, we can and must change the fact that women across this country lose their lives to gun violence by their domestic abusers. Nine American women are shot and killed by their husbands and intimate partners every single week. We can do something about it. Let's close the gun show loophole.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is still horrified and heartbroken over the brutal act of terror and hate that killed 49 and wounded many more in Orlando, Florida, just over a week ago. We stand in solidarity with the loved ones of those who were lost, with the LGBT community that suffered this unimaginable act of violence, and the entire Orlando community as they work to move forward from this tragedy. We can work together to disarm hate. Gun violence has become unacceptably commonplace in the country. The Orlando attack is only the latest and the most deadly mass shooting in the history of the United States. We have a responsibility to do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not just mass shootings that should be our focus. Guns have taken more lives in this country since 1968 than were lost in all the wars this Nation has ever fought. On average, more than 89 people each day die due to gun violence, whether that is by homicide, suicide, or accident. That is more than 33,000 Americans being killed by guns each year. In just over the 3 years since Newtown, more than 111,300 people have been killed by someone using a gun in America. In my State of Maryland, in 2015 alone, more than 340 Marylanders have lost their lives to homicide by guns. Yet, despite the national consensus for legislation to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and convicted felons and domestic abusers, a vocal minority, led by the National Rifle Association, stands in the way of commonsense proposals to keep our Nation safer. Those voices are forcing a false choice between constitutional rights and safe streets. We can do both. Congress can and must enact laws that improve the public safety while respecting the Constitution. This Congress has no right to hold moments of silence anymore and then do nothing to prevent the next tragedy. This is a moment of truth for Congress. We cannot have another moment of silence without action. We can and should expand and strengthen our background checks and pass the bipartisan no fly, no buy bill to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. So today what we know is that across this country there are people who go to unlicensed dealers at gun shows and do what they could not do if they went to Walmart to get a gun, and that is to get one without passing a background check. These unlicensed dealers are a significant source of crimes in my State and across the country, with an estimate of 40 percent of all purchases made through them without a background check. Studies show that background checks actually do stop 170 felons, 50 domestic abusers, and 20 fugitives every single day from buying weapons. It works when you do it. Recent polling shows that universal background checks are universally supported across the political spectrum. A CBS poll released just last week showed that 89 percent of the public supports legislation requiring background checks--the low-hanging fruit, the common denominator--and that includes 97 percent of Democrats, 92 percent of Republicans, and 82 percent of Independents. Who is left out? The vocal minority led by the National Rifle Association. Let's talk about the National Rifle Association, Mr. Speaker, because they actually used to support universal background checks at gun shows. On May 27, 1999, Wayne LaPierre, the current executive president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, testified before the House Judiciary Committee about 1 month before Columbine, in which 12 high school students and one teacher were murdered. He said this: ``We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.'' That is a direct quote from Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. When did they change? When it became politically expedient to do the job of the gun industry. So, unfortunately, they have flipped their position. They no longer support expanded background checks, and they have worked to prohibit that action here in Congress. So I will say, Mr. Speaker, to Speaker Ryan and to my Republican colleagues: Enough already. We are tired. We are done. It is past time for the Congress to listen to the American public instead of to the National Rifle Association, to listen to the overwhelming number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and to take guns out of the hands of terrorists, convicted felons, and those who would do harm to others. No bill, no break. It is time to disarm hate.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 200.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the House consideration of the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act that House Republicans have incorrectly and misleadingly renamed the Zika Vector Control Act. In the 113th Congress, this exact legislation with a bill number of H.R. 935 failed under suspension of the rules 253-148. At the time, Republicans subsequently rescheduled it 2 days later under a closed rule to allow passage. I was a Democratic manager of that bill under consideration in 2014. In fact, since my statement laid out a real substantive concern with the legislation, I include in the Record a copy of my remarks from that time. Mr. Speaker, in the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome, that it would grind to a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities. Some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pesticide general permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost non-existent level of concern expressed after almost three years of implementation, you would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill. Contrary to the rhetoric, EPA and the States have successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit (PGP) for the last two-and-a-half years that adopted several common-sense precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. And they do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-effective manner. The sky has not fallen, farmers and forestry operators have had two successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully address multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness, while at the same time complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). I say sensible because, as we should clearly understand, the intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different. FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved uses and restrictions. However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the nation's waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality. It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label--farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of that pesticide on local water quality. So, why are groups ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to Crop Life America so adamantly opposed to this regulation? One plausible answer is because these groups do not want to come out of the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to discharge unknown pesticides in unknown quantities, with unknown mixtures, and at unknown locations. I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially- harmful materials, almost completely below the radar. In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were purchased from commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive information was required, or available, on the quantities, types, or location of pesticides applied in this country. Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our nation's surface and ground waters. Which leads me to question how eliminating any reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human health and the environment? All this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and make accountability for these discharges more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides, than those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real world. During the debate on Monday, several speakers questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so obvious, it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked. First, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I find it difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of pesticides for certain applications would be a problem. Second, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would be a mutually-agreed upon benefit. Also, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being applied throughout the nation. Again, if data is showing that a local waterbody is contaminated by pesticides, I would think the public would want to quickly identify the likely source of the pesticide that is causing the impairment. Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware, despite repeated requests to both EPA and States, of any specific example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services. Despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not significantly increased the compliance costs to states or individual pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or EPA to ban the use of pesticides. So, let me summarize a few points. One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the appropriate times, and that pesticides are not having an adverse impacts on human health or the environment. Two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by the filing of an electronic ``Notice of Intent.'' Three, Federal and state data make it clear that application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA, alone, as was the case for many years, was insufficient to protect waterbodies throughout the nation from being contaminated by pesticides, so if we care about water quality, more needed to be done. I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of potentially-harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that existed prior to the issuance of the Clean Water Act pesticide general permit. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or significant financial burden, and has been implemented seamlessly across the country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply doesn't exist. I urge a no vote on H.R. 935. In this Congress, this legislation was marked up early last year in the Agriculture Committee as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. The committee of primary jurisdiction, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has taken no action on the bill this time around; yet, here we are again on the House floor. The Republican leadership has now changed the name of the bill to the Zika Vector Control Act. A new name and the inclusion of a sunset date in 2018 are the only differences from previous iterations of this bill. H.R. 897 is the exact same legislation that pesticide manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing for the past several years. It would eliminate Clean Water Act safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from excessive pesticide pollution. The pesticide general permit targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly 5 years now, and alarmist predictions by pesticide manufacturers and others about the impacts of this permit have failed to bear any fruit. In fact, in March 2015, before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency, testified that: ``We have not been made aware of any issues associated with the pesticide general permit. Nobody has brought an instance to our attention where somebody has not been able to apply a pesticide in a timely manner . . . There have been no instances.'' Yet, here we are. Since then, all across the country, pesticide applicators--usually utilities managing their rights-of-way--are complying with the Clean Water Act permits to protect water quality. The public is getting information they need that we couldn't get before about what pesticides are being sprayed into what bodies of water. Congress should not and must not respond to outdated sky-is-falling problems that history has shown has never occurred and weaken protections for the water our children drink. In past Congresses, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a public health emergency de jour as rationale to pass and enact this legislation into law. At one time, they cited, as they have again today, West Nile virus. The next time it was the western wildland fire suppression. Last Congress, it was the drought. Now, in nothing less than a purely political move, Republicans are considering this bill on suspension, but this time under the guise of combating the spread of Zika.

Ms. EDWARDS. Let us be clear. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with Zika or trying to stop the threat of the Zika virus. Despite claims made by my colleagues to the contrary, the permit already in effect allows spraying for Zika or other mosquito control programs. H.R. 897 is simply another attack on the Clean Water Act as part of the Republican's anti-environmental, deregulatory agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote this legislation down. And let's do something real to combat Zika. The President has asked for $1.9 billion in emergency funding because it is an emergency. It is a public health threat. If we did that now, then we would be fulfilling our duties and responsibilities. But this legislation today fulfills no responsibilities, gets in the way of protecting clean water, and does absolutely nothing to combat the Zika virus that, if you look at the map, is quickly spreading across this country.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen Maryland firefighter and recognize his colleague who is recovering from severe injuries. As the funeral and interment of this esteemed firefighter occurred yesterday, I want to remember the legacy he leaves behind. Prince George's County firefighter and paramedic (FF/Medic) John Ernest Ulmschneider was responding to a ``check on welfare'' call that took a turn for the worse. Known as ``Skillet,'' this brave firefighter died tragically in the line of duty on Friday, April 15, as a result of a shooting in Temple Hills, Maryland. Line-of-duty deaths are always difficult to bear. A firefighter or another first responder leaves their home, their station, or their vehicle to do their job of public service, and their loved one, coworker, or partner expects to see them return. My heart breaks for John's loved ones and for the tight-knit community that is the Prince George's County Fire and EMS Department. The details of FF/Medic Ulmschneider's death are heartbreaking. He, fellow firefighter Kevin Swain of the Morningside Volunteer Fire Department, and other first responders arrived at a residence after a relative had contacted them worried about the health of a family member. They knocked on the door a few times and announced themselves without receiving a response. With the concern of a potential health emergency in mind, they tried to enter the home by breaking down the door. It was a fateful decision. As the firefighters entered the home, the person inside fired a weapon, hitting FF/Medic Ulmschneider and FF Swain. Both firefighters were severely injured, FF/Medic Ulmschneider fatally, despite the rapid and capable care they received. On behalf of the citizens of Maryland's Fourth Congressional District, I would like to recognize the paramedics and the doctors and nurses for their compassionate care and treatment of these firefighters. I would like to remember the legacy FF/Medic Ulmschneider leaves behind. He was born in Baltimore and graduated from Surrattsville High School in Clinton, Maryland in 1997. Friends called him ``Skillet'' because his head was as tough as a cast iron skillet. FF/Medic Ulmschneider had been a member of the Prince George's County Fire Department for 13 years. He was married to Dawn and a proud and doting father to Abigail. One colleague of his remembers him as a particularly caring person who went the extra mile and on calls would make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for those patients who had low- blood sugar or were simply panicked. Another coworker recalled that FF/ Medic Ulmschneider had two speeds, ``fast and faster.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to send my appreciation to these individual firefighters and all their colleagues for their relentless dedication to public service. Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department and firefighters across this country 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. These men and women rightfully are our heroes. As a dedicated firefighter, husband, father, and human being, Firefighter and Paramedic John Ulmschneider deserves all of the honor and praise this Chamber can bestow upon him. On behalf of the 4th Congressional District and this House, I extend my sincerest gratitude and condolences to his wife Dawn and daughter Abigail; Cheryl Ulmschneider, his mother; his entire family; friends; Prince George's County Fire Chief Marc Bashoor; the entire Department; and the Prince George's County Professional Fire Fighters & Paramedics Association International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1619.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to pay tribute and honor the life of Prince George's County Police Officer Jacai Colson, who was killed in the line of duty. Line-of-duty deaths are always difficult to bear. A police officer or another first responder leaves their home, their station, or their vehicle, and their loved one, coworker, or partner expects to see them return. My heart breaks for Jacai's loved ones and for the tight-knit community that is the Prince George's County Police Department. On March 12, 2016, an off-duty detective, Police Officer First Class Jacai Colson, arrived at the District 3 police station in Landover, Maryland, with the intent of visiting a fellow officer, when matters took an unexpected turn for the worse. We will continue to learn the details of this tragedy in the coming days. What we do know is that Officer Colson's actions saved lives and allowed his fellow officers to neutralize the threat, even as he made the ultimate sacrifice. On behalf of the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, I want to extend my appreciation to Officer Colson for his selfless and heroic actions and his relentless dedication to public service. I would like to remember the legacy Officer Colson leaves behind. He was a Pennsylvania native who played quarterback at Chichester High School in Boothwyn, Pennsylvania, where he graduated. Officer Colson then went on to play wide receiver and defensive back at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia. His college football coach recalled Colson as ``a really respectful kid and just a high- character young man. To be honest, he wasn't a great player, but he was a really great person.'' Officer Jacai Colson was the grandson of a career police officer. He himself joined the Prince George's County Police Department. After 2 years of service on the force, he joined the narcotics department. Officer Colson worked as an undercover detective. Later this week would have been his 29th birthday. I well know how difficult a job our local police officers have. They are tasked with the tremendous responsibility of meeting the increasingly diverse needs of growing populations with diminishing resources. At a time of so much national discussion about the relationship of law enforcement to our local communities, Officer Colson reminds us all of the important service and sacrifice of our men and women in blue. Unfortunately, his death makes three officers that have been shot and killed in Maryland in 2016. Last month two officers from the Harford County Sheriff's Office were fatally shot: Senior Deputy Mark Logsdon and Senior Deputy Patrick Dailey. Today our police officers are being asked to be the first line of defense in our war on terror in addition to carrying out more traditional police 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. Officer Jacai Colson's record of service was characterized by sacrifice, hard work, dedication to duty, and, most of all, by achievement. He leaves behind a legacy of service that others can and should aspire to. Now that his time on Earth has come to a needlessly premature end, it is my hope that Officer Jacai Colson has found the peace he has earned. On behalf of this House, I extend my sincerest gratitude and condolences to James and Sheila Colson, his parents; his entire family; friends; Prince George's County Police Chief Hank Stawinski; Major Kathleen Mills, District 3 Commander; the entire Prince George's County Police Department; and the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 89. May God continue to comfort and sustain each of you.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 118 on H.R. 3797, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS. I am opposed.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. H.R. 3293, the deceptively entitled Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, represents an effort by the majority to overrule expert scientists in deciding which scientific grants the Federal scientific agency should fund. What this really translates to, Mr. Speaker, is that these are areas that some politicians do not want to fund because they don't believe in scientists. Just a week ago, 26-year-old NeShante Davis, a second grade teacher in Fort Washington, and her 2-year-old daughter, Chloe, were gunned down because of child support. We have a gun violence problem in the United States. According to The American Journal of Medicine, compared to other rich nations, Americans are 25 times more likely to be violently killed with a firearm, 6 times more likely to be accidentally killed with a gun, 8 times more likely to commit suicide using a firearm, and 10 times more likely to die from a gun death overall. To address this, Americans deserve the facts and Congress needs the breadth and the data for the epidemic. Using the public health approach, we have reduced smoking among Americans from 43 percent, at the time of the first Surgeon General's report in 1964, to 18 percent. Since the 1970s, using the public health approach, we have reduced deaths from motor vehicle crashes by more than 70 percent. In 1970, there were over 55,000 deaths from motor vehicle crashes per year. Today there are around 30,000. So what does the public health approach yield? Well, the essence is this: define the problem, including its magnitude, nature, and distribution in the population; define the cause or risk and protective factors for the problem. What are the characteristics to prevent the problem? For example, educating people about the risk of guns that come with gun ownership and how to reduce that risk and develop widely implemented programs using proven strategies to prevent the problem, public health can help solve this problem. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), my colleague and cosponsor of the motion.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, using the public health approach, we have now eradicated smallpox, eliminated polio in most countries, reduced motor vehicle deaths by 70 percent, and reduced smoking rates by over half. We can do something about gun violence, and we have an obligation to do it today. Just think if we were able to do the same thing to address the gun violence epidemic. This is a small and yet powerful step with research--just research-- that could lead to significantly reducing the number of Americans killed by firearms. All we want to do is look at the problem. All we want to do is measure the magnitude. All we want to do is find solutions for NeShante Davis, 26 years old, and her 2-year-old daughter, Chloe, gunned down-- gunned down. In every single community across this country, we can do this by enabling the National Science Foundation to just look into the issue and give us some answers so that we can find solutions. We owe it to NeShante. We owe it to Chloe. We owe it to the American people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to treat this like the epidemic that it is. End gun violence in this country. I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and to congratulate Dr. William ``Brit'' Kirwan on his well-deserved retirement. Dr. Kirwan served for 12 years as the chancellor of the University System of Maryland, and I know that his principled character and educational capability will be sorely missed. It has been my pleasure to work with him over the years in his capacity as chancellor of the University System, but long before becoming chancellor, Dr. Kirwan first taught mathematics over at the University's College Park campus. After turns as department chair and provost at College Park, as president he had a direct hand in designing the framework for the University System of Maryland itself. Dr. Kirwan's expertise on higher education helped the University System grow to be one of the largest and most respected educational institutions in the country. Students and educators have thrived under his leadership and the surrounding Maryland community has benefited from having such a capable and qualified university in its midst. In fact, Dr. Kirwan's expertise is recognized by so many that, in the fall of 2013, he was asked to serve as co-chair of the Senate's Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education. The resulting report provided clear suggestions aimed at helping colleges and universities to prioritize improving the quality of education and readying their students for the demands of the 21st century. I want to thank Dr. Kirwan for his committed and passionate service to the University System--his legacy will live on in the accomplished faculty and students whom he served so well. Thank you Brit, and we wish you the best in your retirement.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to be here as a conferee to the conference that worked to resolve the difference between the House and Senate versions on the surface transportation reauthorization. A huge thank you goes to Chairmen Shuster and Graves and Ranking Members DeFazio and Norton and their committees and personal staff for all the work that was put in to get us to this 5-year authorization. The fact is that America is literally falling apart. I am glad that we are going to be sending the President a long-term authorization this week. Making our infrastructure work and work for us smarter is really critical. The bill does a lot to support research, development, and the deployment of transportation technology. I am pleased with the overall research title, including specific investments in hazardous materials, R&D, and traffic congestion mitigation, but I do have a couple of concerns with oversight. The Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office was moved out of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology and into the Federal Highway Administration. We have to be vigilant that this move doesn't undermine the multimodal coordination of ITS research and development. A new deployment program was funded through a large tax on existing R&D programs. While I support the deployment program, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that today's R&D investments enable tomorrow's new deployment opportunities. So we shouldn't be shortsighted. Nonetheless, I support the FAST Act. It is a bipartisan, bicameral, long-term authorization to fund highway transit, highway safety, motor carrier safety, hazardous material safety, and even passenger rail programs and projects. Let me be clear. It is not the bill I would have written, and it is definitely not perfect, including some of the problematic pay-fors that have been discussed today. But it will provide certainty, invest in America's infrastructure, and create good-paying American jobs. The bill is funded at the higher Senate-approved level, which is important. I am happy to have worked in a bipartisan fashion with my colleagues on the floor and in committee to make a difference in people's lives. In our region, our Senators, Representatives Norton and Comstock, and I have provided new and direct Federal oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. We have also worked to include transit-oriented development eligibility in TIFIA. Yes, this would mean that many of the transit- oriented projects across the Nation, in the metropolitan Washington region, and in my county, Prince George's County, along the Green Line, will now be able to qualify for Federal financing because most transit- oriented development infrastructure projects are less than the $50 million threshold that TIFIA currently requires. In working with several Members, we were able to restore funding for the High Density States program that will allow transit systems in these States to maintain jobs, service, and service frequency and continue to help those who rely on public transportation. Though I oppose today's rule, we have to enact a bill that will construct and rebuild our road, bridge, transit, and rail infrastructure that creates jobs here at home and enables the United States to compete internationally in the 21st century. This is a good first step. Let's not stop here. Let's continue to work in this fashion to rebuild America's infrastructure.