Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, a growing threat to water quality throughout the United States (U.S.) is polluted stormwater runoff, flooding, and sewer overflow from highly urbanized areas flowing into surface waters without being treated. This is especially true for Maryland with the Chesapeake Bay and several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District. Innovative stormwater solutions, such as permeable pavement, natural drainage swales, and green roofs offer an effective alternative to conventional stormwater infrastructure that has both the flexibility and economic viability to address the challenges of polluted runoff, flooding, and sewer overflows. Unlike traditional stormwater infrastructure, this approach protects, restores, and replicates the natural hydrology of the landscape. Many of these innovative infrastructure practices are more economical, increase property values, and promote jobs to design and implement them. This week Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and I are proud to reintroduce the Innovative Stormwater Infrastructure Act (ISIA) of 2015 to help stem this growing crisis in clean water management issues. The bill would: Promote the use of innovative stormwater solutions within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water and related programs and provide technical assistance to states, local governments, and the private sector; Invest in planning, development, and implementation grants for community-based stormwater control projects; Establish up to five Centers of Excellence in various regions of the U.S. that would conduct research, develop recommendations, and provide training and technical assistance for implementing management practices for stormwater control and management; and Promote public-private partnerships to create jobs in the design and construction of innovative stormwater control infrastructure. Our legislation provides an innovative, environmental, and economically cost-effective approach to water management strategies that improve water quality throughout the nation while creating good- paying jobs for the future. The goals are to: Improve our nation's ability to manage clean water resources, including drinking water; Increase research and development of innovative green infrastructure techniques; Create jobs across diverse sectors, such as plumbing, landscaping and engineering; Save taxpayer money by reducing the amount of water entering treatment plants, keeping energy costs low and prolonging the life of existing conventional water infrastructure; and Provide environmental and economic benefits to communities, including reduced flooding and energy use, as well as increased community greenspace and property values. The Innovative Stormwater Infrastructure Act has received broad support from water and environmental organizations, including the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, American Rivers, the American Society of Landscape Architects, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Water Environment Federation.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, historically on transportation projects, the construction inspector is the eyes, ears, and voice of the public. Inspectors ensure that construction standards are met, that projects meet safety requirements, and that the materials used will stand the test of time. In short, they are there to ensure that the motoring public gets what they pay for, and that public safety and the public interest are protected. Outsourcing public inspection functions on State and local surface transportation projects eliminates a representative of the public from the construction site and puts a private company in charge of inspecting the work of the private construction company. This can create potential conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, across the nation, some departments of transportation are outsourcing public inspection with poor results. That is why I am introducing today the Safety, Efficiency, and Accountability in Transportation Projects through Public Inspection Act to require public employees to perform the inspection and related essential public functions on all state and local transportation projects. This bill is intended to ensure that public safety is protected, transportation funds are not wasted, and projects are delivered in a timely manner.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for his leadership on the Budget Committee, and also the Democrats on the Budget Committee. Mr. Chairman, Congress is really tasked at this time of year with developing a budget that lays out our Nation's priorities and spending, but those priorities really should reflect our values. As hard as it is to imagine--and it is hard--this Price budget resolution is actually worse than the previous Ryan budget for hard-working American families. Once again, we see how little Republicans value protecting critical priorities that actually help Americans live a healthy life and enjoy a secure retirement. In fact, the Republican budget would force working families to pay more in taxes. It would make college education less affordable. It would force seniors to pay more for their health care and prescription drugs. It would end the Medicare guarantee by turning it into a voucher program. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, it would block grant both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The fact is that this budget would decimate our Nation's already crumbling infrastructure by reducing funding by 19 percent over the next decade. If you would imagine that, that means that every road that needs to be repaired, the bridges that are falling apart, the mass transit that needs investing in, this budget would actually cut our spending by 19 percent over the next decade. It would require an additional $318 billion from Federal and postal employees and their retirees--hard-working people who have given all that they can to deficit reduction. In fact, that is a constituency that has already contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, Republican priorities are making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and they are shrinking the size of government, regardless of the damage--great damage--that it would cause. House Democrats, I believe, are investing in hard-working Americans. We have said it is important for us to improve access to high-quality child care and dependent care. It is important to invest in quality education for all our children. It is important to end the draconian across-the-board sequester cuts.

Ms. EDWARDS. The Democrats' budget would protect seniors' health care and retirement. It would create jobs in America through rebuilding our infrastructure and support jobs by making sure our Nation's manufacturers get to invest in the research and development that they need. In short, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote down this draconian Republican budget and support each of the Democratic alternatives. I know I will be voting for them because each of them, even though they are different, would be way better than the draconian budget that has been proposed by Republicans. I thank my colleague from Maryland for his leadership. We need to invest in America's future, including our hard-working men and women.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1030, the so-called Secret Science Reform Act. Let me just say first that I am opposed to the bill and the underlying premise that there is not good science, good research, and good data being gathered by the EPA. Unfortunately, this bill would force the EPA to choose between protecting our health and environment and maintaining the privacy of patient medical records and the confidentiality of business records. But my amendment highlights one issue that, to me, makes a mockery of this entire effort. The bill, as written, currently gives the EPA only $1 million per year to carry out the provisions in the bill. It wouldn't be so bad except that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the bill to be $250 million per year to implement the bill. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you perhaps think that you did not hear me correctly. But to put this disparity in some perspective, the Congressional Budget Office is estimating that implementing this bill would cost 25,000 percent more than the majority is providing. Now I understand why the majority is doing this. They don't want to pass legislation that costs anything to implement. It wouldn't be fiscally conservative. Now, I am not a math major, but simple math tells me that if a bill is $1 million in the text but costs $250 million to implement, you are asking the EPA to undertake $250 million of work with $1 million--not exactly fiscally or legislatively conservative or sound. More importantly, it forces the Agency into an untenable position. They must either ignore the requirements of this legislation because the majority isn't providing them with the resources to carry them out, or they can comply with the requirements for--and Mr. Chairman, hold your breath--they could comply with the requirements for 1\1/2\ days. That is what the funding would allow: $1 million, 1\1/2\ days, and then shut down all of the covered actions under the bill. So I know we think it might be laughable, except that it is true. But if the majority really believes in the premise behind this legislation, which I do not, then the majority should provide the Agency with the $250 million annually that, at a minimum, the Agency would need to carry out this bill. Those are not my estimates. Those are the estimates of the independent Congressional Budget Office. I am opposed to the bill for a number of reasons, and most likely, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree with me on those points. However, I have a hard time believing that any responsible Member of Congress who supports fiscal conservatism would consciously support a bill that is guaranteed, absolutely guaranteed to cause failure. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and not allow this bill to move forward with an unfunded mandate to the Agency. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, so we know that the EPA's jurisdiction is to make sure that we have clean water and clean air. That is sort of the basics of it. And now we are hearing from the majority, Mr. Chairman, that not only do they not believe the science and they think it is secret, they also don't believe the Congressional Budget Office. But for the fact that we cannot pick and choose which numbers we believe out of the Congressional Budget Office, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office, not just this year but in the last term as well, said that this bill would cost American taxpayers $250 million if the Agency were implementing it according to the legislative language. So I don't think that the majority should be allowed to pick and choose its science or pick and choose its numbers. The Congressional Budget Office, in fact, has said that this bill would cost $250 million to implement, more than 25,000 times the amount that is authorized in the language, and I think it is unacceptable for us to just denigrate the EPA, say that it is engaged in secret science, and then tell them that we want you to implement a bill without providing the resources that it takes to do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my colleague and the ranking Democrat on the committee.

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, better known as the NAACP, which is celebrating its 106th Birthday this week. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has been at the forefront of the fight to protect the civil rights of all Americans. The mission statement of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race- based discrimination in the United States. It has done so by advocating and influencing the passage of landmark legislation ranging from the Civil Rights Act to the Voting Rights Act, and monumental court decisions such as the holdings in Brown v. the Board of Education and Smith v. Allwright. Maryland's 4th Congressional District, made up of portions of Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties, is the only majority minority suburban district in the country. So I can speak from personal experience to the accomplishments of the NAACP that have impacted my district and constituents. The NAACP has had a presence in Anne Arundel County since 1944 and has done much to advance the cause of civil rights for its residents. Just as was the case in many other counties across the nation, Anne Arundel County operated under Jim Crow laws until the latter half of the 20th century. Segregation was the law of the land and the County's African-American residents experienced racial discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The NAACP was central in the fight to combat these injustices and worked over the following decades to expand voter participation, legally challenge the segregated school system, and bring the equality of opportunity to Anne Arundel County. When Hester V. King founded the Prince George's County chapter of the NAACP in 1935, there were 60,000 people living in the county, approximately 10 percent of whom were African-American. But, as in many parts of Maryland, the population exploded in the decades after the Second World War. African-Americans made up a significant part of this population expansion, but found they continued to encounter racial discrimination and segregation. During this transitional period, the NAACP was involved in numerous civil rights issues in Prince George's County, from the legal challenges that led to the elimination of the dual school system to the creation of the Human Relations Commission just to name a few. Prince George's County is now the wealthiest African American-majority County in the United States. This success is thanks in no small part to the NAACP, which has always resolutely placed them in the vanguard of the struggle for equality. Yet despite all that has been accomplished over the years there is still much to be done. Racial profiling is a pervasive policy in both the workplace and in many police departments all over the country, unequal law enforcement on young black men, and threats to voter access shows that the work championed by the NAACP is as important today as it was 106 years ago at its founding. So while it is right that we look back and recognize all the progress that has been made under their leadership, we also must look to the future to what remains to be accomplished under the continued leadership of the NAACP.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Mississippi is prepared to close, I am prepared to close.

Ms. EDWARDS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank all of my colleagues on the committee for the hard work that has been put into this bipartisan authorization. It is not perfect by any means. There are plenty of things that, between now and the time that we see this go to the President's desk for his signature, we will continue to have input on. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee and our colleagues in the Senate to make sure that we get to the end point. As I have said and as Ranking Member Johnson has said as well, we look forward to working on a bipartisan, multiyear authorization. Having put this one to bed, we actually now have demonstrated to ourselves and to the American public that we have the ability to get this done. In closing, I want to thank the committee staff--Allen Li, Pam Whitney, and Dick Obermann--for all of their work and my personal staff, Anne Nelson, as well as the staff on the other side because it really did take an awful lot of staff work and Member work to see this to the finish line. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi because it has been truly a pleasure to try to work on something where we are not working for perfection, but we are looking to find agreement and to do the best thing possible that supports the goals of NASA and all of the space industry, but also so that we get something done in this Congress. I could not have found a more cooperative and helpful working relationship than that that I have with Mr. Palazzo. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Lamar Smith, and our ranking member, Eddie Bernice Johnson--both of Texas--for supporting a process that leads us to the point we are today. This bipartisan bill that we are considering, the NASA Authorization Act of 2015, is largely identical to a bill that passed the House last year, H.R. 4412, and it passed with overwhelming support by a vote of 401-2. Unfortunately, time ran out during the last Congress before the Senate was able to take final action to reauthorize NASA, and so here we are. H.R. 810 authorizes appropriations for 1 year, consistent with the funding levels enacted for fiscal year 2015. Other than relevant date changes, the bill remains unchanged from last year's bipartisan, House- passed H.R. 4412 and retains the important and timely policy direction that NASA needs now to ensure stability and to sustain maximum progress on its programs. Mr. Speaker, building on the foundation set in H.R. 810, I and my colleagues on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee will be able to begin work on a multiyear NASA authorization once H.R. 810 is enacted into law, so we have set the process in place. Why is this bipartisan bill important, and why am I urging my colleagues in the House to vote ``yes'' on this bill should it come to a vote? Mr. Speaker, the developments in our Nation's civil space program never cease to amaze us and never cease to inspire countless individuals not only in the United States, but across the globe. NASA, as a multimission agency, makes these awe-inspiring contributions not only in human exploration, but across the disciplines of space and earth science, in the development of innovative technologies, in human spaceflight operations and biomedical research, and in aeronautics. It is this multipronged approach that we support today. In the sciences, NASA is making good progress on developing the James Webb Space Telescope, the next major observatory to follow the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA researchers are using data collected from space to identify new planets orbiting stars other than our Sun, to increase our scientific understanding of Mars and other planets in the solar system, to uncover critical information about our home planet, Earth, and its climate, and to study the Sun and space weather. These programs will lead to new discoveries and deepen our scientific knowledge. In fact, much of NASA's work also benefits our society in terms of new technologies and applied research that can improve the quality of life of all of our citizens. NASA is taking critical steps now in building the systems that will eventually take humans, as my colleague has said, into deep space. NASA is also overseeing recently awarded contracts to commercial companies that will develop, test, and seek certification for the U.S. commercial space vehicles that will take NASA astronauts safely to and from the international space station, thereby relieving our sole reliance on Russian partners for access to low-Earth orbit. We remain committed to a Commercial Crew Program that makes the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars; and as NASA and commercial partners embark on these projects, this bill that we are taking up today puts the highest priority for NASA's Commercial Crew Program on ensuring the safety of our astronauts. NASA is continuing to lead the highly successful international space station partnership, expand the use of the ISS for commercial, scientific, and exploration-oriented research, and gather critical biomedical information. The ISS is the only orbiting laboratory on which we can prepare for further human exploration and operations in outer space. The upcoming study of astronaut Scott Kelly, who will soon begin a year's stint on the ISS, and his twin brother, Mark, a former astronaut who will serve as a control subject, is an important undertaking in that regard. We need to examine measures to monitor Scott's health and the health of the NASA family of astronauts both in space and on the ground to gain a long-term perspective on the effects of spaceflight. Mr. Speaker, if NASA is to be as productive as it can be, it will require constancy of purpose and policy direction. In order for our Nation's space and aeronautics program to succeed, this bipartisan bill provides that constancy. H.R. 810 sets the long-term course of sending humans to the surface of Mars and directs NASA to provide a human exploration roadmap, outlining the capabilities and milestones needed to achieve that goal. Recognizing two of the primary systems needed to accomplish the goal--the Space Launch System, SLS, and Orion crew capsule--this bill directs the expeditious development, test, and achievement of SLS and Orion as the highest priority of NASA's human exploration program. Further, H.R. 810 also ensures that NASA maintains a strong aeronautics research portfolio, ranging from fundamental research through integrated systems, and it reaffirms the importance of NASA's education activities. NASA's successful STEM education program brings the expertise of its researchers and engineers to bear on STEM activities. That is science, technology, engineering, and math. This bill encourages the administration to continue in that vein. In addition, the bill includes provisions to advance our scientific and technical knowledge of orbital debris--or space junk--and near- Earth asteroids so that we in Congress can better understand the options for mitigating the risks that they pose. In closing, NASA is a crown jewel of our Federal Government. Its workers are an important component in our workforce, and the workers through the industry are important to us as well. NASA's space and aeronautics programs help maintain our competitiveness. They serve as a catalyst for innovation and economic growth, and they inspire the next generation to dream big and garner the skills to turn those dreams into action. NASA and our space program have a long history of bipartisan support. That continues today. NASA needs our constancy of purpose and policy direction now, and this 1-year bill puts us on track to do just that. We will build on that baseline as we work toward a multiyear authorization over the coming year. I look forward to doing that with my colleagues on the committee, and particularly with my colleague from Mississippi. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. I will enter in the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women opposing the DeSantis- Roby amendment. National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, January 12, 2015. Dear Representative: As the Steering Committee of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (``NTF''), comprised of national leadership organizations advocating on behalf of sexual and domestic violence victims and women's rights, we write in opposition to the Aderholt and DeSantis amendments to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. These amendments are overly broad, sweep large numbers of victims into their scope and ignore the best interests of victims and their children. We recently celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA''), which has, since it was first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. The proposed amendments serve to undermine protections from removal for victims of domestic and sexual violence and undercut the spirit of VAWA. We strongly urge you to vote NO on the following amendments: DeSantis Amendment What it does: This amendment prevents ICE from implementing the new detention and deportation priorities set in the November 20, 2014 Executive Action memo regarding Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants by preventing its implementation. This amendment disallows funding to support implementation, administration, enforcement, or carrying out of any policy that does not prioritize enforcement against those with domestic violence, and sexual abuse, and child abuse convictions. In particular, the November 20th guidance recognizes that immigrant victims of domestic violence may be convicted of violence themselves, and the amendment removes DHS discretion to consider the facts underlying the conviction. How it affects victims of domestic and sexual violence: Victims of domestic violence often do not seek help when they know that the consequences to the perpetrator (for example, a spouse or parent, or perhaps other family member) may result in the perpetrator's deportation. This often takes place due to their financial dependence, and even close relationship to the perpetrator. As a result, this amendment will discourage victims from seeking help, reducing reporting and prosecution of crimes, creating communities that are less safe and in which victims are more likely to endure abuse. Immigrant victims are vulnerable to being arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence, even when they are not the primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship. This frequently happens due to language and cultural barriers. Often, victims are desperate to be released and reunited with their children upon arrest and/or during trial. These factors--combined with poor legal counsel, particularly about the immigration consequences of criminal pleas and convictions--have in the past and will likely continue to lead to deportation of wrongly accused victims who may have pled to or been unfairly convicted of domestic violence charges. The vast majority of sexual abuse, child exploitation and domestic violence convictions already fall within the highest priorities for enforcement; this amendment removes DHS discretion to consider the needs of victims. Aderholt Amendment What it does: Among other things, the amendment prevents the use of funds or fees for all of the November 20, 2014 Executive Action mandates by the president, including the renewal and continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for young people who arrived in the United States as children, and hinders the ability to implement the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, which provides protection for parents of U.S. citizen and Legal Permanent Resident children. These programs grant immigrants who are not priorities for removal some protection from removal. The amendment also prevents the use of ``funds or fees'' to carry out prior DHS guidance, including ICE Director Morton's prosecutorial discretion memos (2011), USCIS referrals of Notices To Appear (2011), ICE response to Secure Communities Task Force (Apr. 2012), detainers (Dec. 2012), and adjustment of status under visa waiver program (Nov. 2013). The amendment prohibits any ``substantially similar'' policy changes to these memos in the future. The amendment also prohibits the use of funds or fees to ``grant any Federal benefit'' to any noncitizen pursuant to any of the policy changes in these memos. The amendment reinstates the Secure Communities Program. Impact on victims of domestic and sexual violence: This amendment increases the vulnerability to abuse for immigrants by increasing: (1) fear of deportation and (2) financial dependence on abusers. Eliminates DHS prosecutorial discretion to consider the needs of victims of domestic and sexual violence, including the trauma they have experienced, in prioritizing enforcement activities. Increases victims fear of deportation as a consequence of reporting crimes committed against them as a result of local law enforcement entanglement with ICE in implementing the Secure Communities Program. As a result, many violent crimes will go unreported. We strongly urge members to prioritize the needs of immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence, and reject these amendments. These recommendations are endorsed by the Immigration subcommittee and the steering committee of the National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, including The Asian Institute on Gender Based Violence, ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities, Futures Without Violence, National Immigrant Justice Center, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. If you have any questions, please contact us for further information through Grace Huang, Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence or Andrea Carcamo, Casa de Esperanza.

Ms. EDWARDS. As the founder and former executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, I join the network of every State domestic violence coalition and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women in opposing this amendment. The issue really is very simple. Often--too often--in cases of domestic violence, law enforcement show up at a home, they can't figure out what happened, both parties are arrested, and down the line both plead to misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. This happens all the time all around the country. For the victim, it may be because she just wants to get it out of the way to get back to her children or she has been threatened with further violence by her abuser or with her immigration status held over her head. Whatever the reason, it turns out that in too many of these circumstances, no one--not law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, or even her attorney, if she is fortunate to have one--tells her that by pleading to the misdemeanor, her immigration status is threatened and she faces deportation. So this is not about fault. It just means that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to domestic violence. It is why we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress. Here is the harm. This amendment would prevent immigration authorities from looking beneath the surface in circumstances only of domestic violence offenses to make absolutely certain that we are not victimizing the victim twice by subjecting her to deportation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous amendment that could result in additional violence and undoing what successive Congresses and Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, have done for 20 years--afford fairness and protection for vulnerable immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. And so let's get the facts straight. This is not about shielding perpetrators. It is about protecting victims. Our immigration authorities deserve to take a second look when it comes to domestic violence, and I urge my colleagues to do no harm and vote ``no'' on the DeSantis-Roby amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are just 1 week into this Congress and the Republican majority promised bipartisanship, especially on homeland security, the security of our homeland, yet, oh, no, it is politics as usual from Republicans now politicizing the Department of Homeland Security and its important funding at this time when we know around the world, and especially in France, which has felt so poignantly what happens when we don't pay attention to security. But here they are. They are mad at the President. Why? Because the President did what other Presidents have done, taking executive action on immigration. And so they are mad at the President, and Republicans are now going to punish the American people by not protecting our homeland. Well, shame on the Republican Party for politicizing the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker, it is time to get to business. The American people expect that, and the Republicans, if they plan to govern, need to do it and pass a clean bill funding our Department of Homeland Security and take care of our homeland. This is what the American people expect, and it is what the Republican Party needs to deliver if they want to govern.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Amendment XVII: ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ``When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: . . .''

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank Mr. Pocan for yielding and for his leadership for calling us together this evening to talk about what trade means to American paychecks. Thank you again because I was sitting in my office, and I was listening to my colleagues speak so eloquently about the need for Congress, for individual Members of Congress representing--those of us representing 725,000 Americans, to have a voice in a process that is so important to American paychecks. As I sat there, I thought I owed it to my constituents in the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland to come to this floor to stand on their side for their paychecks, so I thank you for that. As I listened to some of my colleagues, one of the things that I heard Ms. Kaptur say was to talk about the job loss in the manufacturing sector, in the clothing textile sector in the Carolinas. I represent a district in Maryland, but my family is from North Carolina. A lot of my family members had those good-paying jobs in the mills. They were making the sheets, pillowcases, T-shirts, and hats, and they all lost their jobs. All of those jobs went someplace else, but they didn't stay in North Carolina. That was a tragedy. It was a tragedy for my family, as it has been a tragedy for families all across this country. I remember the NAFTA debate, and so many Members of Congress--I wasn't in Congress at the time, Mr. Pocan wasn't in Congress at the time--but we remember the debate. We remember that they told us: ``Well, there would be other jobs that would be created, so don't worry about any jobs that would be lost.'' They said the jobs in the service sector would grow and they would stay. Almost one of the first things to happen after NAFTA went into effect was all those call centers closed. Those were service-sector jobs, and they left, along with millions of manufacturing jobs. In my home State of Maryland, we lost 70,000 jobs--and we are a small State--but we lost those just to NAFTA, so when people tell me now as a Member of Congress: ``We want you to just Fast Track this trade deal, this Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and just trust us that the process is going to work, just trust us that all you have to do is rubberstamp the trade deal''--I remember--and Mr. Pocan, you remember--and that is what requires us for our constituents to say no way, that we cannot just give Fast Track authority over, hand it over and, in effect, just say that whatever the deal is that has been negotiated, we will just take that deal for the American people. Well, you and I know better. One of the things that has long concerned me is getting wind that our Trade Representative, on behalf of my constituents and your constituents, were negotiating away Buy American provisions, negotiating them away without our even having a voice in that conversation. Let's look at those Buy American provisions. In 2012, 68 of our colleagues joined us in saying to President Obama, ``Don't negotiate away the Buy American provision.'' Then just last year, 120 Members of Congress said, ``Mr. President, don't negotiate away the Buy American provisions.'' So I see that the wind is really beneath our sails because the American people understand that when you negotiate away Buy American, what you do is negotiate away the buying power and the jobs of American workers. You trade what is, in effect, billions of dollars of American taxpayer buying power for very little buying power coming from the other direction. I am troubled that we have a Trade Representative that just wants to say, ``Take the deal and run,'' and those of us who stand in the steps of American workers, we are in their place. We are representing them. We have their voice. We need to have their voice, and we have to have their back and say ``no'' to Fast Track and say ``no'' to the TPP and ``no'' to provisions that would trade away what we know the statistics are. The U.S. procurement market is more than 10 times larger than all the TPP procurement markets combined, and so that means that we would trade away preferential access for U.S. firms to $556 billion in Federal Government procurement. For what? $53 billion in return? We have to say ``no'' to this deal. I want to thank Mr. Pocan for bringing us together. It is good that we are doing this from day one in the United States House of Representatives because what we are saying to American workers is: ``Not only will we stand with you on the first day of the Congress and the next day of the Congress, but all the way to the end, to keep from trading away millions of your jobs.''

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that is providing for consideration of this so-called omnibus bill. Among the many troublesome eleventh-hour additions to the underlying 1,600-page spending bill is a provision that not only allows for another multibillion dollar bank bailout and for taxpayers to be on the hook for that, but it gives the keys to the bank to the moneyed special interests by allowing up to $800,000 to be contributed by one person to the Democratic and Republican Party committees. Now, most Americans think there is already too much money in politics, but, oh, no, not House Republicans. They are just saying open up the spigots to the special interests. Instead of passing a clean bill that funds the Federal Government and avoids another harmful shutdown, this Congress, these Republicans have chosen to bring the American people a bill that would allow for the negative opinions that they already hold of this Congress to go even further, to say the richer you are, the more access you have, the more influence that you have. Madam Speaker, this provision has no business in a spending bill, no business in our democracy, and we can't allow the megaphones of moneyed special interests to take hold of our government. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. There are a lot of reasons to oppose it, and I am just naming one. But let's not bail out the banks again, and let's not give them the keys to the bank in our pocket and let the special interests take control of this Congress.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Ralph Hall has been a fervent and steadfast presence in Congress for almost thirty-five years. Before coming to Washington, he served as a county judge and as a member of the Texas State Senate. Before that he flew Hellcat fighters for the Navy during World War II; married the love of his life, Mary Ellen; and tells the story of working at his local pharmacy as a kid and selling a carton of cigarettes and a couple of bottles of Coke to the outlaws Bonnie and Clyde. Congressman Hall has led an extraordinary and dynamic life, and he readily brought that energy to his work in Congress. Serving with him on the Science Committee, and especially on the Space Subcommittee, has been a true honor. Congressman Hall has a deep respect for the basic science work done by NASA, especially that done aboard the International Space Station. He has also been a firm champion of America's space exploration program--and it was in fact he who added the word ``Space'' back into the name of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology during the 112th Congress. As he has said many times, human space exploration is one of the best methods we have for engaging and inspiring the next generation. I join my colleagues today in honoring Ralph Hall--who has inspired us all with his dedication to public service and to our nation.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the congressional career of our colleague, the Dean of the House, John Dingell. As the longest-serving member of Congress ever, it is hard to imagine our nation, this Congress, and the Energy and Commerce Committee without him as he retires at the end of the 113th Congress. I am happy that he is leaving on his own terms and I wish him every happiness as he moves onto the next phase of his life as a congressional spouse. I am just so honored to be here to celebrate and honor somebody I call a friend--John Dingell. Over my time in the House of Representatives, I have noticed that everyone who talks about John Dingell says my friend, my chairman, my colleague, my mentor, someone I look up to, and someone I respect. I would just like to say that I can't really change those words because they echo my own sentiments. I was not yet born when John Dingell was first sworn into the House on December 13, 1955. It was about two and a half years before I entered the world. When he took that courageous vote in support of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and civil rights, I was six-years-old. I recall at the time living here in the Washington metropolitan area that my father and mother used to bring us to this Capitol almost every Sunday after church. They would bring us and we would run up and down the east front of the Capitol. We would picnic on the west front of the Capitol. I am thinking today how wonderful it is to know there was someone who was in this chamber who so valued this institution and who, even when I was a six-year old, John Dingell was working to protect my rights. When I think about that, I think of the need to create a formula for the VRA that the Supreme Court can support that institutes the way that we protect our voting rights in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Almost none of us, including John Lewis, would be here had John Dingell not had the courage to take that vote in 1964. So, it's such an honor to serve with him and to know that while that may have been the battle in 1964, he remains fully prepared to engage in the battle here in 2014. It is also an honor that we all have the great privilege of being able to serve with John Dingell. I believe there is hardly anything that impacts our modern day laws that we can't attribute to the great hard work and public service of John Dingell. The fact that I got up this morning and turned on a faucet and ran a glass of water and was able to drink it and know that it was clean, was about John Dingell. That I walked outside today and knew that I could breathe air that was okay--we still have work to do-- but to know that that clean air, and the cleaner we make our air, is attributed to John Dingell. I think back to my grandmother who came to live with us at a point when she was aging--and it was actually just prior to the enactment of Medicare--and how different families' lives are now because of the protections that they have for health care as they age and are disabled. Those things are attributable to the great work, the legislative legacy, and the service of John Dingell. When I first came into Congress, I won a primary election against an incumbent member. One day John Dingell pulled me aside in the cloak room and he said, ``Come sit down, I want to talk to you, I want to get to know you.'' And I was, frankly, afraid of him. I knew his history, I had watched him Chair several Energy and Commerce hearings, and I knew that he was a great friend of my predecessor in this chamber. I sat down and I talked to him, and what I gained from John Dingell was the kind of honor and dedication that he has, and reverence that he has, for this institution. It is unlike any that we see, and we learn from that. So we talked, and we became friends. Then a funny thing happened. Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, and his inauguration was about to occur. It is another reminder that John Dingell's almost 59 years of service--that anniversary will occur this Saturday--are about this amazing legislative work, but it is also about the children, women, men, and families of his district. The Marching Chiefs of Wyandotte Roosevelt High School in Mr. Dingell's congressional district were invited to play in the 2009 inaugural parade for President Obama. Somehow or another, they booked a hotel in Hershey, Pennsylvania, that was approximately 130 miles and a couple of hours away from Washington, DC. Those students and their chaperones would have had to get up at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning to get to the inaugural staging area on time. I have the honor of representing a congressional district just outside of Washington, DC, in Maryland. John Dingell reached out to me and he told me this story, and I said, Well, maybe we can figure out something. We found a willing partner in Wise Junior High School in Prince George's County, Maryland, where they could stay in the gym. The parent-teacher organization, the staff, and the students welcomed those students from Michigan that they didn't know at all into their high school. They fed them and provided sleeping bags, blankets, and even an ironing board. So, the Marching Chiefs were able to actually get to the inaugural parade much easier and on time. Those students were so grateful to John Dingell. What I saw in this great legislator is that the people of his district really did come first and he looked out for them, and they knew that he looked out for them. I thought that that is the kind of Member of Congress that I want to be. John Dingell and I have been locked at the hand and the hip ever since. In 2011, I was scheduled to speak at a Washtenaw County, Michigan, Democratic Club dinner. I flew into the Detroit Metropolitan Airport and as I walked through the terminal, the Wyandotte Roosevelt High School Marching Band started to play. Unbeknownst to me, John Dingell had coordinated with the school as a surprise thank you. I think there are so many of us who serve in this institution who really do value the message that John Dingell has given us about the need to work together and to preserve and protect our democracy by working in a way that gives value and service to all of our communities and to this great nation. So for that, I want to thank John Dingell for being such an important part of this institution and important part of the way I have learned to become a Member of Congress. Finally, I want to say a word about John Dingell's efforts on health care. As many of my colleagues know, John Dingell, like his father before him, has introduced a universal health care bill at the beginning of each new Congress. Before I came to the Congress, I had an experience of not having had health care and getting very sick, which required a trip to the emergency room. I ended up having a lot of bills that I couldn't pay because I didn't have health insurance. When we began to consider what is today known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it was John Dingell sitting as speaker pro tempore who gaveled in the House with the gavel that he used for the passage of Medicare. Then during the course of the debate on the ACA, I had the honor of presiding as speaker pro tempore and there was one moment that John Dingell was speaking on the floor about his father's experience and about his experience working on health care. I will never forget that moment because for me it was what we do as legislators, but it also felt very personal. It felt so wonderful to know that in John Dingell' s service, he has never stopped for a single day of those 59 years to make sure that millions of Americans like me could have health care that was quality, affordable, and accessible. So I thank him very much for his service, and I am so honored to have had the opportunity over these past seven years to serve with him and to learn from him. John Dingell's retirement will leave a void in this House that cannot be filled. I wish him, his wife Debbie, his children Chris, Jennifer, John, and Jeanne, and his grandchildren continued success, happiness, and hopefully some well-earned rest. I know they have been of tremendous support to him in his service to this House and our nation. He leaves behind a legacy of service that others can and should aspire to.