Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill that doesn't create jobs but strips women of appropriate reproductive health care services.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, with 21 legislative days remaining on the calendar, I urge my colleagues in the Majority to finally bring to the floor a jobs bill that puts Americans back to work rather than work to restrict a woman's right to receive affordable and comprehensive care. Bills like the falsely named Protect Life Act only serve as cover for the Republicans' unwillingness to bring forth a real jobs plan and restore the economy. This Republican package is wrapped in a label that says, ``I care'', but contains nothing more than an empty promise. Let me be clear--this bill jeopardizes the health and wellness of women throughout this country and is a clear assault on women's choice. I have heard from women throughout Maryland and across the 4th Congressional District who value access to and information on abortion services. I have heard from women who have had planned and wanted pregnancies, but suffered unexpected and costly complications. I have heard from women like Mary who, after undergoing years of fertility treatment, had finally been pregnant with her son David, but found out that due to atrophy of his lungs and kidneys there was virtually no chance of his survival beyond a few hours. I have heard from women who are faced with difficult, personal, and emotional choices about their health and that of their children. These are the women who need access to health care when they face unexpected health complications. H.R. 358 would allow hospitals to deny care to patients whose lives are in peril, while also denying many Americans, not just women, access to safe, affordable, and comprehensive care when they need it most. It is simply unfair, unwise, and irresponsible for this Chamber to decide what health care options women and families are able to explore. I urge my colleagues to oppose both this unfair rule that does not allow any amendments and the underlying, mean-spirited legislation.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, there is a strong sense of deja vu here in the Chamber today. Last week, we gave power plants--the number one source of airborne mercury--free rein to spew neurotoxins and other hazardous materials into the air we breathe. The other day, we repealed EPA's standards for cement kilns--the second-largest source of mercury in our air. Now here we are again, proposing to preemptively block EPA from finalizing rules that limit pollution coming from the third-largest mercury emitters-- industrial boilers and waste incinerators. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans seem bent on eviscerating the Clean Air Act, turning back the clock on 40 years of progress in health, technological innovation, economic expansion, and job growth. Yes, job growth. Contrary to the belief of my colleagues on the other side, protecting our environment and our health doesn't stifle jobs; in fact, it saves jobs. That's because, when you develop, manufacture, and implement environmental technologies, it's labor intensive. That explains why during this same period that the Clean Air Act kept more than 1.7 million tons of poisonous chemicals out of our lungs that it also contributed to 207 percent increase--that's right, 207 percent--in the Nation's GDP. So that is why I am offering an amendment today, to acknowledge that this bill, H.R. 2250, will block rules that would have created at least 2,200 jobs. This number is a very conservative estimate. It doesn't count the good-paying jobs that would come from increased demand for the manufacture and installation of pollution control devices. It doesn't count the benefits to industry of improved worker productivity due to the 320,000 sick days avoided by reducing pollution under the rules. But even conservatively, it puts 2,200 Americans back to work. So I would like to ask my colleagues on the other side who are supporting this legislation to eviscerate the standards, at a time when we have 14 million Americans unemployed, Mr. Chairman, why in the world would you chip away at a law that has helped to stoke the American economy for 40 years and put millions of people back to work? Study after study has actually documented the connection between employment and environmental regulations, and the facts really speak for themselves. The four most heavily regulated industries--pulp and paper, refining, iron and steel, and plastics--have seen a net increase of 1.5 jobs for every $1 million they spend on complying with standards. These are also some of the biggest users of industrial boilers and incinerators that are, in fact, the subject of this bill. One single rule, the first phase of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, has brought 200,000 new jobs in the air pollution control industry just in the past 7 years, an average rate of 29,000 additional workers employed each year. And keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, we have a Congress, a Republican- controlled Congress, that actually hasn't created one job. The boilermaker workforce, a group that is directly affected by the air quality standards wiped out by this bill, actually grew 35 percent between 1999 and 2001 simply because more stringent pollution controls had to be installed to meet the EPA's regional nitrogen oxide reduction standards. The U.S. environmental technologies and services industry employed 1.7 million workers in 2008 and exported some $44 billion worth of goods and services. That's a fourfold increase over 1990, when the Clean Air Act was amended. So here we have a thriving international market for these goods and services, estimated at more than $700 billion--on par, actually, with the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries--and this Congress, this Republican Congress actually wants to destroy that. Unbelievable. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. is recognized as a world leader in technologies like pollution monitoring and control equipment, information systems for environmental management and analysis, engineering, and design. We became a leader because the Clean Air Act and other environmental legislation has actually challenged us to innovate. We answered that challenge. Americans answered the challenge, and, as a result, our share of the global market is actually growing. In fact, we had a net trade surplus of $11 billion in environmental technologies in 2008. This is good business, Mr. Chairman, and so it's ironic that the people around the world are eager to reap rewards on superior American ingenuity and know-how while this Chamber is bringing forward a bill today that would deprive the American people of the rewards and benefits of that ingenuity. Look, Congress can and has to do better. The American people are expecting it. In fact, we depend on it. And so here we are again, 14 million people unemployed, millions in poverty, when we could be creating jobs, but, instead, we're destroying them. I want to urge all my colleagues to support my amendment. And, as Members of this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, it's time for us to join together in putting the country first, and together we can get America back to work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Just one question for the gentleman. I wonder if there is any time frame at all that would be acceptable for the implementation of standards that would save lives and create jobs?

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I was going to speak about mercury, and I will get to that, but I really have to clarify for the Record and the public record. We keep hearing, and we've heard once again on this floor from our Republican colleagues, that the bill won't harm public health or weaken health standards, and this is just not accurate. It's really important, Mr. Chairman, for the public to understand that. In fact, section 2 of the bill lists four final clean air rules and says they shall have ``no force or effect.'' Section 3 of the bill eliminates the 3-year compliance deadline in the Clean Air Act and doesn't set any new deadline. And, for the record, section 5 of the bill directs the EPA to set weaker standards than the clean air requirements. So make no mistake. H.R. 2250, contrary to what the other side is saying, has real legal effect and consequence, and those effects weaken our protection from air pollution and harm the health of Americans, especially our children. Now, I recognize that there is a zeal for deregulation, but for clean air standards, for clean water standards, this really makes no sense. In fact, the bill throws out EPA's rules to require boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury. And unlike the statements that have been made on this floor, this comes in the wake of a bill to nullify EPA's rules to clean up cement kilns, and yet another bill to nullify EPA's rules to clean up power plants. When does it stop? When does the public health and the consequences of these actions become important to the American people instead of just this move to deregulation? Just this last month, the Republicans have pushed legislation to let the Nation's largest source of toxic mercury pollution off the hook for cleaning up their emissions, jeopardizing public health. And for what? Now, I've heard that we shouldn't have so much concern about mercury, but somebody in this House, somebody in this Congress has to be concerned about the public health consequences to our children of toxic mercury emissions. They also cite studies from the American Forest & Paper Association, from the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, and these are nothing more than industry studies that seek to absolve the industry from cleaning up its own mess. They've been refuted by actual scientists. And I suggested on this floor we actually pay attention to science and facts and not just a move to deregulate because we're interested in doing industry a favor at the expense of public health. And we know that, contrary to what's been said, the public health consequences of mercury are clear; they're stated; they're facts; they're science. So let's not undercut that. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. It harms developing brains of infants. It leads to learning disabilities. It causes attention deficits and behavioral problems and a whole range of other problems. So the Republicans cannot be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to pick and choose their facts and their science. The facts and the science are as they are, and we should not be nullifying EPA's rules that protect the public health. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important for us to take a step back and review our history. The Clean Air Act has a proven 40-year track record of delivering technological innovation and economic growth for the American people while at the same time protecting public health and our Nation's environment. This bipartisan act was originally signed into law by President Richard Nixon, and the 1990 amendments were enacted by President George H.W. Bush. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues here today don't see eye to eye even with their own party's former Presidents. Since its inception, the Clean Air Act has netted Americans $40 in benefits for every $1 that's been spent, making it one of the most successful and significant statutes in our Nation's history. My amendment highlights the fact that if the rules repealed by this bill remained in effect, they would yield annual public health benefits of between $6.7 billion and $18 billion, at a cost of under $1 billion. The benefit of complying with the EPA's cement kiln standards exceeds the cost by a factor of at least 7 and as much as 18. And let's say this in really plain language: That is between a 700 percent to an 1,800 percent return on an investment. It sounds like a good investment. And these returns come from avoiding the health care and social costs associated with 2,500 premature deaths, 1,500 heart attacks, 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 32,000 cases of respiratory illnesses each year, the cost of 1,000 emergency room visits, 740 hospital admissions, multiple trips to the doctor and taking prescription drugs, and the cost of 130,000 days of missed work a year, costs felt by employers in the form of lost productivity and the employee in the form of lost wages. One person working 7 days a week would have to work 356 years to reach 130,000 days. This very extreme analogy makes a simple point. If we put it in perspective, the cement industry employs 13,000 workers. And if those workers took the 130,000 sick days, it would shut down the entire cement industry for 10 days every year. A study published in the May 2011 Health Affairs found that we spend $76 billion a year treating environmental diseases in children like lead poisoning, prenatal methylmercury exposure, childhood cancer, asthma, intellectual disability, autism, and ADHD. Now, cement factory emissions may not be responsible for every one of these instances, but cement kilns are the second-largest source of airborne mercury pollution in the United States--after power plants. It's extraordinary. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that when ingested, particularly by pregnant women, in the form of fish, can impair cognitive function in infants and children. In 2000, the National Research Council warned that 60,000 children could be born annually with neurological problems from exposure to mercury while in the womb. It's a simple fact: At a time when our Nation is struggling with budget deficits, we should be targeting the causes of disease and acting to reduce the need for health care spending. And yet producers of toxic emissions need to step up and assume their fair share of responsibility. Now, those who want to gut the EPA cement kiln standards say that complying with these rules would force them to jack up the price of cement and drive consumers--mostly construction companies--to buy cheap imports from China instead. It's not true, and it's just a scare tactic. Instead, look at the facts. The EPA estimates that cement makers would recoup nearly 90 percent of their pollution control costs--which are anyway amortized over years of operation--by adding just $4.50 to the price of a ton of cement. This is not a prohibitive hike. And more importantly, cement is expensive to ship, and so the likelihood of shipping it from China seems highly skeptical. The truth is that the cement sector is vulnerable because the construction industry has taken a big hit in the recession and hasn't recovered. And here we're in a Congress trying to gut EPA standards when we actually should be creating jobs. And if you want to talk about job killers, this bill is a job killer because we should be investing in the industry, allowing it to produce cement for roads, bridges, all of our infrastructure instead of gutting EPA standards. There's no way to do this except by investing in infrastructure. And so I would urge us to look at the real cost of lowering these standards, the real cost to industry, and urge us instead to think about the Clean Air Act and the benefits to communities, and make sure that we pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the other side has been in the majority for 39 weeks and they still haven't passed a single piece of legislation to create jobs or help small businesses. And now they reject out-of-hand, commonsense ideas in the American Jobs Act that would help small business owners who really are the economic engine responsible for creating 70 percent of the jobs in this country. Last week, I visited with small business owners like Susan Bishop, the owner of Jaha Hair Studio. She has been in business 16 years, has eight employees, and she has found it impossible to get a $30,000 credit extension to meet payroll from a bank that she has done business with for 16 years. She wants to expand her business, to hire others, to train others, and she can't do it, but she could with the American Jobs Act. Constituents Abeba and Lene Tsegaye, owners of Kefa Cafe, told me that they would actually hire someone if they could get the tax credits available in the American Jobs Act. So why aren't we doing it, doing it for the owners of Kefa Cafe and other small businesses throughout my congressional district? These are real job creators. It's time for this to be our top priority. Pass the American Jobs Act. Get America back to work. It's time for the majority to act.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentleman because I think that we've received some rather sobering news about the state of America and the state of American workers--the state of Americans. It is that here we are at a time when we've reached the highest poverty rates in 52 years in this country, where median incomes are down lower than they've been in a generation--7 percent less, in fact, than what median incomes were even in 1999--where nearly a third of African American families in this country live in poverty, where millions upon millions of children in this country go to bed hungry because they live in poverty, because their families--their parents-- don't have a chance for a job and an opportunity. I think that that should be sobering news for us, not as Democrats and Republicans; it should be sobering news for us as Americans. That's why, when I heard President Obama in this House speaking to the American people about the need to create jobs right now, I know what I heard was a message that said: I suppose with the politics we could politic this out for 14 months, that we could fight amongst ourselves as Democrats and Republicans for 14 months, that we could in the political arena just raise millions and millions of dollars to run campaign ads and make annoying phone calls to people across this country for 14 months--or we could take a different path. We could take a path that's really about creating jobs and opportunities for people who are living in poverty, for Americans who want to work right now. I had a really interesting experience for me over the break that the Congress had. I visited the new Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial with my mother--my mother, who was born at the beginning of the Depression, my mother, who lived in a community in North Carolina where she would visit the local town and had segregated water fountains, where people really struggled. They were farmers who struggled greatly to put food on the table. On the way to the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial, we passed the memorial to FDR. I saw there the statues representing people who were standing in employment lines and in food lines, and I saw the words of that wonderful President who recognized that he had to get beyond the politics to a point where we were creating jobs, not just meaningless jobs, but jobs that were about rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure, that were about putting people to work so that they could put food on their tables so that they could make a contribution to this country. So as I walked, as we walked from the FDR memorial over to the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial, I said to myself that the United States right now, in this time of great need, with 14 million people unemployed, that we need an FDR moment, that the American people need an FDR moment and that that moment has to be about creating jobs for people right here in America, for rebuilding our manufacturing sector, for investing in research and development and innovation and creativity, for taking those 150,000 bridges across this country that are falling apart. And I know when I drive over a bridge, I don't say, Is this a Republican bridge or is this a Democratic bridge? What I say is, Is this a bridge that I can get my car over that waterway safely? And when I look at that bridge and I see the steel beams, I know that those are steel beams manufactured by people right here in the United States. When I look at the asphalt and the cement that covers that bridge, I see work that took place right here in the United States. When I look at those bridges and these 150,000 bridges all across the country that need to be rebuilt by hardworking Americans, what I see are the light posts up by the bridge with the electricity running through them or the solar panels on them that are put there and built there by American workers. So when the President says to pass the American Jobs Act right away, the reason he is saying that is because those are jobs right now for hardworking Americans who actually want to work hard, building things in this country, rebuilding all of our infrastructure, our bridges, our roadways, our water and sewer systems that are falling apart. They want to do this. I think it's really incumbent on us to do it, and I think that the American people ought to hold each and every one of us to account for failing to do it. I note, as Mr. Garamendi is showing here and that we will see, that nearly 2 million construction workers across this country are unemployed. When our colleague, Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, talks about the 35,000 schools that need to be reconstructed for the 21st century so that our young people can learn in a 21st-century learning environment, it is not just because it feels good but because it will make a difference to our own competitiveness for the 21st century. What I know is that those are those 2 million construction workers who are unemployed across this country who can do that work in our schools, in their communities. So I think that this is a real imperative, and I would just urge our colleagues to look beyond the D and an R and look to a job for the American people who are asking us to do this for them, but also to do this for us. I don't know how it is that we survive in a global economy when we are not producing anything, when we are not putting our people back to work, when we are not engaged in rebuilding all of our infrastructure that was decades in the making from FDR and beyond and is now falling apart. I owe that to my mother and my grandmother and my grandfather for the generation that did all of that for us. We owe it to them not to allow it to fall apart. So I say, yes, let's pass the American Jobs Act now.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you for that. I just want to remind our colleagues that for every $1 billion, $1 billion that we invest in repairing the Nation's infrastructure, we create 35,000 jobs: $1 billion, 35,000 jobs. So the multiplier effect is really tremendous. It is the construction worker on the site, but it's also the canteen truck that drives up-- that's the small business person at that site. It's the engineers and all of the technicians who develop that amazing engineering for these construction sites. It's the architects who are designing a revamped school in a neighborhood to educate our children to compete in the 21st century. So $1 billion equals 35,000 jobs.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, John Paul Stevens warned that the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United threatened to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the country. How right he was. Since the Court's decision last January, corporate special interests have had unprecedented freedom to spend on our elections. In fact, campaign spending by outside groups surged to more than $300 million in the 2010 election cycle and are already off the charts for this cycle. Likewise, State laws that limited corporate bankrolling of candidates have been struck down. Mr. Speaker, we have unprecedented challenges in front of us. But how do we make the tough choices on the economy, on taxes, on protecting the vulnerable and investing in the future and creating jobs? We cannot stand idly by while deeply flawed interpretations of the Constitution are used to obstruct our democracy rather than guiding it, putting lobbyists and piles of cash into policy and elections. It's time for the people's House to stop the madness; and so this week I joined with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers to reintroduce a constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 78, to reclaim Congress and to regulate corporate expenditures.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I am glad to see a clean bill come to the House floor that extends the authorization of the Federal Aviation Authority to function through the end of January 2012. It is critical that we keep an important government agency like the FAA running and get 3,600 federal employees and some 70,000 construction workers back to work to make sure that our air travel and shipment of goods are conducted safely and efficiently. However, this bill has been so scrubbed clean that it is missing a crucial component of fairness--back pay for those FAA employees who were furloughed during a nearly two week agency shutdown. It should be common sense for us to come together to make sure that the aviation specialists, engineers, electronics technicians, logistics experts, medical professionals, support staff, and others who were abruptly laid off, through no fault of their own, receive the compensation they deserve. We can't let dedicated, hard-working federal employees suffer because my colleagues across the aisle were unwilling to compromise, causing a shutdown of the FAA and costing American taxpayers $350 million in lost tax revenue. I am grateful that those FAA employees whose functions were deemed ``essential'' and who continued to work during the shutdown--albeit without a salary and with no assurances of compensation--have received full compensation and benefits for that period. But that still leaves the vast majority of furloughed workers two-weeks short on pay, forcing many to draw on savings to make ends meet. I also understand that there is some disagreement over whether the Department of Transportation has the authority to provide back pay to furloughed employees under the legislation we are considering since it operates retroactively to ``erase'' the authorization gap, or if Congress needs to pass a law. This disagreement is a poor excuse for inaction. We would be adding insult to injury if we were to deprive furloughed employees of wages while we play the blame game for the second time--first on keeping the FAA open for business, and now on who can award a pay check. This is not new territory: we voted to compensate the 800,000 federal workers laid off during a 26-day budget stalemate in 1995-1996. We know how to do it. We just have to demonstrate the political will to get it done. I urge the House leadership to bring to the floor as expeditiously as possible H.R. 2814 or other legislation to ensure that these furloughed employees get paid.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, nearly 8 months ago we stood on the floor of this House led by the Republican majority, swore the oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and even read the Constitution here on the floor of the House. We read in the 14th amendment, Section 4: ``The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.'' We read that, and here we are on the brink of default because the Republican majority has failed to compromise. The Republican majority said we won't do what we've done for every other President, which is give him a clean debt ceiling vote on this floor so that he can pay the debts and obligations of the United States. So seniors are waiting on Wednesday next week to know whether they're going to get their Social Security benefits. Military servicemembers are waiting for their checks. Retirees are waiting for their checks. And we stand here on the brink of default. I would ask the President of the United States to exercise whatever authority is necessary to pay our seniors their Social Security benefits and to meet the obligations of the United States. It's time for us to do our job. It's time for this majority to compromise. It's time for us to lead.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I'm shocked. We spent 4 hours on the floor of the House of Representatives in January reading the Constitution, and now we get to spend a minute debating it. It's pretty amazing how much the folks on the other side value the Constitution of the United States. I'm opposed to the rule, the bill, everything that's connected with it. We approach this August 2 deadline. The markets have closed down yet one more time before this weekend begins. And President Obama has been crystal clear. He said that any agreement to increase the debt ceiling has to extend it to 2013. And yet here we are considering something that the President has said is a nonstarter, the Senate has said is a nonstarter, the American people have said is a nonstarter, and here we are again debating something that will never go anywhere. The Republican majority really should be embarrassed for the American people. They are putting everything in jeopardy and leaving nothing up to the President to decide come August 2 when this debt ceiling deadline approaches. And placing at risk our retirement security, placing at risk our ability to get credit, our ability to get a home mortgage, all of that because of this recklessness. The bill that Speaker Boehner brought to the floor yesterday and this constitutional amendment that was hurriedly drafted today just to please the far right elements of the Tea Party, I can't even believe we are here today trying to satisfy the far right when we're not busy satisfying the needs of the American public and the markets around the world. Why are we voting on this plan and not one that has a fighting chance of avoiding default? I want to say, Madam Speaker, it's time for America to get busy here, understanding that the Republican majority is ready to jeopardize our entire future and put at risk our entire future for this garbage.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. This is nothing more than political posturing by the Republican majority. And I think it's important for the American people to understand that this majority has asked us time and time again to vote to end Medicare, to cut Social Security, to cut Medicaid, and they're doing it once again. No question about it. What's being offered up by this majority is nothing short of recklessness, absolutely nothing. The Speaker and the Republican Party know that the President and the Senate are going to reject the bill. I don't even know why we're here on this floor, Mr. Speaker. Rather than spending the last several months developing a real plan that would avoid default, the Republicans have spent months stripping away health care protections, attacking the EPA, jeopardizing jobs, not creating jobs. And here we are, once again, ready to end Medicare, Social Security, cut away Medicaid benefits, and attack the most vulnerable in our communities. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't sad, it would be laughable. The plan would require $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, cut $915 billion at the offset, and another $1.8 trillion in December. They're coming after Americans' Social Security checks. They're coming after Medicare. They're coming after Medicaid. That's what this majority is doing. Let's not be fooled by it. It's time for the American people to stand up. The bill threatens our ability to pay our obligations. They're not interested in paying our obligations. These are debts that we've already incurred. And yet they won't take the money that they've given away to the wealthiest 2 percent of this country. No, they can't give up theirs. The oil and gas companies can't give up theirs. The companies that have offshored jobs can't give up theirs; but they're asking the American people to sacrifice Social Security, Medicare, education, Medicaid. It's unfair, and we won't stand for it.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't think I would be down here this evening debating the Interior-EPA appropriations bill, in part because of the number of hours that we have spent in this Chamber on this bill when we actually should be facing the Nation's debt ceiling, giving the President a clean debt ceiling and moving forward with rebuilding our economy and creating jobs. Instead, we're debating yet another flawed bill. It is the biggest assault on clean air, clean water, the endangered species, and public lands that we've seen in our Nation's history. The bill's unprecedented funding cuts and polluter riders to benefit rich and often reckless mining and oil companies will cripple the EPA's employees, health professionals, and scientists' ability to do their job protecting our Nation and its public health. Rather than celebrating the advancements that we've made over the last 40 years in air and water quality, instead, these Republican ``riders to ruin'' are driving us back to the sixties, a time when Rachel Carson wrote ``Silent Spring'' to awaken the American public to the man-made impacts on the environment. And I just want to take a few moments to discuss a couple of them. There are so many that it's a tough challenge, these Republican ``riders to ruin.'' The bill would prohibit funding for the Endangered Species Act listings. Hundreds of animals have been protected under the Endangered Species Act. The bill would eliminate the protection that leads to the repopulation and revitalization of bald eagle populations in our Nation. And for all the flag pins that we wear, we're about ready to decimate the very act that protects our Nation's symbol, the bald eagle. Among other things, the bill also strikes out at ending regulations to expand the storm water discharge program under the Clean Water Act. The program prevents harmful pollutants from being washed or dumped into our water systems. And as our cities and urbanized areas grow, storm water runoff can become a threat if we're not able to better manage the discharge waters and possible impact of toxins and pollutants. And here we are, something I can hardly believe. I recall taking my son to the Grand Canyon and camping along the side of the south rim many years ago. What are we going to do now? We can pitch our tents next to the uranium mines at the Grand Canyon. This is insane. For the 5 million visitors a year who visit the Grand Canyon, we're going to jeopardize the water quality of our Nation's most important rivers. I can't imagine families visiting the Grand Canyon. I can't imagine future generations pitching their tent next to the Grand Canyon, next to a uranium mine, because of this senseless legislation. It almost makes you breathless to wonder why it is that we've decided that the Federal Government doesn't have a role anymore in protecting our water and our land and our air and our air quality. The majority is pushing a bill on the floor that blocks Clean Air Act regulations of fine particles and soot and delays the EPA from limiting toxic mercury pollution from power plants. Why don't we just break up all our thermometers and dump them in the water? I'm not sure who these riders are meant to help, but I know that they don't help children in communities in my district and across the country who are vulnerable to air pollution. Thirty percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the Nation $2 billion per year. These riders add to the arsenal. They just add to the arsenal. Low-income and minority children experience more doctor visits and hospitalization due to asthma than the general population and three times the rate of white Americans. This is a really sad day, but it's most especially sad because we should be doing the Nation's business. Today, we watched the stock market plummet because of the uncertainty that we've created in this body because of the recalcitrance of the Republican majority. I know that we have to do this horrible EPA appropriations bill, but what we need to do is fix this Nation's economy, get people back to work building our roads and our bridges and our infrastructure, and protecting our national parks. Instead, we're engaged in the silliness of trying to play dice and chicken with the American economy. It's a really sad day for the American public. Just a really sad day. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I look across my congressional district and across this country where people have lost their homes, they have lost their jobs, and they have sacrificed their retirement accounts because our fiscal house hasn't been in order, and here today we sit awaiting the opportunity to do for the American people what we ought to, which is to prevent a default, to prevent a default that would result in further sacrificing of retirement savings and jobs and homes across this country. They're really depending on us. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say that we have an important responsibility to our seniors to protect their Medicare and their Social Security benefits, to make sure that we're creating opportunities for education for their children, to make sure that we're creating jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our highways, our rail systems, and we haven't done our job. So, Mr. Speaker, I say it's time for us to stop the silliness, to prevent the default, and to get on with the Nation's business.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. For months our colleagues on the other side have known of the need to avoid a default crisis and meet our Nation's obligations. But instead, today they move with lightning speed to the floor a sham bill that is nothing more than a way to score political points at a time that we need, the markets need, and the world needs seriousness. It's time to meet our obligations for seniors, retirees, and veterans, for Social Security and Medicare, and to create jobs and grow this economy. Those on the other side of the aisle know that the bill that's on the floor today would do nothing like that. The underlying bill would in fact reap catastrophic consequences for our Nation's economy and our most vulnerable communities, and that's the truth. What kind of majority wants to throw our economy into another tailspin by having us default on our obligations? Well, I'm going to tell you it's the irresponsible kind. They have been unrelenting in their quest to eliminate Medicare and cut Social Security, and this bill is no different. The American public needs to understand what is at stake here: It's the default on our Nation's obligations that will throw out of whack Social Security, Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, everything that we know in this economy because of the foolishness that's going on here in this Chamber. I ask my colleagues to please be responsible. Protect our future; protect our children's future; invest in our roads and our bridges and our infrastructure; create jobs; but please stop this foolishness. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill and a ``no'' vote on the underlying rule.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, the ongoing stubbornness by my Republican colleagues to even entertain the idea of increasing revenues is putting our country at risk. Over the past decade, the top 2 percent of Americans making over $250,000 have done incredibly well. And while I have enjoyed reduced taxes as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts, our seniors, our workers don't even come close. They have lost pensions, 401(k) plans, home values, and all that's left is Social Security and Medicare. As you can see here, these tax cuts are the primary contributor to our debt and deficit over the long term. Madam Speaker, default on America's debt would be catastrophic to both our economy and the world. It's time for my Republican colleagues to get serious. Stop playing with fire and put the future of the Nation first ahead of millionaires, corporations that avoid taxes and benefit from loopholes in the law, and ahead of those who would ship jobs overseas. So, no, seniors and those with disabilities didn't cause this deficit, as we can see, and the long-term debt, and they shouldn't have to cut their benefits to pay for it.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from Texas for pointing out the fallacy of this argument that somehow in this discussion of lifting the debt ceiling, which I believe each of us voted to lift that debt ceiling in a clean vote. We understand that that is our moral responsibility, it's our obligation to meet the full faith and credit obligations of the United States, but that's not what this discussion is, and it is precisely the reason that I caution us against putting into the debt ceiling discussion any changes to Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits and Medicaid. The reason is because, as I've demonstrated by showing this chart, and I would love to say that this is my chart but it's not. It was produced by the independent Congressional Budget Office, and it shows the contributing factors, the significant contributing factors in these colors here of the long-term debt. That's what we're talking about, raising the debt ceiling to meet those obligations that have already been laid out. Some people have described that those of us who are speaking in favor of Medicare and Social Security and making sure that we protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries from cuts, that we're passionate, but that passion is deeply connected to fact. It is connected to the fact that we are passionate about the guaranteed benefit of Medicare. It's connected to the fact that we are committed to lowering prescription drug costs by closing the doughnut hole, whereas the Ryan budget, the Republican budget, would open that doughnut hole all over again for our seniors, causing them to dip into their already fragile pockets to meet their prescription drug needs. The gentleman from New York has already pointed to ways in which we could actually negotiate prescription drugs in bulk so that we could significantly lower costs for our seniors, but that's not what's on the table. Those of us who are passionate have been described as passionate because we want to ensure that our seniors are receiving primary care, getting preventive care so that it does bend that cost curve. That's the source of our passion, but it's rooted in fact. And what is really true is the fact that our seniors did not cause the significant factors that are related to our long-term debt. I want to repeat that to the gentleman. I know that you know this, but it's really important for the American people to understand that the contributors to our long-term debt are tax cuts, that are not paid for, for millionaires and billionaires. We should get rid of them. We should not be protecting those tax cuts on the backs of our seniors. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President has already begun a drawdown. It could be more significant so that we could save in the long run, making certain that we get people back to work so that they are contributing to our tax base in the way that we need. And, of course, we know that we have to raise revenue. We must raise revenue. Our seniors understand that. But what we cannot do is shift the burden for these things that were not caused by seniors onto the backs of our seniors by pushing them into really unfair cuts to their Medicare and Social Security benefits.