Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of quotes on this floor, so this one goes out to our young people and our seniors and our servicemembers and Federal workers who stand to be affected by a government shutdown. It's a lesson for my Republican colleagues courtesy of the White Stripes, a little ``Effect and Cause'': ``I guess you have to have a problem If you want to invent a contraption First you cause a train wreck Then you put me in traction. Well, first came an action And then a reaction But you can't switch around For your own satisfaction. You burnt my house down, then got mad At my reaction? It's that you just can't take the effect And make it the cause.'' So for my Republican colleagues who want to shut the government down for the effect you caused, you learn this White Stripes lesson first: ``If you're headin' to the grave You don't blame the hearse. You built a house of cards And got shocked when you saw them fall. You seem to forget Just how this song started. You just can't take the effect and make it the cause.''

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from New York and appreciate your leadership and your being here this evening to mark this day with us for workers. With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. With that, I'd like to yield to Congresswoman Christensen.

Ms. EDWARDS. I would like to thank Congresswoman Christensen for the time. And just a reminder that today, April 4, is a sad remembrance in some ways of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee, some 43 years ago. It is such an irony that we're here this evening at this time because there are so many things for which Dr. King fought and struggled that are ever-present today both in our policy and our politics and in our national culture and through our social fabric. During this year also we commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Congressional Black Caucus. It's important for us to remember that the Congressional Black Caucus was founded to tackle the injustices that Dr. King pointed to and to promote equity in the United States and with and through our United States political process. Dr. King dedicated his life to the then-uncomfortable conversations on injustice faced by African Americans across the country. Dr. King knew that tackling discrimination in the United States could not only focus on knocking down social barriers but also economic barriers that held African American workers, held low-wage workers from economic wealth to sustain their families. I want to thank Dr. Christensen and so many of my other colleagues who've joined me in the introduction of House Resolution 198, recognizing the coordinated struggle of workers during the 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike to voice their grievances and reach a collective agreement for rights in the workplace. What an irony here in 2011 that the battles for which Dr. King fought so valiantly are today's battles. House Resolution 198 has among it, today, 55 cosponsors. We recognize that we may not be able to move this measure to the floor, but it is an important remembrance, commemoration of the struggle of those sanitation workers, those city workers, those municipal workers as they tried to organize. As Dr. King knew, organized labor is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the organizations of organized labor have altered many facets of our Nation. They've changed our Nation for the better. Organized workers will forever change the labor debate in Memphis through their collective will. That's what happened in Memphis on those days 43 years ago. Just 2 weeks ago, we recognized the 100-year anniversary of the deadly Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which ushered in improved safety standards for workers. And decades later, the deaths of two sanitation workers in Memphis resulted in a movement to grant workers in Memphis, Tennessee, the basic rights in a workplace. Dr. King believed that the struggle in Memphis for workers' rights was akin to the civil rights movement. It was a partner to the civil rights movement. The motto of the sanitation workers strike was, ``I am a man,'' signifying the demeaning way in which African American men had been treated and referred to as boys. ``I am a man.'' What powerful words urging the city to grant them the full rights to equality and justice guaranteed under the principles of our Nation. Dr. King stood in solidarity with the strikers in the fight for justice and the basic human rights for all men and women in the workplace and in society. Indeed, there are many of us in this Congress who stand in solidarity with the strikers and workers across this country, municipal workers, private sector workers, public sector workers who are fighting every day for justice in their workplaces. Indeed, 43 years ago is the struggle of today. And thanks very much to the legacy of those strikers in Memphis and to Dr. King, we actually live in a Nation where workers all over the United States can indeed demand justice and fair working conditions. These basic rights allow men and women to pursue economic wealth and pursue the American Dream. But in recent days, we face a virtual assault on basic workers' rights, things that we have known for generations in this country. And even though those events are unfolding in Wisconsin, the outcome of whether the unions have the right to collective bargaining in that State will affect union members across this country. Indeed, that was the fight and the struggle for justice of sanitation workers. I want to refer to Dr. King's speech in Memphis at a rally on behalf of sanitation workers. He said, ``We've got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point in Memphis. We've got to see it through.'' We face the same challenge today. We have to push through in States like Wisconsin and Indiana and Ohio and across this country to help public employees and, indeed, all employees fight against the injustices that they face in their workplace. In Dr. King's last speech, he highlighted the perils at which he sought equality and justice for all men and women. In his words, I quote, ``I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.'' And for workers, what is that promised land? It is the promised land of a workplace that is safe. It is the promised land in which one makes wages that allow one to take care of one's family and contribute to the community. It is a workplace that actually respects workers as partners in the success of a company and a workplace. Dr. King at this time, when he addressed workers in Memphis, had already faced threats against his life, including a stab wound that he had suffered at a book signing in New York. In his speech, Dr. King recalled the doctors saying that had he sneezed following the attack he would have died, but noted he was glad that he did not or else he would have missed the progress in the civil rights movement. Today is a day of remembrance for so many of us. On the point of injustice, Dr. King said so poignantly the issue is injustice. The issue is the refusal of Memphis to be fair and honest in its dealings with its public servants, who happened to be sanitation workers. Now we have got to keep attention on that. And just as he reminded us 43 years ago, we have to keep the attention on our workers, who struggle every day. Dr. King was determined to be in Memphis with those workers. And let's think about where we are here 43 years from that fated day in April. Our country is moving out of recession. We continue to stand with workers and stand with job creation, some of us do, to reverse the effects of the recession on our most vulnerable communities, and to empower all Americans, empower workers. The unemployment rate among the African American population remains far too high, at 16.6 percent in March of this year. Now, the overall unemployment rate has fallen. We are grateful for that. But I think were Dr. King alive today, he would probably acknowledge the struggle of those who are working and those who want to work, the many who are chronically unemployed in their communities across this country. The unemployment rate among African American men was 20.2 percent in March of this year, just last month. The unemployment rate among African American women was 11.7 percent in March. Put these numbers up against national numbers of unemployment of 8.8 percent. While those numbers again, thanks to the brilliant efforts of the President of the United States, of the Democrats in Congress during the 111th Congress, who actually brought us to a point where we put in some policies that could bring down the unemployment rate, those numbers are still troubling among minority groups. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the challenges that we have is that in this country, where workers struggle every day, we look at stagnant wages that have really crippled the American workforce, the public sector workforce, the private sector workforce in this country, that we still have a lot to do when it comes to creating jobs. And yet here we are again this week--I don't know what day we are on--89 days not having created any jobs to address those very concerns that Dr. King had just 43 years ago. Just a reminder to us all that according to Dr. King, he said so profoundly about the American labor movement, and I quote again Dr. King, and I wish that I could do it with his eloquence, but I think it is important for us to be reminded of his words. ``The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old age pensions, government relief for the destitute, and above all, new wage levels that meant not mere survival, but a tolerable life.'' He continued, ``The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome. When in the thirties the wave of union organization crested over our Nation, it carried to secure shores not only itself but the whole society.'' Dr. King recognized so profoundly the connection between the struggle of workers, the struggle of the sanitation workers in Memphis to the struggles of the American labor movement, and, in fact, to its foundation. With that, I recognize that my colleague from New York, Paul Tonko, has joined us on the floor. Perhaps he would care to join in this discussion.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Christensen. I just want to take a moment to yield to my colleague, vice chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus from the great State, my original home State of North Carolina, G.K. Butterfield.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Congressman Butterfield, for your leadership as vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, but also for your reminder of our so important history that is linked both to the struggle of African Americans in this country, to the struggle of labor, and for a reminder also historically of the fact that Dr. King was supposed to have had a next place to be when his life was ended on April 4, 43 years ago today. I would like to take just this moment, if I could, to recount for us the history of the 1968 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Memphis sanitation workers' strike, the chronology. Beginning on Sunday, January 31 of that year, the rain sent workers home. Then beginning on Tuesday, February 1 of that year, two sanitation workers were killed in an accident on a city truck. Then just days later on Monday, February 12, Memphis sanitation and public employees went on strike after last-minute attempts to resolve their grievances had failed. While the newspapers claimed that 200 workers of the 1,300 remained on the job, really only 38 of 180 trucks moved. The mayor of the city said the strike is illegal, but that his office stood ready to talk to anyone about legitimate questions of the time. Little did these workers know that through the month of February, as black leaders and ministers gathered from city-wide organizations in support of the strike, through the days of March when the ministers and the city announced that Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., would come to Memphis, 116 strikers and supporters were arrested for sitting at city hall. And then through the month of March, the newspapers claimed that the strike was failing as scabs were operating 90 garbage trucks. But 17,000 Memphians attended a rally where Dr. King called for a citywide march on March 22. Then as Dr. King returned to Memphis on April 3, and he addressed the rally, delivering his famous ``I've Been to the Mountaintop'' address, then that day, on April 4, on April 4, 1968, as he prepared to march with the workers, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated on the balcony of his hotel in Memphis, Tennessee. In the days following his assassination, the workers continued their strike in honor of Dr. King and with renewed courage and resolve to demand safe working conditions. It is this simple phrase ``I am a man'' that drove him, a simple phrase, one that acknowledged their humanhood, one that acknowledged them as workers: I am a man. And then finally on April 16, some 3 months after the start of their strike, the sanitation workers of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, agreed and reached an agreement with the city officials, granting an increase in pay, a grievance procedure, and overtime pay. This is the history of the sanitation workers of Memphis. It is the history of workers throughout this country, and it is the history of workers today. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and in bringing us together in these important hours on the floor of the House of Representatives to discuss the issues that are of the deepest concern to communities of color, to working families across this country, and a reminder of the reason why many of us have chosen to serve. Dr. King knew so deeply that the middle class is, indeed, the backbone of the American economy and that by strengthening the middle class we move our Nation forward. He would understand today that, by giving tax breaks to oil companies and special privileges to the wealthy, we forget our allegiance to the most populous among us--the middle class. He understood the importance of the struggle of sanitation workers, of organizing workers, of making sure that workers were able to take care of themselves and their families as a way of moving workers into the middle class. He understood, like so many of us do, particularly for African American people, that our connection to organized labor is so important because it is through the ability to organize and to fight for our rights against injustice that we are able to move our families into the middle class. Dr. King knew so tremendously the connection between the plight of Negroes and working people. He said at the AFL-CIO convention in December 1961: ``Negroes are almost entirely a working people. There are pitifully few Negro millionaires and few Negro employers. Our needs are identical with labor's needs--decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community.'' Dr. King spoke those words in December 1961. Those words could be spoken today. Dr. King reminded the workers of the United Auto Workers at the District 65 convention in September 1962 that in the area of politics that labor and African Americans, Negroes, have identical interests. He said: ``Labor has grave problems today of employment, shorter hours, old age security, housing, and retraining against the impact of automation. The Congress and the administration are almost as indifferent to labor's program as they are toward that of the Negro. Toward both, they offer vastly less than adequate remedies for the problems which are a torment to us day after day.'' Those words spoken today speak to the plight of the workforce, to minority communities and to working families across this country. Those words spoken in 1962 could be spoken today in 2011, some 40 some years later. One of the things that I continue to be touched by is that I was just a young girl when Dr. King died on April 4, but I always remember that day. I remember that day in my family. I remember the sadness and the tragedy, but I also remember the struggle. I think generations since my own and up until now recall that struggle and, I think, today, for the sanitation workers and remembering their struggle of some 3 months to gain the respect and dignity in the workplace: I am a man. Now, if we had to create this placard today, we might write ``I am a woman; I am a man; I am a human being''; but it still speaks to the same value, to the value of humanity and justice in the workplace. That's the value that Dr. King spoke to. It is a value for which he died. It is a value that lives in his legacy. So, again, I am just pleased that my colleagues have been able to join with us today, not on a day of sadness, April 4, but on a day of remembrance, on a day of reinvigoration and recommitment to those ideals that have guided us and that continue to guide us in our struggle with and for the workers across this country. With that, I would like to yield again, just very briefly, to my colleague from New York, Paul Tonko.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Christensen. I am so proud to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus with a 40-year history and legacy of fighting for justice and looking out for the most vulnerable and giving voice to people who would not have a voice in this United States Congress. We are about ready to close, and I would like to end the evening and the hour by pointing those at home, those in this Chamber to an op-ed in today's paper that actually brings together the two forces that Dr. King was bringing together even just before he was so tragically assassinated, bringing together the civil rights movement and the labor movement. In an op-ed today in today's Washington Post entitled, ``The Middle Class Dream That Cannot Die,'' Benjamin Todd Jealous, who is the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, and Mary K. Henry, who is the international president of the Service Employees International Union, draw together that middle class dream for the American people that's built on a foundation of civil rights and social justice and partnered with labor and working people. ``I Am a Man.'' I would like to close this evening by reminding again, all of us, that April 4 and the years we remember in between are years about building upon a tragedy to build a legacy. ``I Am a Man.'' Dr. King reminded us again about the fight for jobs and retirement security and health care and care for the most vulnerable. Those are still today's struggles: the workers that we've spoken about in Wisconsin and Ohio and Indiana and all across this country who struggle for that dignity. ``I Am a Man,'' Dr. King's words, in his famous speech, ``I've Been to the Mountain Top'' that he spoke just before he was assassinated. And I just want to read a portion of that that really speaks to me as a Member of Congress, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Dr. King said: ``Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on these powerful days, these days of challenge, to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better Nation.'' With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am really dumbfounded as to why we are here today. I sat back and I closed my eyes, and I remembered that my favorite grade was fifth grade, and now I remember why my favorite grade was fifth grade: because, as my colleague from Colorado has pointed out, I remember in fifth grade playing how a bill becomes a law, and I was the House and somebody else was the Senate and another set of our fifth graders were the Constitution. And what we learned is you have to pass a bill out of the House, it goes on to the Senate, it goes on to the President, he signs it, it becomes a law. Pretty simple. Well, here we are in fifth grade yet again. What I want to say here, Madam Speaker, is that I oppose the rule, I oppose the underlying bill. And I am recollecting that just over 1 year ago, we had this exact discussion about deem and pass. And so while an elephant never forgets, it seems that the party of elephants is just forgetting every day. And if this were only about mascots, forgetting would be okay. But it is not okay because it is not just about mascots; it is about the American people. So I want to remind the American people about the words of some of our leaders here in this House when deem and pass was put on the table just 1 year ago. Our now Speaker, John Boehner, called it a ``scheme and plot'' that set a precedent that was ``one of the most outrageous things that he had seen since he had been in Congress.'' That was on March 19, 2010. Mike Pence said it is a ``trampling on the traditional rules of the House and Senate, even on the Constitution of the United States.'' That was on March 16, 2010. Eric Cantor termed it a ``malfeasance manner,'' and those who might support it as having ``discharged the duties of their offices.'' That was on March 18, 2010. And here we are, the elephants never forgetting, but the elephants repeating.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for raising this point of order. I join in support of the point of order. First of all, it is time for us to create jobs, and we haven't created jobs and we are 13 weeks into this Congress and we are not debating jobs today. Second, as to the underlying resolution, I will speak to that later, Madam Speaker, but today we are sitting here with a bill that violates the rules of this House. The Congress said when they took on this new leadership that they were going to come into the Congress open and transparent and without hypocrisy, and not following the kind of rules that they railed against during the previous Congress, and yet here we are today with a rule that doesn't allow us to really consider appropriations in the way that this Congress--not the last Congress, but this Republican Congress--established. We are neither open, we are not transparent. And this point of order raises a question as to whether the Republican majority is going to operate according to the rules that it set. Not the rules that Democrats set, but the rules that Republicans set. And so, Madam Speaker, I am really troubled today both by the underlying resolution and by the fact that we have here perhaps a bill that has unknown, unfunded mandates that we aren't able to look at and for which there won't be any amendments. So I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for raising the point of order, and I would urge strong consideration by my colleagues to make this process, as the leadership has committed, to make it open, to make it transparent, and to make it without hypocrisy.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment. This amendment would extend the moratorium on safety regulations for human spaceflight launches for 8 years after the first licensed human spaceflight launch. With these types of flights likely not to begin until 2013, we are talking about delaying safety regulations for a decade or more. Let me first say that I hope that commercial spaceflight, both manned and unmanned, eventually will become a robust sector of our economy. We are not quite there yet. But certainly some of these companies in this emerging industry openly talk about a business model of flying hundreds of paying passengers to space every year. These are ambitious goals, and I wish them well. I hope I am one of them. But if these companies are successful and start carrying paying passengers like me, then what we are talking about with this amendment is allowing an entire human transportation system to operate for almost a decade without any meaningful safety regulation. I find that to be unconscionable. I would point out that by rejecting the amendment, Congress is not dictating that any safety regulations have to be promulgated. On the contrary, under current law, an absolute prohibition exists until the end of 2012. Even after that point, the agency would not be required to move forward with the rulemaking process but would only do so if it saw a need. But imposing an arbitrarily prohibition on safety regulations for the remainder of the decade, if not longer, really abdicates our responsibility to the public. If there's a fatal accident later in this decade, if we're carrying astronauts and there's an accident in the decade, I don't want it to be said that Congress blocked the establishment of safety regulations that could have prevented that accident, and I don't think many Members in this body would either. I'd note that it's my understanding that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee is planning on holding hearings this session on this very topic, with an eye towards moving a bill to address these issues sometime in this Congress. So we're really premature here to set in place a moratorium that we haven't even had a chance to hear debate on and hear from the industry or the FAA or safety experts on the subject. I hope this isn't the kind of rush to judgment that we'll come to expect on issues of public safety. I have some familiarity with these issues on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. The commercial space folks argue that the spacecraft designs and operational concepts are not quite mature enough and that there's been no operational experience on which to base safety regulation. Fair enough. That may be true. But these same people are also arguing that the industry is mature enough for the government to turn over NASA's transport of astronauts to space to them. You cannot have it both ways. These notions are mutually exclusive. If the industry is mature enough to take on tasks currently performed by the government, then the industry is mature enough to be thinking about a safety regime to ensure the American public is protected in these activities. Mr. Chair, I want to note that, once again, there's no reason to rush to judgment on these issues.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ms. EDWARDS. The need for a long-term Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, reauthorization act is clear; but H.R. 658 reauthorizes the FAA for 4 years, and the arbitrary spending cuts that our Republican colleagues have imposed on the agency in H.R. 658 will devastate FAA's ability to improve flying safety and to modernize the Nation's air traffic control system. For this reason, unfortunately, I cannot support the bill. H.R. 658 proposes a 23 percent--an unbelievable 23 percent--cut to FAA's research, engineering and development accounts from the funding levels enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2010. These cuts are not related in any way to a lack of need for the research. In fact, the committee, in multiple hearings, acknowledged the need for the research. The Congress heard expert testimony from witnesses who have stressed the importance of investing in both research and development and in the NextGen modernization initiative, and have warned of the negative impact that cuts will have on the Nation's air traffic control system and the flying public. To cut FAA's R&D efforts so drastically while we're trying to recover from a recession and while oil prices every day climb higher risks stifling this industry and the millions of jobs it supports. But I also want to be clear that the research and development work that is done at FAA helps to protect the safety of all the flying public. These cuts to aviation safety-related research have a high probability of reducing the safety of our air transformation system. These effects may not be felt today or tomorrow, but they will be felt, and they will have serious consequences for the flying public. Madam Chair, Democratic members of the committee attempted to prevent the cuts to three key safety research initiatives at our committee's markup of H.R. 970. These amendments, if adopted, would have increased the 4-year authorization amount by a total of $16 million, or less than 3 percent of the $600 million authorization in the bill--a small amount for such a huge payoff. As noted in the committee markup, these costs really pale in comparison to even a single major aircraft accident both in terms of money and the horrible loss of life. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues voted to reject each of these key safety amendments and research amendments that go to safety. And the choice couldn't be more clear. Our colleagues chose to make the flying public less safe in order to meet a very arbitrary goal for cutting Federal spending. I share our colleagues' concern about the Nation's deficit, but we reject any notion that addressing the Nation's deficit requires us to make our Nation's transportation system less safe. As we move forward in the negotiations with the Senate over a final FAA reauthorization, I remain committed to ensuring the safety of our Nation's air transportation system and hope that our Republican colleagues will join in this effort. In conclusion, I would like to speak to a measure in the provision of the underlying bill that has me greatly troubled, and that has to do with union elections. It is staggering to me that we have decided that we are going to count not voting as a ``no'' vote. I just took a look at the winning numbers for our leadership. Our Speaker was elected in 2010 with 142,700 votes. His opponents and those who weren't registered totaled 482,170 votes. If we had used this same theory, this same strategy for our own elections and for the election of Speaker Boehner, he would have lost that election by 339,000 votes. And that goes for each of us. And perhaps the public wants that. Maybe we should all be counting nonvoting as ``no'' votes, and then we could completely change this House of Representatives. But that is not the way we run elections, and that is not the way we should run union elections. So it is unfortunate that the majority has decided to put this poison pill into the underlying legislation that makes it unsupportable on this side of the aisle. With that, I would ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the ranking member on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Ms. EDWARDS. And how much time remains?

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today really troubled because I am opposed to terminating the HAMP program and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. But I am troubled because these programs have actually been very troubled. They are not perfect. They haven't helped every homeowner that we want, but we shouldn't be in a position of just destroying the programs. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program in particular was established to help communities acquire, rehabilitate, and resell abandoned and foreclosed properties as a result of the growing foreclosure crisis. There are so many economists across this country who tell us every single day that until we get the housing market straight, we will not get this economy straight. So I believe in theory in these programs. Declining home values in my community have led to lower tax revenues for our local jurisdictions that are already suffering from the impacts of the economic downturn. The statewide foreclosure crisis has hit particularly hard in my district and the counties that I represent, in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, in Maryland. They have the first and third highest number of foreclosures in our State and account for 40 percent of the foreclosures statewide. Through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Montgomery County received $2 million and Prince George's County nearly $12 million in funding. This has helped in these communities. I would urge the majority to look at the benefits, and let's try to fix the programs. At the beginning of this crisis, sure, there were bad loans. There were bad actors all over the place. But we also know that people have lost their jobs and that has contributed to foreclosures, and these families should not be punished because we can't seem to get it straight. Neighborhood stabilization does stabilize communities. It doesn't do any good to have homes that are empty and in decline and neighborhoods that will never bring the market back. So while I am concerned about some of the programs and would like to work to try to fix these, it is not right for us to simply throw them out and minimize the impact of helping 521,000 families to stay in their homes.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I am really concerned about the continuing resolution we passed yesterday with over $1 billion in cuts to one of the most important Federal agencies, NOAA. That's right, our weather and natural disaster folks. When some people think of NOAA, they think of an agency that only impacts the coastal States, so cuts to this agency wouldn't impact them or their families. But it's important to know that every time we get the day's weather so we can prepare and make sure we are warm or dry, we use NOAA technology. Every time we get alerts about tornadoes or earthquakes, it's NOAA's technology. In the wake of the tsunami that devastated Japan, the House yesterday passed a measure that would hamper our own ability to detect tsunamis. Currently, seven of the 39 Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis, DART, stations are nonoperational due to broken moorings and equipment failures. And the cuts that we made yesterday put us in jeopardy--that's right--in the Pacific Ocean, in the Atlantic, and in the gulf. We are all in jeopardy because of those cuts yesterday, and NOAA won't have an opportunity to repair them and to restore them, degrading the quality of our warnings. Mr. Speaker, this is senseless, and it's time for the American people to speak up against this senseless policy.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlelady, because I think it's really important for us to understand really who is the Federal worker. You know, what is it that they do? And as the gentlelady has pointed out, our food is safe because of Federal workers. The drugs that we take, whether they come over the counter or they're prescription drugs, they're safe because of a Federal worker. When that prediction is coming through for severe weather that hits the middle of our country in the most oppressive way, it's a Federal worker who analyzes that data and works really hard and really quickly to get that information out to the public. Federal workers also work in some of the most dangerous fields, in addition to being some of the most skilled fields in this country. You mentioned the work, the gentlelady did, the work of our nuclear scientists that Federal workers do, in our laboratories all across this country, not just in Washington, D.C., in States like Colorado and California and New Mexico, some of the highest level of scientific work that's going on in the country. So we have a skilled Federal workforce. And, you know, I was really shocked about this story that we have heard evolving in Wisconsin and the struggle of Wisconsin workers for collective bargaining rights that indeed on the committee on which we serve in Transportation, just a couple of weeks ago we were looking at an authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration. In that authorization we actually passed legislation through our committee that would say that if you didn't show up for a union vote, maybe you were sick, maybe you didn't want to vote, for whatever reason, your not showing up would be counted as a ``no'' vote. Can you imagine if any of us actually conducted elections like that? All those folks who decided to stay home for whatever reason would be counted as ``no'' votes? I daresay there would be a lot of Members of this Congress who would not be Members of this Congress under those kinds of rules. Yet those are the kinds of rules that are being promoted by the Republican majority through our continuing resolution, through our authorization that really go at the heart of taking the feet out from under the Federal workforce.

Ms. EDWARDS. I do. Too often we hear: Let's cut Washington. We don't care if the Federal Government shuts down because it's just a bunch of Federal employees. In fact, only 1 quarter of Federal employees works in the Three-State Region that comprises the Washington Metropolitan Region. The other 75 percent of Federal employees works someplace else. I love this idea of exploring what it is that Federal employees do because I'm often fascinated by the many jobs that they do which provide so many important resources for us: Meteorologists. Well, could we do without meteorologists? Ask the people in California and in these other earthquake zones. In the gentlelady's home State of Hawaii, we need meteorologists in that sector. Aerospace engineers, who are exploring these 21st century new technologies and horizons that are not here on this Earth, who are looking at things like climate and planetary science, they don't make a lot of money. They may have Ph.Ds. An aerospace engineer with a Ph.D., who works for the Federal Government, probably makes about $70,000. Imagine if you translated that skill level into the private sector. So I thank the gentlelady for reminding us of the fact that Federal workers span the spectrum of job skills, and they're in every single State and in every congressional district in this country.

Ms. EDWARDS. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia raises yet another really interesting point and it is that not only could they go anyplace in the United States, but the world is their oyster. We know that our best and brightest are not just being recruited from State to State outside of the Federal workforce, they are being recruited outside of the United States, because we know that we have the talent here, and what better place to absorb that talent in public service than in service in the Federal sector. I am just so proud. I think about the time that I met a scientist, a researcher over at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Let me tell you what they do at NIST. Any piece of the electronic equipment that you might have, and maybe it's in your doctor's office, and it's an MRI machine, or maybe it is something, a piece of your home equipment in your home, or maybe it's the iron, or it's the toaster, or it's the microwave, the National Institute of Standards and Technology sets a standard for industry for those products and tests those to meet standards. It means that no matter where you go, no matter what store you shop in, that that equipment is calibrated in the same way. Now, you may not think that matters for a toaster, but it surely matters for an MRI machine. Those are the kinds of jobs that our Federal employees do. Those are jobs that you really can't translate into the private sector but that are so necessary to safeguard the public.

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I think that you raise such an amazing point for the American people on two points, one about Federal benefits. There is this wide assumption across the country that Federal workers don't contribute to their own health and life insurance and their dental insurance, and it's just not true. So I think it's really born for us to debunk that right now. As you say, the Federal Government is a decent employer, but it is by no means the best employer when it comes to providing benefits, as some of those Fortune 500, Fortune 1000 companies that you point to. Nonetheless, it's the Federal worker who contributes to her own benefit, contributes to her pension, contributes to her health insurance, contributes for her family members across the board. The gentlewoman also makes an important distinction for us to know that, in fact, the Federal workforce, because they sometimes work alongside contract employees who are paid different rates, who have different benefits, but are in some cases doing very, very similar kind of work. I applaud the Obama administration for trying to get a handle on what is uniquely government work and shouldn't be contracted out because we need much greater oversight. I know, I mentioned earlier to the gentlewoman that I come from a family of Federal workers. I want to tell you about one of those workers, because I bet if anybody goes back, they would say that my mother saved the Federal Government a boatload of money. She was a steward of the taxpayer. She worked in the Department of Defense doing military housing, overseeing contracts. She would tell you in a minute if a contractor was violating a contract. She would tell you in a minute if they were overspending where they didn't need to overspend, and she would save the taxpayer money because she viewed herself as a steward of the taxpayer as a public servant. I know that my mother is not alone. She is joined by millions of Federal workers all across this country who take pride in the work that they do for the taxpayer, the work that they do in service to this Nation, whether it's processing Social Security disability claims, or it is making sure that our veterans get appropriate medical and mental health attention, or whether it's making sure that our airways are safe and clear, that our planes are landing and taking off safely, protecting us in our parks. After all, if someone gets lost, a child gets lost in a park, it's a Federal worker that goes to find that child and reunite him or her with their parents. The Federal workforce is varied, it's diverse, it's efficient. It's becoming more efficient every day. Federal workers are really contributing to the lifeblood of this country. So I think for those who want to get about the business of cutting spending where it's appropriate, let's do that responsibly. But let's not make the Federal worker the scapegoat for budget-cutting and for ending deficit spending. Let's continue a strong and vigorous Federal workforce that really is working to the best benefit of the taxpayer.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlelady and my friend because I think what you've done is you've brought the connection from the public sector worker in Wisconsin and throughout our States to the Federal workforce and to the private sector workforce. I think what we've seen over these last couple of decades, and I think it is evidenced in the poll and the support that all workers are showing for the workers in Wisconsin and for the idea of collective bargaining rights, is that we all recognize as workers whether you're in the public sector or the private sector, whether it's State or municipal government or it's the Federal Government, that, in fact, it's that organizing and the ability to organize and the ability to bargain that has helped so many of us to achieve a place in the middle class. And I think that there is an understandable fear of losing that given what's transpired over the years. In fact, you look at wages in the private sector, and private sector wages have, in fact, remained stagnant for about the last decade. And so you can understand that a private sector worker is actually feeling that strain, but they understand the position of the public sector workers, of the Federal workers. And so we're all united as workers together to make sure that we can lift all of us into the middle class. And I think the Federal workforce is particularly important because the Federal workforce then becomes sort of a bellwether for what can happen in other sectors in our workforce. Thank you for bringing that full circle.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today because I'm here on behalf of and with the 150,000 Federal workers who live in the Fourth Congressional District in Maryland. But in our region, in our metropolitan region, we know that there are some 700,000 Federal workers just in the Washington metropolitan region who do so much to protect this country, to keep our neighborhoods, our communities safe, to keep our food safe, to make sure that we know what the weather is; 2.7 to 2.8 million Federal workers all around the country and around the globe. That means that they're not all here in Washington. So I'm always troubled when I hear people who, for the last couple of decades, have just gone on an all- out attack against the great work of Federal workers. And I would say to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I know a little bit of something about Federal workers. I grew up in a household with two Federal workers. My mother and my father both worked for the Federal Government. In fact, it was working for the Federal Government that really helped them become a part of the middle class in this country. It was the work that they did as Federal workers that saved taxpayers lots of money. It was the work that my father did in uniform in this country protecting and honoring all of us by his service. And so there's such a wide range of the Federal workforce, and yet some who want to go after Federal workers--and I say ``go after,'' and I mean that very directly--do it without actually knowing what it is that Federal workers do. Well, I want to tell you about some of the Federal workers in my congressional district. They are workers who work at the Food and Drug Administration. They're doing some of the most cutting-edge research that is out there. They are looking to make sure that our--that the food and the drugs that are in our marketplace are safe for children and families and consumers. I want to talk about the Federal workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today in the Washington region, and up and down the east coast, we have actually had flood warnings for communities, including communities around the District of Columbia metropolitan area, that are under flood warnings and watches today. It's Federal workers who actually helped us to analyze the data coming from the satellite that was put up into our atmosphere by Federal workers that help us understand what's happening in our environment with our climate and our weather. It's the Federal workers at NASA who took the charge that President Kennedy gave to them to explore space, to discover that new frontier, who have been at the cutting edge of all kinds of research that benefit us in every capacity. I like to say to people it was actually a Federal worker and the Federal workforce that figured out through technology and experimentation that they could create materials that would lead to the creation of air bags and seat belts in our space program. And those are the same air bags that I know saved my life one time when I was in a car accident, and have saved many lives all across this country. Well, that's the product of what happens when you make an investment in our Federal workforce. It's a Federal worker who works at Andrews Air Force Base in my congressional district looking out for the protection of the President and for diplomats who fly in and out of Andrews, making sure that we safeguard the protected space in this capital region, making sure that we have an Air Force and personnel who are deployed to as far away places as Afghanistan and Iraq looking out for improvised explosive devices, training some of our great other servicemembers, those German shepherds and other service dogs that we see. It's the Federal workforce that's doing those things. So I am often shocked, Mr. Speaker, when I hear people targeting the Federal workforce. Let's just be clear, Federal workers have actually absorbed and been willing to absorb and to take, not liking it, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia points out, a freeze that's been placed on their wages, but they continue to serve. It's the Federal worker, Mr. Speaker, who makes sure that that Social Security check and that disability claim and those veterans services are provided not just in the Fourth Congressional District in Maryland, but all across this country. So when I think about the range of things that Federal workers do that no one else does, it's really extraordinary. People try to compare, the gentlewoman knows this, try to compare wages and salaries to wages and salaries in the private sector; but it's not a direct match. I mean, imagine, if you would, that we could get away in the private sector with paying a top-notch engineering researcher $100,000 to work for us. But that's what happens in the Federal Government, even though those salaries may be significantly higher than that.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, let me just go, because I am having a conversation this afternoon with the president of the University of Maryland. I was out at the University of Maryland campus over the past weekend. Like campuses all across this country that are engaged in some of the top- notch research that's going on in the country, I was with 300 young people from kindergarten to 12th grade over at the University of Maryland, all interested in the STEM fields, interested in science, technology, engineering, and math, interested in making a career in those fields that are about the 21st century. Sadly, here we are in the United States Congress completely disconnected to communities, completely disconnected to young people and their aspirations for the future, cutting, slashing, burning, cutting programs that are about educating our young people to take advantage of the 21st century. And so it just seems that there is a complete disconnect between what the majority is doing and how that will play out for our future. And so I had to say to these young people, you know, stay with it. Stick with those STEM fields, with the science and the technology and the engineering and math. Go on to that engineering school, go on into the biosciences that we see coming out of the University of Maryland, go on into the space program because we are investing in technologies not just that are going to open up our universe, but that actually have real application here on Earth. We have to continue to support our young people to do that. But it really does fly in the face of what's actually being done by this Republican majority to cut away at education for the future, to say we don't really want to manufacture things here in the United States and say that we don't really care whether we make that research and development tax credit permanent so that small firms can innovate and create and hire. But we know that America cares about those things. That's why it's important for us to have this conversation with the American people about what it's going to take, really, to jump-start the economy and the things that are happening in this Congress that are going to put a kibosh on that. Cutting 700,000 jobs, zero jobs created in 10 weeks of this Congress, and not investing in our future, not investing in our manufacturing.

Ms. EDWARDS. Just yesterday, educators from my congressional district were here on Capitol Hill. They were educators from Bowie State University, an Historically Black College that is now poised to get research grants going to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, cut by the Republican majority in the continuing resolution. There were representatives here from the University of Maryland. I've spoken again about the wonderful work that they are doing in cyber security, in aerospace research over at that university campus, cut in this continuing resolution. There were educators from our community colleges that are training both young people and people who want new and real skills for this new economy, cut in this continuing resolution. And you spoke about the Pell Grants. What these universities and community colleges share in common in higher education is that they know that in order to bring up the most diverse workforce, a trained and skilled workforce, we also need students who come from vulnerable families, whose families can't afford to send them to school. And what have we done? We've cut out of that continuing resolution, the Republican majority has cut $845, $870 from Pell Grants. And you know what that means? That's books for a semester, not even two semesters but, you know, probably a semester. And so I have to wonder what the majority is thinking about the future. They may be thinking about today, maybe--and we can argue about that--but they surely are not thinking about the future by cutting education, by not investing in manufacturing, by not investing in research, by not investing in all of the things that will make us competitive for the 21st century.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight the foreclosure crisis and recognize the thousands of distressed families in my district and across the country who continue to battle foreclosure. In Maryland our foreclosures approached nearly 800,000 in the fourth quarter of 2010. This crisis hits particularly hard in my district, where we have about 40 percent of our foreclosures statewide. The foreclosure prevention and mitigation programs the Republican majority wants to terminate this week have helped thousands of hardworking families to stay in their homes and mitigated the effects of declining property values in neighborhoods across the country. Now, I know they're not perfect, but terminating these programs does not one single thing to spur the economy or protect middle class families in need. In fact, the effect is quite the opposite. My colleagues claim that the programs haven't delivered on their promises. So what? What about the families who have benefited from the programs? What about the 1.2 million families that will face foreclosure this year? This is another case of trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. Enough of that already. It's a simple question: Whose side are you on? Families, workers, working families, protecting their homes and communities; or are you on the side of the banks that want to take their homes?