Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing this to our attention. I've been thinking a lot about the role of research and development to the 21st century and to 21st-century job creation. In fact, I've introduced along with you and a number of our colleagues, my colleague from Maryland, Republican Roscoe Bartlett, H.R. 689 which is the 21st Century Reinvestment Act. The goal is to invest in research and development, expand our tax credit for research and development, make it permanent, and then link it to manufacturing. Here has been my experience. In the Fourth Congressional District, we are home to some of the most fantastic research innovation that's happening anywhere in the country. That's true all across the country, but these sorts of robust and innovative firms, many of them are small firms. They can't afford to just front-load R&D to create manufacturing jobs, but they need the government to have a tax policy that actually encourages that. So I am all in favor, actually, of a tax policy that encourages the positive things that we want, research and development, job creation, manufacturing. Instead, what did we get out of Congress? We got a tax bill that rewards the top 2 percent with tax breaks that they're never going to put back into the economy. We've had 10 weeks of a Republican revolution here in the House of Representatives that has created zero jobs, and, in fact, a continuing resolution out of this House of Representatives, this Republican-led House of Representatives, that would destroy 700,000 jobs. It is as if we're saying, No, we don't really like the 21st century. We want to go back to the 19th and the 20th century. That is not how you rebuild a manufacturing base in this country. I have actually been struck traveling throughout my congressional district at small firms like Wabtech up in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which is doing some really innovative R&D, research and development, to develop signaling systems that will help us with high-speed rail. Guess what: they've just had to lay off workers because we are not making the right kinds of investments into research and development and technology that's about jobs for the 21st century. The President got it right. He said we have to out-innovate, out- educate and out-build. The way that we do that, of course, is to invest in our educators; invest in our young people. We're doing exactly the opposite. The Republican majority is doing the exact opposite here in this Congress. Again, 10 weeks of work and not a single job. In fact, Congressman Pete Sessions from Texas has just said: you know what, we're not going to create a jobs bill at all. We're not interested in jobs. All we're interested in is cutting government spending. Well, let's look at what they're cutting, some of the most innovative research that's going on in this country. NOAA, that looks at our weather service, that makes sure that our farmers understand what's happening with our climate and our weather so that they can engage in production of products throughout this country. What else are we doing? They say the National Institutes of Health doesn't need $2.5 billion to continue innovative research in cancer and other things, things that actually play out in terms of the marketplace, creating private sector jobs in a new economy. I am really struck by the language of small business, the language of innovation, the language of job creation but not a single job. Zero jobs. Ten weeks of a Republican revolution, zero jobs; 700,000 jobs lost. I would urge my colleagues that if they really want to be about the 21st century, then they should join us in expanding the research and development tax credit so those innovative firms can invest in all the technologies of the future, so that we can produce the Ph.D.s who are needed to conquer the 21st century and then link that to manufacturing so that the small firms in my district and all across the country can take advantage of a research and development tax credit because they are making things, where, making it in America.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank you, Mr. Garamendi, because I am excited about the prospect of manufacturing again in America. In my home State of Maryland, about 40 percent of our economic base was manufacturing. Today, that's under 10 percent. And I think that that's a sign of what's happened all across this country. But it doesn't have to remain that way. Today, we heard the Prime Minister of Australia express a belief in America that I want America to express in herself in terms of us leading the world in technology development and manufacturing for the 21st century. We need to return to that. There is still a lot of innovation that's going on. But let me tell you what's happened over the last couple of decades. The United States used to have the number one research and development tax credit in the world. Today, we're number 17. From number one to number 17. And what that means, when you begin to lose ahold of your innovation and other people are doing that innovation, pretty soon the production lines move to where the innovation is taking place. So it's no accident that manufacturing is leaving to where some of that innovation is taking place in other countries. I want to make sure that we're doing it, that we are making it, that we are manufacturing it right here in the United States. Let's take solar panels as an example. All of the great solar technology that we have developed right here in the United States. Where do we make solar panels? Every place else, particularly in China. Well, we should be making those in the United States, production lines and manufacturing lines that are actually close to where the research and development is taking place. We can go industry by industry, sector by sector and make the argument for making it in America. We are great innovators. But we don't want to be at number 17 when it comes to incentivizing through our tax policy good things, incentivizing innovation and manufacturing here in the United States, creating local jobs. I mean, the couple of firms that I talked about, they have 200 employees. And, you know, some of those employees graduated high school and they're working on that production line, high-paid jobs working on that production line. They're working alongside engineers who have Ph.D.s, and there are researchers with their Ph.D.s all along that production line, a couple of hundred employees. Well, we should be doubling and tripling that all across communities across this country so that we're not at 10 percent of manufacturing capacity in my State, but we're at 40 and 50 percent, because then people are working, they've got good job jobs, they've got great education, and we are making it in America.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are. It's 8 weeks into the 112th Congress and still not a single Republican proposal to create jobs and strengthen our economy. No jobs proposals and no jobs. Instead, we have a series of reports stating really clearly that the Republicans' slash-and-burn budgets would eliminate jobs, hundreds of thousands of them, and send our economy spiraling back into recession. Even Goldman Sachs says that the Republican continuing resolution would depress economic growth by 2 percent and raise unemployment by 1 percent. Mark Zandi, the economist, notes that this slash-and-burn idea of spending would cost our country 700,000 jobs. So here we are again, 8 weeks into the new leadership, and all we get is negative growth and job loss. So, Mr. Speaker, where are my colleagues? They need to get serious about creating jobs, strengthening our economy, and ensuring long-term growth for our children and grandchildren. I would urge us to get together, House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Republicans, in a good-faith effort to pass a funding bill for the remainder of the year that really guarantees our future and creates jobs for our economy. The American people cannot afford to see our economy sliding backwards.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I will.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Congresswoman Christensen. I'm here today because I look at the fight and the struggle of the workers in Wisconsin, the public sector workers, as connected, the dots connected to the struggles of workers across this country. For 20 years we've seen an erosion of the organized labor force, the organized workforce. And it isn't just the private sector workers who have lost over these 20 years. It's also our public sector workers. And this is the fight in which we're engaged now, Mr. Speaker. The union movement and collective bargaining have brought us minimum wages, not for our organized workers, but for those of us who are not organized, have brought us decent workplaces, safe working conditions, health care insurance, disability, vacation, family and medical leave, and the list goes on and on. And so I want to step back in our history a little bit, Mr. Speaker, and take a look at what has happened to the organized workforce--jobs shipped outside this country for private sector workers, a depletion of the organized workforce. We've also seen a circumstance where our State and municipal employees have done everything that we've asked them to do even in a tough economy in saying that they will make concessions, as all workers have in this economy, because they believe in holding the line for all of their workers so that people will not have to lose jobs. But they've taken furloughs, they've taken pay freezes, they've taken cuts in benefits. And even in Wisconsin, we know that the workforce there, the public sector workers have given on all of those money issues. And so we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, what is at the bottom of this. And what's at the bottom of this, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is that this is about busting up unions. We started with the private sector workers. We've put a kibosh on the ability of all of our workers to organize and to bargain for themselves, and now we're with public sector workers. So I think that this is a race to the bottom, Mr. Speaker. It's a race to the bottom for the American worker, and so the struggle for workers in Wisconsin is a struggle for all workers. When a worker is asked to give up $50 a month in contributions to a pension plan or $100 a month, let's think about what that means for that family. That $50 or $100 is the difference between having oatmeal and cereal and milk and eggs and paying the utilities every month. That's what $50 or $100 means. It's not something that's just thrown away. And so, Mr. Speaker, I stand here with my colleagues in deep solidarity with the workers, the public sector workers of Wisconsin, because I know that as sure as their struggle goes, the struggle with all workers goes across the country. And we have to link those fights. We have to end this decades-long race to the bottom, Mr. Speaker. We're being asked to look at trade agreements where we trade away private sector jobs, our public sector workers, our teachers, our firefighters, our law enforcement, people who take care of our children on a day-to-day basis. We're saying to them, you're not valued; you're not worth enough even in this economy. I don't think that that is the message that the American people want to send. And, Mr. Speaker, clearly the polls show that across this country a vast majority, an overwhelming majority--upwards of 60 percent--of the American public believes in the right to bargain collectively. And what is collective bargaining? Collective bargaining is sitting around a table, having a fair shake, getting a fair deal, and dealing as equal partners. Let's look at what's happened in Wisconsin and across this country. Contracts were struck. Now, if a contract were made in the private sector and one of the parties wanted to renege on that contract, the other party would probably take them to court. They would be in litigation. Yet here in Wisconsin and across this country, workers are being asked every day, they're being told every day that the person who is on the other side of an equal-bargaining table is going to renege on a contract. There is something deeply anti-democratic about that. So I'm here, Mr. Speaker, because public sector workers in Wisconsin deserve our solidarity. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, we know deeply of the struggle for freedom and for justice, and we know an injustice when we see it; And we are witnessing what looks to be an injustice in Wisconsin and Ohio and Indiana and perpetrated all across this country when it comes to the rights of workers and the ability to organize and the ability to bargain collectively for a decent workplace, for decent wages, and for the ability to take care of one's family and oneself. We stand toe-to-toe, shoulder-to-shoulder, and union card-to-union card with our public sector workers and with all workers across this country who deserve not a race to the bottom, Mr. Speaker, but a race to the top.

Ms. EDWARDS. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think that we have to be really clear here that this is not a valid substantive debate. I think that we tend to want to address substantive arguments to refute the misinformation that you describe. This is an ideological debate that is about one thing only, and it is about busting up the union. It's an ideological debate. It's about privatizing a pension system. It's an ideological debate that says that services can be provided better in the private sector. So I think we have to be very clear here that if this were a valid substantive debate, then I think that the workers of Wisconsin would win on that. This is an ideological battle. It's an ideological battle that's rooted in tearing apart, slashing and burning public sector workers under the ruse, under the guise of balancing a budget.

Ms. EDWARDS. If the gentlewoman would yield, we have just gone through an exercise and continue to go through a budget exercise here in this Congress with respect to Federal workers. So I have said to some Federal workers your struggle as a Federal worker is connected to the struggles of private sector workers, is connected to the struggles of public sector workers at the State and municipal level. And let me tell you about that. First, we have Federal workers who are facing a 2-year pay freeze. And they have accepted that because they are good public servants. Then they face the mythology of people who say that Federal workers are greatly overpaid when it comes to the private sector. But just as in Wisconsin, when you examine deeply the work that the workers do, you examine their job skills compared to the private sector job skills, and what you find is in fact they are greatly underpaid in the same job categories requiring the same skills and education as their private sector counterparts. Now, I don't want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in fact private sector workers have made out like bandits over the last 20 years, because what we know is that private sector workers, including the organized workforce, have faced stagnant wages and benefits over the course of the last two decades. And that's why I think it's really important for us to connect the dots with workers, because I think that opponents out there who would like to privatize the public workforce, opponents out there who would like to delegitimize and disaggregate unions, who would like to bust them up, also want to suggest that in fact it's the public sector workers fighting against the private sector workers fighting against the Federal workers. No, this is an entire workforce, as my colleague from Ohio has pointed out, across the board, across this country that has suffered massive, massive assaults on working people, on middle class people when it comes to wages and benefits. And Wisconsin serves the purpose of highlighting for us the transparency and the meanness of what it takes to go after working families.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, arthritis is the number one cause of disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and among the leading reasons for doctor visits and missed work. In addition, the CDC finds that arthritis costs $128 billion annually in medical costs and lost wages. In September 2010, a national summit on arthritis and musculoskeletal health disparities, ``Movement is Life,'' was held in Bethesda, Maryland. The summit facilitated a national dialogue about musculoskeletal health disparities among women and the largest racial/ethnic minority groups, African Americans and Latinos. The findings of ``Movement is Life'' show that women, African Americans, and Latinos face more severe osteoarthritis and disability but receive less than optimal access to diagnostic, medical, and surgical intervention than other demographic groups. These disadvantaged communities also face significant health disparities in chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. By promoting early intervention, ``Movement is Life'' hopes to slow musculoskeletal disease progression, reduce disability, and encourage physical activity and daily movement to improve the overall health of the Nation.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this very modest amendment by Congresswoman Eshoo. In the words of the young people, ``This is a no-brainer.'' This should be an easy call for Members on both sides of the aisle--people who believe in fairness and democracy and transparency. It should be an easy call for us to say, You know what? We know that there may be Federal contractors out there who are getting billions of dollars in benefits from Federal contracts, but they should disclose the money that they are spending on campaigns. The American people expect that. I wasn't a supporter of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but that's not what this is about, Mr. Chairman. This is not about a protected First Amendment right. I read the decision in Citizens United. What I took away from it is that, in fact, the one area in which the Congress does have some authority is in regulating the disclosure of expenditures in campaigns. The Court was very explicit about that. I know there have been a number of statements here on the floor that suggest otherwise, that suggest that this very fine and modest amendment would, in fact, impede our constitutional rights, but that's not what the Court said at all. What the Court said is that it's important and that Congress has the authority to regulate the disclosure of corporate expenditures on campaigns. This amendment does exactly that. It says, You know what? To play by the rules, these are the rules that we set. If you spend money on campaigns, the public has a right and interest in knowing what your interest is. So I am a strong supporter of this amendment. It is simple. Who funds campaigns? What is your special interest, Mr. Chairman? At a minimum, government contractors who really stand to gain billions of dollars should disclose their interests in our campaigns. This is a simple question of democracy. Members can declare here today that either they are on the side of the public interest and will support this amendment or that they are on the side of secrecy and collusion and will oppose the amendment. It is imperative that we really prevent secret donations in our elections. We have eliminated the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, so much more unfettered spending will take place in Presidential campaigns. We can't afford to continue to obstruct commonsense reforms that diminish the voices of the American people. I am not alone. Across this country, fully 80 percent of the American public actually believes that the Citizens United decision was decided wrongly, but that's not why we are here today. We will take that up at another time. We are here today, Mr. Chairman, to declare once and for all that there will be some of us--and I hope a majority of us--who will stand in support of the Eshoo amendment, which is on the side of fairness, on the side of democracy, on the side of transparency: on the side of the American people. We will declare here today with our vote that we stand for the public interest, and some will so shamefully declare that they stand for special interests. With that, I urge us to stand on the side of public interest and in support of the Eshoo amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that a point of order is reserved and, of course, I have the amendment as modified with language that would ensure that the amendment is budget neutral. I would ask unanimous consent for the modified amendment that is at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before you takes rescinded funds, increases the amount of State Trouble Assistance Grants to make sure that we can really fund our water and sewer infrastructure. The continuing resolution really deals a death low to our water and sewer infrastructure in this country. That means jobs all across the country in every single State. I would ask support of the amendment and note that in April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network released its first report, ``Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century,'' and that report documented significant improvements in water quality and public health that was associated with America's investments in water and wastewater infrastructure. But it also documented unprecedented financial problems. Over the next 20 years, America's water and wastewater systems will have to invest $23 billion a year more than current investments to meet the national environmental and public health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to replace aging and failing infrastructure. The epidemic isn't isolated. Eroded infrastructure is prominent in every neighborhood across this country; and nationwide, wastewater infrastructure needs range from $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years. My home State of Maryland has self-reported that it has an $8.4 billion deficit in water infrastructure needs. Just last month, out in my district on a cold winter morning, not far from Capitol Hill, a 54-inch water main broke that created massive destruction, overturned cars, destroyed businesses, and left residents like me without safe drinking water for days. It stopped the traffic along the Nation's beltway. The trucks that travel up and down the eastern seaboard were stopped, stopping commerce along the way. This happens all across the country. We've had at least 278 water main breaks just since January 1 in the counties that I represent. I would note that under the continuing resolution, States like Maryland would lose $33 million in funding, 937 jobs in States like Idaho, for example. In that State alone, there would be a loss of $6.9 million and 192 jobs, and this at a time when we need to do real job creation. Overall, the continuing resolution would see a loss of about at least $1.4 billion in funds from wastewater and water treatment, to the tune of 39,253 jobs at a time when the economy is really staggering. So I would strongly urge consideration of this amendment; and whether or not it's done in this continuing resolution, the fact is that our water infrastructure is failing. It's failing all across the country. We have needs that are unmet. Local communities cannot meet those needs, and it's really incumbent upon us to improve the Nation's water infrastructure so that we improve our competitiveness and we ensure that we have clean drinking water. I would not like any other community across the country to have to do what I've done three times just during this last year, that is, boiling every single bit of water that I use because of our failing infrastructure. And this isn't just about my community in Maryland. It's about communities across the country. And I think if anything, in this continuing resolution we need to be thinking about economic development and job creation. And the resolution in front of us does exactly the opposite. It takes millions of dollars away from communities for wastewater and water infrastructure and ensures that we won't be competitive over this next century. So I would urge strong consideration of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I rise today because I want to express my concern that I think of the House of Representatives as a place that involves a lot of critical thinking about the work that we do, but the continuing resolution in front of us is neither critical nor thoughtful. It eliminates the COPS program. Let me tell you about the COPS program, not just around the country where it's going to result in firing 1,330 law enforcement officers, but in one of the counties that I represent where we have had, unfortunately, 18 homicides since the beginning of the year, where we need every law enforcement officer on the beat. Fifty of those officers come from the COPS program. We would lose those officers under this continuing resolution. Looking at the firing of our firefighters, these are firefighters, first responders out there whenever they're called in every one of our communities across the country, 2,400 of them. Sometimes, Madam Chair, we speak in numbers that are so extraordinary that ordinary Americans don't understand them. But I think with respect to this continuing resolution, ordinary Americans understand that under the resolution 200,000 students--that's pre-kindergartners--will be kicked out of Head Start just when we need to give these students a start so that we can grow them and educate them so they're competitive in the 21st century. We're not doing that. Instead, 200,000 students in every State of this country kicked out of Head Start, thousands of teachers who teach them. This brings me to another cut, a number that the American people understands, Madam Chair--$845. $845 is the amount that would be cut from the Pell Grant program; $845, for those of us who sent a child to college, is the cost of books for the semester. Madam Chair, I am so shocked by these cuts that I think across this country, the students, if they're not going to get their $845 to buy their books, maybe they should send the bill to Speaker Boehner, send their book bill to the Speaker. I am challenged to understand these cuts, because when I think about an $845 cut to Pell Grants, in my State that's 123,000 students. Madam Chair, in Michigan, it's 646,000 students; in Arizona, it's 340,000 students; millions of students across the country who lose $845 that allows them to buy their biology books, their economics books, their math books, the things that will enable them to be competitive in this century. So, like many Americans, I really don't get that. It is neither thoughtful nor critical. This cut would mean $2.5 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health for cancer research and for other diseases that plague our country and send our health care costs skyrocketing. We want to cut scientists and researchers and medical professionals who are trying to cure the great diseases of our time? I don't understand it, and I don't think the American public understands it. And $1.4 billion in cuts for science and energy research, the very thing that will make us competitive in this next generation. The American people don't understand that. Children, 200,000 of them, in Head Start. Firefighters, 2,400 of them. Police officers, 1,330 of them; 123,000 students in the State of Maryland losing their 845 lousy dollars to buy their books. Madam Chair, I have to tell you that I think, like many of us in this Congress, we know that we need to bring spending under control, but it cannot be at the expense of working people. It cannot be at the expense of poor people. So it is a sad day in the United States when this Congress has exercised neither critique nor thought in bringing cuts that will devastate the American people and result in no job creation yet again for the last 45 days of this Congress. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Here we are, it's mid-February. The Republicans took control. They won the election in November on an agenda of trying to create jobs for the American people. Two months into after being sworn in, here we are now--still haven't created a job. We haven't put a single bill on the floor of the House of Representatives to create jobs for the American people. With over 9 percent unemployment--among African Americans, 16 percent unemployment--communities across this country hemorrhaging, corporations in this country sitting on $2 trillion in cash--and still no jobs. So what are the Republicans doing instead? Here's what they're trying to do. They're trying to further restrict a woman's right to choose-- not creating jobs, but want to get in the middle of your doctor's office to restrict your right to choose. Hours and hours of debate to direct committees to oversee regulations. Well, that's our job, to oversee the regulatory process. We don't need hours of debate to give us permission to oversee the regulatory process. Still no jobs. What else are the Republicans doing? They're reviewing, reviewing. Well, that's safe. What do we have to review? Our job, of course, is to review. But our job is to create jobs for the American people. That's what they expected out of the election. That's what we need to deliver them.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another of our colleagues from Arizona, Ed Pastor. (Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. EDWARDS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 188 is a bill to honor the life and public service of Judge John McCarthy Roll, who was gunned down, along with others, at a community meeting in Tucson, Arizona. Judge Roll graduated from the University of Arizona Law School in 1972, and he spent the next 40 years of his life dedicated to public service. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Roll served as a bailiff in the Pima County Superior Court and soon became Deputy County Attorney for Pima County, where he prosecuted criminal cases until 1980. After his service as Pima County prosecutor, Judge Roll moved to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona, where he served both as a civil attorney and criminal attorney until 1987, primarily prosecuting drug cases for the Federal Government. Judge Roll then served as a State court judge until he was appointed to the Federal bench by President George H. W. Bush in 1991. From this perch, Judge Roll earned his reputation as a giant amongst the legal community in Arizona. Judge Roll was respected by his colleagues and the attorneys that appeared before him as someone who devoted his life to the rule of law and afforded all who appeared before him a fair opportunity to present their case. Judge Roll's 20-year service to the judiciary ended tragically on January 8, 2011, when he was shot and killed while attending a local event sponsored by the gentlewoman, our colleague from Arizona, Gabby Giffords. Judge Roll attended the event in the course of his duties to thank Congresswoman Giffords for sending a letter to the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting that he declare Judge Roll's Federal district a judicial emergency because it was besieged with a high number of immigration and drug cases. Judge Roll also worked closely with Congresswoman Giffords to justify to Federal officials the need for construction of the Yuma, Arizona, U.S. Courthouse to adjudicate the growing backlog of these cases. Madam Speaker, given Judge Roll's extraordinary service to his country, it is so fitting and proper that we honor his memory by designating that very same courthouse--the U.S. courthouse now under construction in Yuma, Arizona--as the John M. Roll United States Courthouse. This action today, Madam Speaker, will clear the bill for the President and hopefully provide a small comfort to Judge Roll's wife, Maureen, his three children and his five grandchildren, in honor of his service. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 188. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, one of the things that we don't talk about very often is that there are different ways that people choose to serve. Some choose to serve in elected office. Some choose to serve in uniform. Judge Roll chose to serve in our judiciary. It is one of those parts of our system that Judge Roll rightly recognized as one in which it is important to hear with fairness those who come before the court. Every aspect of Judge Roll's service indicated, with regard to those who appeared before him, that he operated and functioned fairly in his courtroom. It is why he was so respected. As we look at his 20-year service, ending so tragically just in January of 2011, perhaps several months ago, one would not have thought what the name of the courthouse would be under its construction in Yuma, Arizona. Yet, today, because of Judge Roll's service and the tragedy that met him, it seems so obvious that this courthouse should be named for such an important public servant. Given Judge Roll's extraordinary service to the country, it is true that, in his memory, we will remember him as a public servant, but we will also remember the purpose for which he served this country in our judiciary. The John M. Roll United States Courthouse will be a place in which, not just his wife, Maureen, and his family will be able to recognize their memory, but will be one that other attorneys and judges and litigants will recognize as a place of fairness, as a fair representation of his service to this Nation. So I do join my colleagues in supporting S. 188.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am actually disappointed that I am standing on the floor of the House of Representatives today yet again defending and protecting the rights of the American people to health care. It is such a shame that yesterday and the day before for 7 hours our Members on the other side of the aisle spent their time deciding for the American people to take away the ability of parents to provide health care for their young people up to age 26. They spent 7 hours, other than finding jobs, trying to make sure that small businesses who are providing health care don't get a tax credit anymore for the health care that they are providing for their employees. They spent 7 hours trying to strip away the ability of our seniors to make sure that they don't have to reach into their own pockets, deeper pockets, not deep anymore, to pay for prescription drugs. Yesterday and the day before they spent 7 hours debating whether it is a good idea for insurance companies to be able to deny people health care for preexisting conditions when they know that at least 129 million of us, 65 percent or so of us, actually have preexisting medical conditions. So it is really disappointing that here we are yet again with the Republicans saying we took it all away in one day, and now we are going to think about some of it that we might replace again. Well, we have created a health care law for the American people that is about affordability and accessibility. And I know that the Democrats are going to stand on the side with the President, implementing the law. And thank goodness for the American people. They should know that the Republicans didn't do anything yesterday other than putting a whole bunch of stuff on a piece of paper that has no chance of going anywhere. The paper is not even worth the ink that is printed on it.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong opposition to Republican attempts to repeal and dismantle our health care law, the law that Congress has passed to give health care to the American people. Mr. Speaker, this repeal bill may fulfill an empty campaign promise, but it fails to put the key American objectives of creating jobs and reducing the deficit at the top of the agenda. In fact, the independent Congressional Budget Office estimates that this repeal will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years. In Maryland, by contrast, we will save $800 million in 10 years with the new law. We have heard the debate, but now it is time to hear the stories of countless millions of Americans who have a chance at real health care. I know these stories because I hear them every day, Mr. Speaker, stories like Chuck, an engineer from Hyattsville, Maryland, who suffers from chronic thyroid condition and believes he will be denied health care coverage should health care reform be repealed; Nancy, a mother in Germantown, Maryland, who is grateful that the health care law has allowed her 20-something daughter currently in graduate school to stay on her mother's health insurance policy. I have even heard from constituents of some of our Republican colleagues, afraid about having to repay the money because they slipped into the doughnut hole. And I want to tell you about Annie, a friend of mine, 28 years old, diagnosed with leukemia, who would have reached lifetime caps because she and her parents are trying to save her life. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we are here today. Let's create jobs and stop this theater.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I thank the gentleman. I think that is right. You look at so many things that can be prevented if only people were able to get their preventive care. Today what we did in this House, what the majority did in this House, is so sad, taking away the ability of senior citizens to go in for an annual checkup and make that early discovery and diagnosis of diabetes or hypertension or any of the markers for those chronic illnesses that if treated early can actually save all of us a lot of money, all of those seniors a lot of grief, and really be good for the system. And so when I think about what we did today, I think of the millions of Americans all across this country who every day are discovering a new benefit that is now available to them because of the new health care law. I think it is important for us to remind the American public that the Affordable Care Act isn't a bill, it isn't an idea, it is not a proposal. It is the law. Today the law is that if you are up to age 26 that you can stay on your parents' health insurance plan. The law of the land today is that if you are a senior and you are paying out-of- pocket costs to the thousands of dollars for your prescription drugs, those drugs that fall in that prescription drug doughnut hole, you will receive a 50 percent discount on those drugs. The law of the land is that you can't be excluded for preexisting conditions. Now, the gentleman from Vermont talked about preexisting conditions, as did the gentlewoman from California. It is so simple. It is true, almost not a one of us is without a preexisting condition. Well, the law of the land, despite the sadness of what happened in this House today, is if you have a preexisting condition and you are under age 18, that you will actually be able to receive health care insurance for that. And as we go through implementation, that you will be able to, whatever your age and preexisting condition, you will not be excluded from receiving your health care. The law of the land today is that small businesses receive a tax credit for providing health care to their employees--35 percent last year when the law was started, 50 percent this year. That's the law of the land. And so I am glad to be here with our colleagues. I don't want to overplay the sadness that happened in this House today because there was a lot of business about taking care of campaign promises and meeting artificial goals. But the fact is that last year we passed the health care law. It is being implemented right now, and that's the law of the land. And thank goodness for the millions of people all across this country who have the security in knowing that not only do they have access to quality, affordable health care, but that that applies all across this country.