Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support the growing commercial space transportation industry, and I support the stated goal of the SPACE Act, to ``encourage private sector investment and create more stable and predictable regulatory conditions.'' The commercial space industry is emerging, it is growing, it is preparing for the 21st century and research and technology and entrepreneurship and exploration. It employs thousands of workers. The bill does some useful things. It extends the life of the International Space Station at least through 2024, giving us a springboard for a pathway to Mars. It provides for a clear definition of government astronauts as separate from crew and other spaceflight participants, recognizing the historic and unique and necessary place in the spectrum for government astronauts. But I must also point out my concerns that we support policies that consider the safety of those who will use the commercial services we are seeking to encourage, especially commercial human spaceflight services. I am concerned that the length of the moratorium, 8 years, on FAA's ability to even start proposing regulations for human occupants on commercial human spaceflight systems, the so-called learning period, is longer than it needs to be for an industry that, as has been described, is moving at quite a rapid pace. I am concerned that this bill requires spaceflight participants, those who will buy tickets to fly on commercial and human spaceflight systems, to waive their rights to sue the launch provider and related parties for claims. It is unclear, for example, what the parameters are for instances of negligence and gross negligence or malfeasance, and we needed the bill to clarify these issues. I am concerned that we are rushing to establish policy on space resource mining and utilization without having vetted the range of issues associated with it and without having carried out the necessary due diligence to inform legislation that relates to our international treaty obligations with our international partners. Mr. Speaker, I supported the original Senate-passed bill, S. 1297, which includes a 5-year learning period and 4-year extension of commercial launch indemnification. A formal conference would have, of course, allowed Members the opportunity to fully explore and discuss the issues that I have described and resolve most, if not all, of our differences. Unfortunately, such a process was not followed in this case, and so we are left with a bill that I believe exceeds its risks. That said, I believe that we should continue to support the emerging commercial space industry, though we must do so with an eye toward protecting all those who use it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind our colleagues because this is really important legislation moving forward, and I think that as the ranking member, Ms. Johnson, has indicated and as I have, that it is not for lack of concern and support of the commercial space industry and sector that we raise concerns. This is an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds, that employs thousands of workers all across this country, and that is at the hub of entrepreneurship, research, and exploration. It really is the 21st century future. It is really a question of what the rules of the game are going to be going forward, how to best protect the interests of taxpayers, how to protect the interests of the industry, and to see it grow in a healthy way. So I would hope that the majority would take into consideration some of the concerns that have been expressed and let's use an opportunity over these next several months and years to make sure that we get it right for the industry that is a part of our future. I would note that, even with the reservations that have been expressed, we pointed out a number of areas where there is strength in this legislation, but we haven't gotten it all right. I would also remind the majority that, with respect to mining of asteroids, we are not doing that tomorrow, so all the more reason we should pay attention to the international treaties of which we are a part and to the needs and concerns of our international partners as we move forward; that is, we don't have to rush to judgment where it concerns mining asteroids, as we are not doing that tomorrow. So, Mr. Speaker, I would close by just saying that I believe that there is a great future in this industry, and I am excited about it. But I also know that we have to balance a lot of our interests to make sure that we pay attention, again, to safety and that we do it in the right kind of way. As I began, I applaud the gentlewoman from Texas for making sure that the points of concern are on the record. I do not intend to oppose the bill, and I hope that we can move forward in the future to make sure that we really can provide for the kind of strength that the industry needs. I want to take an opportunity to thank the staff: Pam Whitney of our Space Subcommittee, who has put in tireless work on this bill; Allen Li; Russell Norman and John Piazza, our counsel. Dick Obermann, our chief of staff on the committee, has put in tireless hours to try to get it right. I think for all of those who are part of the commercial space industry, we want you to go forward, we want you to succeed, and we want to make sure that the American public, that the American taxpayer, gets the benefit of the bargain. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule precisely because it makes in order various Export-Import Bank amendments that are actually designed to kill what we just did to make sure that we could reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Nonetheless, I am grateful to Chairmen Shuster and Graves and Ranking Members DeFazio and Norton and their committees and their personal staffs for their leadership in trying to move forward a 6-year reauthorization. All of us have acknowledged that this is far from perfect, but the fact is, America is literally falling apart: by asphalt, by rebar, by cement, by steel, by rail, pothole by pothole, just falling apart. The United States now ranks 16th in infrastructure according to the World Economic Forum. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the overall assessment of our infrastructure ranks is, I am sad to say, a whopping D plus. As some of you remember from The Washington Post back in February, a constituent of mine was driving on the Suitland Parkway, just outside of D.C. She was minding her own business, running her errands. What happens? A chunk of cement falls down and hits her car. That is right, a chunk of cement falling from the beltway to hit her car on the Suitland Parkway. Fortunately, no one was injured, but this is just one example of a project that was on the Federal list and simply wasn't worked on because there was no money to do it. I support what we are doing today in terms of a bipartisan authorization for a long-term authorization, but this is nowhere near what we need to do to repair the couple of trillion dollars in infrastructure deficit that we face in this country that is causing us not to be as competitive as we need to be and really is taking up a bunch of time for people who are stuck on roads that are going nowhere. Let me be clear, this is not the bill that I would have written. It is not perfect, but maybe it is the best that we can do under the circumstances. Clearly, though, we shouldn't have a 6-year authorization with only a couple years of funding. There have been numerous proposals to fund our long-term infrastructure. I am grateful that I was able to at least work on a couple of amendments regarding oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA, and I look forward to continuing to work on these efforts.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. Representative Comstock of Virginia and I have an amendment that is at the desk, and I don't have to tell my colleagues who ride Metro every day to and from work of the issues that WMATA Metro has had with safety, performance, and management. Our bipartisan amendment gives the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation the authority to appoint the four Federal members to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board. Currently, the General Services Administration has this sole authority and shares oversight responsibilities of the Federal board members with the U.S. Department of Transportation. The WMATA board determines the agency's policy and provides oversight for the funding, operation, and expansion of transit facilities. We have worked closely with Senator Mikulski of Maryland on this issue, and she has introduced a bill in the Senate that is cosponsored by all three other local Senators: Senators Cardin, Warner, and Kaine of Virginia. From various conversations we have had, the Secretary of Transportation is also aware of this issue and is supportive of the Department of Transportation taking over. The General Services Administration has stated that ``this was never in our wheelhouse.'' And WMATA does not oppose this change. I want to thank Chairs Chaffetz and Meadows and Ranking Members Cummings and Connolly for working with us since the amendment also falls under the jurisdiction of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. They have cleared this amendment. Before I close, I want to remember our late colleague--and former colleague on the Transportation Committee--Howard Coble, who died last night. He represented the Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina, including the town I was born in, Yanceyville, North Carolina. He will be sorely missed by all of us and his long-time constituents and his service with us. May he rest in peace. I reserve the balance of my time. I don't have to tell my colleagues, some of who ride Metro each day to and from work, of the issues the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has had with safety, performance, and management. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA, Public Law 110-432), included the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act, a bill authorizing $1.5 billion in federal funding for WMATA capital improvements. It was because of this federal investment and WMATA's large federal employee ridership that the National Capital Region Congressional Delegation created the federal board members. The Delegation expanded the WMATA Board from twelve members from Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia to include sixteen members, establishing the four new federal member positions. The Delegation also believed that these federal board members would not be wrapped up in jurisdictional politics. Often board members from the jurisdictions do not recommend what is needed because their jurisdiction does not have the money. The National Capital Region Congressional Delegation gave the appointment authority to the General Services Administration (GSA) because at the time, it seemed the best federal agency to represent the overall federal workforce. Approximately forty percent of WMATA's ridership is federal employees. Our amendment gives the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) the authority to appoint the four federal members to the WMATA Board. Currently, the GSA has this sole authority and shares oversight responsibilities of the federal board members with USDOT. The WMATA Board determines the agency's policy and provides oversight for the funding, operation, and expansion of transit facilities. I have worked with Senator Mikulski on this issue and she has introduced a bill in the Senate that this amendment is based on. S. 2093 is cosponsored by all 3 other local Senators, Senators Cardin, Warner, and Kaine. From various conversations we have had, Secretary Foxx is aware of this issue and is supportive of USDOT taking over. GSA has stated that ``this never was in our wheelhouse.'' And WMATA does not oppose. I want to thank Chairs Chaffetz & Meadows and Ranking Members Cummings & Connolly for working with us since the amendment falls under the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's jurisdiction. It is my understanding they have cleared this amendment. Since the creation of the federal board positions in 2008, GSA has not played an active role in oversight of the federal board members. GSA does not have any expertise about what it takes to operate a transit system, nor does it have any experience. Only USDOT has been committed to the oversight of the federal board members and trying to correct WMATA's myriad problems. WMATA's serious safety, operational, and financial issues have all been documented by USDOT. The Secretary of USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration have been working directly with the federal board members and the transit agency to get things fixed. The federal board members and USDOT are in regular communication. In addition, the local delegation led by Senator Mikulski has been providing the federal finding authorized in PRIIA in the annual Transportation & HUD (THUD) Appropriations Bill. For the last seven years, bill and report language has been included requiring strict oversight by the USDOT Secretary on how these taxpayer dollars are spent. Before I close, I would like to remember our late colleague, Howard Coble, who died last night. He represented the 6th Congressional District of North Carolina, including the town that I was born in, Yanceyville. Howard will be sorely missed by all of us and his long- time constituents. May he rest in peace.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it has been a real pleasure to be able to work with Mrs. Comstock on this amendment. It is very rare that we have opportunities to work across the aisle and also across the Capitol to make sure that we are doing the right thing for our transit system here in the metropolitan Washington area that serves so many millions of both Federal workers and tourists from all of our different States and jurisdictions. It is really clear that the General Services Administration in this day and age is probably not the most appropriate place for the appointment of these members of the board. It is dutifully to be placed with the Department of Transportation to which they have agreed. I thank our colleagues for all agreeing to this as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, the amendment at the desk is consistent with the streamlining effort that has already been underway in this bill. I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio because they have put in yeoman's work to make this a bipartisan effort. Ultimately, my amendment will reduce the overall cost of projects and the need for mitigation. If implemented, it will save money. As we know all too well, highway storm water is a growing threat to water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and the fish and wildlife that depend on the health of these ecosystems. Moreover, the high volumes and rapid flow of storm water runoff from highways and roads poses a serious threat to the condition of our Nation's water and transportation infrastructure. Impervious surfaces create rapidly moving high volumes of untreated polluted storm water that rush off road surfaces, erode unnatural channels next to and ultimately underneath roadways compromising the integrity of roadway infrastructure, and increase the stress on storm water sewer systems, shortening the life of all of this infrastructure. The total coverage of impervious surfaces in an area is usually expressed as a percentage of the total land area. According to the Chesapeake Bay program, impervious surfaces compose roughly 17 percent of all urban and suburban lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The greatest concentration of impervious surfaces in the bay watershed is the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan areas of D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. In fact, the Virginia Tidewater area, Philadelphia's western suburbs, and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, are also regions in our watershed where impervious surfaces are greater than 10 percent of the total land area. While there are serious water quality concerns with not adequately controlling roadway infrastructure runoff, there are also serious infrastructure costs that are ultimately passed on to taxpayers and ratepayers. These can be avoided if transportation authorities do more to control and manage storm water runoff with the infrastructure assets they plan and manage. The aim of the amendment, of course, is to improve highway design to better manage storm water to avoid the costly damage that poorly managed storm water causes, and to move this up in the planning process so that thought goes in at the beginning how best to plan, design, and construct effectively, while also reducing costs. Now, that work is done near the end of the process, where mitigation is often used and costs are much higher. My amendment would simply move up the consideration of storm water issues in statewide and metropolitan planning. Specifically, it would require consideration of projects and strategies that will improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate storm water impacts on surface transportation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to address the problem that is facing America's waterways and infrastructure, and to do that early in the planning, which is more efficient and less costly. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 3033, the Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia--or READ--Act. The READ Act directs the NSF to devote funding to support dyslexia research, and to look at that research with an eye to its practical application. This will include early identification and intervention for children with dyslexia, guidance and professional development for teachers on working with students with dyslexia, and the development of educational tools and curricula which aid those with dyslexia. Mr. Speaker, dyslexia is the most common learning disability in America, with an estimated 1 in 6 individuals potentially suffering from some form of dyslexia. Unfortunately, many people go undiagnosed, or are diagnosed but do not have access to the resources or alternative learning methods that could help them. I remember how much effort it took just to get the school system to recognize that my son should get tested for dyslexia, not to mention getting him the interventions and tools that he needed in order to be a successful student. We need to encourage the scientific research around dyslexia, especially as it relates to early identification and early intervention. I encourage all of my fellow Members of Congress to support this bill.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in 280 days, Maryland has lost 301 lives to gun violence. That is 301 families that have lost mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters to domestic violence, mental health, and just plain old violence with a gun. It is time for my colleagues to stand up to listen, to take on the National Rifle Association, and to stop the flood of gun violence that is ravaging our communities in Maryland and across the country. Let's do that in the names of: Stefon Donnell Powell; Leon Flemming; Karim Bonner; Josphat Kobia; Matthew Thomas; Everett Thomas; John David Walsh; Troy R. Preston; Robert Durham Thomas; Darius White; Jamal Allen; Anthony Richardson; Seydina Oumar Soumagel; Donte Downer; David Hall; Harry Smith; Tyrone Archer, Jr.; Jason Ballard; Donald Gaff. Ashanti Lynnae Ballard-Velez; Jason Ballard; Davon Johnson; Stephen Forman; James Smith; Stephen Vaise; Victor Underwood Black; Marvin Barrett; Edward Donnell Bright, Sr.; Derrick Dargan; Tavares Swinson; Allan Bartlett Poole; James Maurice Edward, Jr.; Malik Fuller; Jawan Goode; Own Crayton; Christopher Hagerman; Anthony Reese; Dwayne Reid; Markez Jones. Djuan Tillet; Tiesha Rogers; Terry Garnett, Jr.; Terrell Walston; Dayonte Matthew; Jonathan Lopez; Alton Wallce III; Johnie Green; Mary Green; Mark Green; Antwon Marque Coleman; Richard Anthony Jackson; Sterling Day; Daniel Brooks; Jarrell Hicks; Victor Gwaitney; Andre Robinson; Kemmontay Mitchell; Jeremy Ward; Ricky Shawatza Hill. Keaway Lafonz Ivy; Jamar Green; Steven Jackson; Eugene W. Tolley; Thomas Peterson; Linda Ota; Tywaun Short; Lawrence Buckner; Gilbert Mendoza; Vedrana Mendoza; Molly Mendoza; Rondal Metzger; Mary J. Glacken; Kevin Hill; Jamal Rosebourgh; Mark Nicholson; Carvell Jones; Mark McKenna; Reanna Lynn Greene; Daquain Tate. Martin Brooks; Ricky Chambers, Jr.; Andre Hunt; Davon Williams Johnson; James Maurice Johnson; Yogesh Sheth; Bryon Showell; Levi Buck; Khai Hebron; Elliot B. Cheston, Jr.; Cornelia M. Cheston; Robert Scott Slaughter; Keith Watts; Rodney Vandette Johnson; Melissa Anne Bingham; Paul Smith; Armand Parrine; Ivan Anthony McBroom; Matthew Hughes; Odell Stewart. Lionel Young; Harry Davis; Louis Hicks; Anthony Donnell Minick; Reginald B. Brown III; Shawn Scott; Tiffan Chisholm; Tahil Yasin; Deangelo Green; Rashard Jackson; Wade Mckinley Purvey; Eric Diggs, Jr.; James Skinner; Shawn Hickman; Kelvin Warfield; Rupert Everton Samuels; Michael Smith; Craig Deshields, Jr.; Jarmar James; Darell Alston, Jr. Robert Michael Mange; Lamont Scurry; Charles Adams; Tyrin Diggs; James Mckoy; Hassan Fields; Bruce Fleming, Jr.; Umika Smith; Charles Jackson, Jr.; Shaquil Hinton; Charles Dobbins; Keith Leon Booze; Jennifer Jeffrey Browne; Kester ``Tony'' Browne III; Justin Mensuphu- Bey; Eladio Bennett; Pierre Rafael Edwards; Terrell Patterson; Marie Shade Adebayo; Gerald Smith. Tony Moody; Davontay King; Kevin Jones; Ronnie Walden; Arnesha Bowers; Elery Hudson; Antoine Johnson; Jamon Corprew; Curtis Mitchell; Jerome Grant; Eric Bernard Talbert; Brandon Brown; Michael S. Montgomery; Bruce Wayne; Bernard Dorsey; Allen Durant Gilbert; Henry McArthur; Tommy David Thomas; Spencer Lee McCain; Terrence Demond. Brian Augins; Ivan J. Cox, Jr.; Lonnie Bernard Paye, Jr.; Nathaniel Wheeler; Edward Burroughs; Craig Ivan Corbin, Jr.; Derwin Jones; Gerald Thompson; Jacqueline Parker; Lamont Randall; John F. Davis; Eric Renard Forrester; Gary Jackson; Steven Justin Lewis; Darrius Johnson. Tyrell Hardy; James Ricardo Smith; Dante Barnes; Gregory Higgins; Tyrone Johnson; Marvin Coston, Jr.; Frederick Samuel Taylor; Daryl Sylvester King; Ronald Davon Penn; Robert Lee Jackson; Damon Tisdale; Delvin Trusty; Terron Singleton; Julian Roary Sr.; Julian Roary Jr.; Ian Roary. Adrian Kinard; Hudson Bhagwat; Albert Mullen; Jefferson Bolden; Daquan Mason; Clerow Myers III; Damon L. Ramsey; Cody Lacey; Charles Diggs; Marcus Downer; Jaswinder Singh; Michael Polston; Lorod C. Warner; William Hasenei; Robin Hasenei; Donte Dixon, Jr.; Gregory Tynes; Terrence Boy; Alvin Phillips. Dommeir D. Deshields; Shakina Marie Perkins-Moody; Christopher Lowel Giles; Joseph Titus Abariko; Sandeep Bhulai; Jerome Smith; Steven Frank Krug; Kelly Lorraine Shortt-Hamilton; Daniel Ray Shortt, Sr.; David Lamont Nolan; Marquis Caldwell; Franklin Morris; Tyrik Adams; Melvin Heckstell; Asshams Pharoah Manley; Tyrone Anthony Creighton; Christopher Allen Garrett; Kevin Carey; Felix Nazas; J.R. Reid Franklin. Paul Hilroy Passley; Brandon Smith; Angelo Yancy; Jajuan Mcrae; Charles S. Hall; Karlyn Serane Ramirez; Ryan Mims; Michael Thompson; Tryonte Worrell; Keith Gale; Kason Williams; Taurean Beard; Stonie Baker; Joshua W. L. Hodge, Sr.; Romel Simms; Kirk Butler; Michael Nichols; Thomas Meehan; Troy Midder; Darris Darnell Davis. Darius Edward White; Tonyado Johnson; Pierre Epps-Hamilton; Dante Lamont Barnes; Michael John Compton; Antonio McNeil; Cecil Harris; Kevin Cannady; Rayshawn Jones; Javon Langston; Amir Billings; Keith Harrison McLeod; Tayvon Wilson; Junanito Mosquita; Brian Johnson; Ernest Lott; Garland Johnson; Deyquawn Charvez Cooper; Tylique Proctor; Gordon Williams; James Gaylord; Harry James Smith, Jr. It is time to end the violence. It is time to end the silence. It is time for this Congress to do something.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution approving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the nuclear program of Iran negotiated by the Obama administration in concert with five other nations, the P5+1. I want to commend President Obama's Secretary Kerry, Under Secretary Sherman, Secretary Moniz, and their teams for their leadership and continued, persistent engagement with our international partners and Members of Congress to make this moment possible. None of us comes to this decision lightly. It is perhaps the most important decision of our public life, no matter what decision we come to. But after reading the agreement and the classified and unclassified underlying documents, taking part in numerous briefings at the White House and here on Capitol Hill, meeting with constituents, and studying the analyses of experts, I am confident that this strong diplomatic achievement provides the only option that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and, by some estimates, in as few as 2 to 3 months. This is not achieved by trust, Mr. Speaker, but through verification. Mr. Speaker, after 14 years of continuous military engagement for our armed services, this agreement cuts off all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon and does so without unnecessarily risking American lives in yet another military action, even as the agreement preserves that ultimate option, should it become necessary in the event of Iran's default. This agreement sends a clear message to Iran that the global community stands united today and well into the future in ensuring that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. Much has been said of Iran's capacity after 10 to 15 years. And even there, the agreement places Iran in the confines of a nuclear non- proliferation treaty, just as the rest of us are. If Iran violates the agreement, they will, without question, face complete isolation, even more severe repercussions, and the U.S. retains our ability to engage unilateral sanctions and our military option. It is true that this agreement is not perfect. But if this agreement does not go forward, there is no better deal, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there is no deal. No sanctions, no international partners, no inspections, no deal. This is a negotiation which is, by definition, not perfect. It is my hope that we will divorce ourselves from the hyperbole and the rhetoric in favor of the seriousness this issue deserves. I have concluded that the agreement is the best path forward. This is not just my considered judgment; it is the judgment of the highest levels of the military, nonproliferation experts, nuclear scientists, and our diplomatic partners who join in their overwhelming support of the agreement. As a Congress, we can only do our best and our part to move forward to provide the necessary resources for proper oversight to ensure effective monitoring and aggressive verification. If Iran cheats, we will know it; we will know it quickly, and we will act decisively. Once again, the world turned to the United States for our leadership on dealing with Iran and its nuclear program. This agreement, reached through rigorous diplomacy, in conjunction with our partners, provides the tools we need to ensure a pathway to peace and security for the United States, for Israel, the region, and the world. I will vote to approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of Colleen Kelley who is retiring as President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). Her resignation will become effective in August, following NTEU's National Convention in Hollywood, Florida. Colleen Kelley has provided the NTEU and federal employees with skilled leadership over the past 16 years, while always advocating in an honest and forthright manner with Congress. Having served at the IRS and in various NTEU roles, her experience and unique perspective on the impacts of proposals on federal employees was vital in educating lawmakers and constituents on the important role federal employees play in keeping our nation safe and growing our economy. During her national presidency, federal employees have contributed $159 billion toward deficit reduction over 10 years in pay freezes, increased pension retirement contributions, and furloughs. She has relentlessly educated the public on the important contributions made by federal employees and how cutting employee pay and benefits hurts our government's ability to recruit and retain the best workforce possible to serve the American people. As someone who has the honor of representing over 51,000 federal employees from the 4th Congressional District of Maryland, I have been fortunate to work closely with Colleen for several years. I thank her for her dedication to federal employees and our country, and I look forward to coordinating closely with Colleen's successor to ensure America's federal employees receive the pay and benefits they deserve. I wish Colleen continued success, happiness, and hopefully some well- earned rest. She leaves behind a legacy of service that others can and should aspire to.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1994, the so-called VA Accountability Act. I am the daughter of a career servicemember and a veteran. I, too, was outraged last year at the findings that wait time records were falsified at the Department of Veterans Affairs. But I have to tell you--and it has been said on the other side--my father actually received really good care and services in VA, as hundreds of thousands of veterans do all across this country, by the hundreds of thousands of veteran employees and workers at the VA. I recall that, in my State of Maryland, 10 percent of our population are veterans, and we are a small State. We all care about veterans and the care that they receive. Just before adjourning for our August district work period last year, Congress passed and I voted for and the President signed into law the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act. That law gave the VA Secretary expanded authority to fire or demote Senior Executive Service employees, capped the amount of bonuses the VA could pay each year, and it required the VA to establish penalties for employees who knowingly submit false wait time data. Well, enough already. Almost 1 year later House Republicans are not only here skipping town early with a whole bunch of unfinished business, but they are spending the last day of the session on an ideological bill that is aimed to disparage Federal employees. All employees, including Federal employees, must be held to the highest standards for their quality of work and their behavior. There are mechanisms that are in place to enforce those standards for all Federal employees, including those at the Veterans Affairs. The main provision of the bill would single out nonmanagement VA employees, including over 100,000 veterans in the workforce to be fired or demoted without due process. We work really closely with our employees at the Baltimore regional office and the Washington, D.C., Medical Center. These people, many veterans themselves, are dedicated. They care deeply about the patients they serve and the mission of the administration. This legislation is nothing more than a last-minute attempt by House Republicans to terminate, demoralize, and unfairly blame Federal employees and shrink the government so it can't do anything for the American people. I will work with like-minded Members of Congress who want to do the right thing and provide the right kind of oversight. But this is not the answer, and it would destroy VA's merit-based civil service system. Let me just say this is not about accountability. It is not about whistleblowers. It is not about improving services for our Nation's veterans. This bill is nothing more than union-busting. Let's just call it what it is. It is union-busting, and it needs to be stopped. The House Republicans should be ashamed of trying to use VA employees and Federal employees for their own political gain.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 475 on H.R. 427, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Capps

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this Young amendment looks eerily familiar to the so-called Secret Science Reform Act, H.R. 1030, that the House passed in a partisan vote back in March, except the problem is that this bill is actually even worse. H.R. 1030 would have applied these harmful restrictions to the EPA, but this amendment that we are looking at today would affect every single Federal agency. Let's look. The amendment would require an agency, as part of its rulemaking process, to make all information used in the creation of a rule publicly accessible, including all of the data. That would mean that any data that is considered confidential, such as health information or business records, would most likely become off limits. So, for example, an agency trying to create labeling requirements for toxic chemicals wouldn't be able to use a study that uses personal health data as long as that data is deemed confidential. New scientific methods and data could be restricted because the information includes data protected by intellectual property laws. When we passed the Secret Science Act on a partisan vote last March, I mentioned in my opposition that it would force the EPA to choose between protecting our health and environment and maintaining the privacy of patient medical records and the confidentiality of business records. And if that argument isn't enough, let's consider the costs. When the House Science Committee was considering the bill that I mentioned previously, the Secret Science Act that does exactly the same thing that the Young amendment does, except to all Federal agencies, Democrats on the committee pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office estimated just for that one bill that it would cost the EPA $250 million to comply with the new regulations. If that is how much it is going to cost the EPA for one regulatory requirement, imagine what the cost would be if you expand this mandate across every single Federal agency. The cost would be astronomical. Between the cost and the harmful restrictions that this imposes on our Federal agencies, the amendment sets up an impossible hurdle for those agencies to overcome. We are asking them to decide between compromising institutional review board ethics and doing their job to protect the American people. It is very clear that the Young amendment and provisions like it are not, in fact, about transparency. It really is to block Federal agencies from doing their jobs, their jobs of protecting our air, giving us clean water, making sure that our food supply is safe, checking on medical devices so that they don't harm us, our prescription drugs so that they don't make us sick, our privacy safeguards for our workplace information, our workplace safety standards, protections against Wall Street and its predatory lending practices. I would ask my colleagues to oppose this harmful and antiscience amendment, oppose the final bill, and oppose this amendment because of the restrictions that it would place on the American people. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my House colleagues to stop and think for a moment and to oppose not only the rule, but the underlying bill. It is extreme, it is anti-immigrant, and it is really not about sanctuary cities. In fact, this flawed legislation actually second-guesses the decisions that are made by local police chiefs and sheriffs around the country on how best to police their communities and ensure public safety and ensure the kind of cooperation that they need in order for law enforcement to work properly. As the founder and former executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, representing domestic violence organizations and coalitions around the country, I am deeply concerned that this legislation will have a negative effect on the cooperation that is necessary between law enforcement and isolated, very isolated victims of domestic and sexual violence. Furthermore, it would strip the bipartisan provisions that passed in the Violence Against Women Act when we just reauthorized it. Specifically, H.R. 3009 negatively amends section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by doing the following: It undermines the spirit and protections of VAWA, effectively pushing immigrant survivors and their children, many of whom are likely U.S. citizens, deeper and deeper into the shadows of danger. It undermines the policies that local communities have determined are appropriate for their localities to ensure that victims of crime come forward without fear of retribution. It allows violent crimes to go uninvestigated, and it leaves victims without redress because of reductions in funding. This bill would have damaging ramifications for families across the Nation and in my home State of Maryland. I enter into the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, representing coalitions, organizations, shelters, services, and programs in every single State in this country. Mr. Speaker, I want to just quote from this letter. It says: ``Fear of deportation also strengthens the ability of abusers and traffickers to silence and trap their victims. Not only are the individual victims harmed, but their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward, and, as a result, dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.'' National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, July 21, 2015. Dear Representative: As the Steering Committee of the National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (``NTF''), comprising national leadership organizations advocating on behalf of sexual and domestic violence victims and women's rights, we represent hundreds of organizations across the country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of violence receive the protections they deserve. For this reason, we write to express our deep concerns about the impact of the ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act'' (H.R. 3009), which amends section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As government officials, we ask you to approach this issue from the perspective of a leader and be sure of the implications this bill can have on entire communities. All parties have the common goal of making communities safer. This bill will encourage law enforcement to enforce immigration law, and will significantly hinder the ability of certain communities to build trust and cooperation between vulnerable and isolated victims of domestic and sexual violence and law enforcement. Last year marked the twentieth anniversary of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA''), which has, since it was first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. This bill undermines the spirit and protections of VAWA and will have the effect of pushing immigrant survivors and their children (many of whom are likely U.S. Citizens) deeper into the shadows and into danger. As recognized in VAWA, bipartisan legislation supporting our nation's response to domestic and sexual violence and stalking, immigrant victims of violent crimes are often fearful of contacting law enforcement due to fear that they will be deported. A recent and comprehensive survey shows that 41 percent of Latinos believe that the primary reason Latinos/as do not come forward is fear of deportation. Policies that minimize the intertwining of local law enforcement with ICE help bring the most vulnerable victims out of the shadows by creating trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community, which in turn helps protect our entire communities. Fear of deportation also strengthens the ability of abusers and traffickers to silence and trap their victims. Not only are the individual victims harmed, but their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward, and, as a result, dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished. These criminals remain on the streets and continue to be a danger to their communities. This bill undermines policies that local communities have determined are appropriate for their localities, and decrease the ability of law enforcement agencies to respond to violent crimes and assist all (immigrant, citizens, etc.) victims of crime. As recognized in VAWA, law enforcement plays a critical role in our coordinated community response to domestic and sexual violence. Federal law enforcement funding supports critical training, equipment, and agency staffing that assists domestic and sexual violence victims. H.R. 3009 will allow violent crimes to go uninvestigated and leave victims without redress due to reductions in funding. For these reasons, we urge you to affirm the intent and spirit of VAWA and oppose the provisions above. Thank you very much for taking this important step to protect and support immigrant survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Ms. EDWARDS. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not what we need to do. We need to ensure the continued protections of domestic violence victims all across this country, no matter who they are and no matter where they are, and to know that law enforcement will be there to protect them and their children.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, for months Republicans have actually squandered an opportunity to develop and pass a long-term authorization for highway spending, and it is pretty regrettable, since May 19 Republicans simply brought up and passed another 2-month extension. We have already heard--sometimes we lose count. Is it 33? Is it 34?-- extensions. Unfortunately, here we are 2 months later and we are careening yet again to another Republican-made crisis, more gridlock for the highway trust fund, right in the middle of the critical construction season. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, as has been said, and vital construction projects across the country are really hanging in the balance, and here we just have a few days left. What do we know? We know that Republicans don't have a plan and they don't have any ideas. Well, we have some ideas, and those ideas are contained in the Grow America Act. I am one of the original cosponsors. It is a 6-year, $478 billion bill that would be a framework for our discussions. We could put that on the floor here today, vote on it, and make sure that we get underway. But, oh, no, we are stuck yet again with another extension. Frankly, I am not really sure whether, when we get to December, we won't be stuck with yet another extension. This just goes on and on and on. The American people have had enough. We know that, if we invest in our infrastructure, we create jobs, and we know that our infrastructure is falling apart. So this seems like a no-brainer to most Americans and to working people. And I don't understand what the complication here is, Mr. Speaker, but enough is enough. It is time for Republicans to be the adults at the table to bring a plan and a program to the floor for a long-term authorization and put America back to work not 6 months at a time, not 2 months at a time, but for a long time.