Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just for the record, I would note that the letters that have been submitted by the majority are interesting. I would note that one of the authors, in fact, is paid by one of the companies that is involved in this legislation, so we should take that into consideration. I also want to point out that, with respect to indemnification, again, the United States in current--today's--dollars bears a responsibility for about $3 billion in indemnification should there be an accident. Lastly, of course, it is really important for us to understand that these liability concerns are not small potatoes. In fact, the Judiciary Committee should have taken a look at this when it came to looking at Federal court jurisdiction. We should have had additional hearings on this when it comes to looking at the impact on international treaties. We have not had any hearings in that regard. I just think we ought to proceed more responsibly. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I rise here today because, as I said in my opening remarks, that I think that most of us on both sides of the aisle share the excitement about the commercial space industry and we do indeed want it to succeed. We all work for the taxpayer; and the American taxpayer, as I have stated, has a vested interest in the commercial space industry because we have laid out hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars to support it. Mr. Chairman, the Senate yesterday marked up a bipartisan compromise bill with very few changes to it. On the other hand, this bill, if it passes the House unchanged, is going to be dead in the water. But if we pass the substitute that we are considering later on, that I offer later today, we will have a great chance to do some real lawmaking. It will not have addressed all of the industry concerns. It will not have done anything to get in the way of the advance of commercial space. So I urge my fellow Members to support a bipartisan process that began over in the Senate. Vote for the substitute amendment later on and say, you know, we can start fresh here, not with something that just disadvantages consumers and taxpayers. Let's try to be on the same page when it comes to the strong support that I think each side feels with respect to the commercial space industry. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment partially addresses the concerns that we have had with the Federal jurisdiction provision in H.R. 2262. Maintaining ``under Federal law'' would have resulted in eliminating the rights of individuals to bring almost any type of legal action against companies related to commercial spaceflight accidents due to the lack of any applicable Federal law. I would also like to highlight another change in the manager's amendment that goes beyond a technical remedy or a simple clarification. The amendment adds a requirement for the Secretary of Commerce to provide an annual report on its review of applications for licenses for commercial remote sensing. The manager's amendment now makes accommodation for the inclusion of classified annexes as necessary. Mr. Chair, while this is a necessary addition to protect the disclosure of sensitive or classified information, it is only necessary because this amendment adds the requirement for the Secretary of Commerce to provide information related to the interagency adjudication process of a commercial remote sensing licensing request. I highlight these two changes because they demonstrate that the process of developing H.R. 2262 has, in fact, been rushed and not very well thought out. Had we taken the time to hold hearings and sort things out, we actually could have had an opportunity to consider these changes as part of the committee process. That said, I support the chairman's amendment to make some needed improvements to the bill, though I firmly believe it still needs an awful lot more work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to note for the record, though I am not in opposition, I think the study is a good idea. Ideally, I would think that Congress would choose to study the thing before it actually passes the law, but that is not where we are today. I think it is a good idea to proceed forward with this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this substitute amendment because I think we have a unique opportunity this week to pass bipartisan commercial space legislation that actually stands a chance of becoming law. That is what we need to focus on this morning. The choice before us is really quite straightforward. We can spend the morning, as we have, fighting over the provisions of H.R. 2262, several of which were opposed by all of the Democratic members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee when its provisions were marked up just last week. And when we are done, Members can vote, largely on party lines, to pass the bill. But to what end, Mr. Chairman? The Senate has already made it clear that H.R. 2262 has the proverbial snowball's chance of being adopted by the Senate. Pursuing House legislation, House passage of a bill that is going nowhere in the Senate seems to me to be the ultimate exercise in futility, and one that does a real disservice to the commercial space launch industry that all of us are trying to help succeed. But we don't have to go down that path. My amendment would replace the underlying text of H.R. 2262 with provisions of the bipartisan Senate commercial space bill, the one that was marked up in committee just yesterday. Let me repeat that. The language in the substitute amendment, in my amendment, already has garnered bipartisan support in the Senate. It is language that is cosponsored by Senators Ted Cruz, Bill Nelson, Cory Gardner, and Gary Peters, which is not something you can say about many other bills that we consider in the House. Now, the Senate bill doesn't have everything I would like to see in a commercial space bill. I am sure that is the same for my Republican colleagues and for some in the industry. That is actually how legislation is made. However, it has a core set of provisions that I think we and the industry can support, and that is what good compromises are all about. The amendment addresses key issues facing the industry. It extends the ``learning period'' for another 5 years. It extends third-party liability and indemnification of the entire regime for another 4 years. It provides commercial space launch licensing and experimental permit flexibility. It provides a NASA-sought definition of ``Government Astronaut'' and provides a path for streamlining commercial space launch activities. The Senate provisions also provide for a review of issues related to commercial activities in space, as well as matters related to space situational awareness data. They provide encouragement for the FAA and the industry to work together to facilitate the development of voluntary consensus standards, and they also ensure the International Space Station can remain a viable and productive facility through 2024. Mr. Chairman, that is what my amendment does. It doesn't give the commercial space industry anything or everything that some in the industry might want. But I would remind colleagues that the Senate bill has been endorsed by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, the National Space Society, Students for Exploration and Development of Space, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic, among others. That is the Senate bill. That is the substitute that is being offered. So Members today can feel perfectly comfortable that my amendment is one that the commercial space industry believes meets its legitimate needs. Mr. Chairman, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, we have a clear choice today. We can maintain a counterproductive, partisan divide and hold out for provisions that won't move this legislation even 1 inch closer to becoming law. Or we can step back, take a deep breath, and embrace the bipartisan compromise that our colleagues in the Senate have worked out. They have handed us a golden opportunity to move past partisan posturing and actually deliver legislation that can meet the needs of the commercial space industry and be enacted into law. Mr. Chairman, House Democrats support the provisions of my amendment. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate support the provisions of my amendment. If my Republican colleagues here today in the House can join us in supporting this substitute amendment, the provisions in the amendment, we can pass bipartisan legislation that could be on its way to the President for enactment in a matter of weeks. I can think of no better way to end this week, and I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is actually quite disappointing that we are here at this point today. And I join the ranking member and our colleagues on this side of the aisle in opposing this harmful antiscience bill, H.R. 1806. When I first came into Congress, I was excited because we were actually working on reauthorizing the COMPETES Act. We were making investments in important research and development and technologies for the 21st century. And we were doing that in a bipartisan fashion based on bipartisan scientific and research-based recommendations. But that is not where we are today. H.R. 1806 contains severe funding cuts to the Department of Energy, including cutting close to one-third of the budget of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and half the budget of ARPA-E. In fact, you could argue that this is not an investment in the 21st century at all: it is a throwback bill to the 20th century. These cuts are going to cripple our Nation's research into high- impact technologies to generate, store, and use energy and will harm our ability to compete successfully with other countries. The bill also contains many harmful provisions restricting the Department of Energy, such as a provision preventing the results of any Department of Energy-supported fossil fuel energy research and development from being ``used for regulatory assessments or determinations by Federal regulatory authorities.'' That would essentially bar the EPA or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from using the most current research results when they set rules to protect our air, our land, and our water. How unfortunate that this antiscience bill also includes a misguided attempt to impose a level of political review on the National Science Foundation's gold-standard merit review system. This is the National Science Foundation, not a political organization.

Ms. EDWARDS. This is a dangerous proposal that would stifle the kind of high-risk, outside-the-box thinking that has put the United States on the cutting edge of scientific research. If this bill were to become law, it would eliminate valuable and scientifically sound research on climate change within the Department of Energy under the guise of a cost-cutting measure. After all, Mr. Chairman, isn't that what this is about? It is about the other side just not believing in climate change, despite the science. In addition to all of the dangerous and harmful things that this bill does do, it lacks any substantively helpful provisions in a number of areas. I actually proposed an amendment that would simply look at our 21st century workforce by supporting research at minority-serving institutions, growing STEM fields for young people who we know have to go into the 21st century workforce. It flat-funds the education directorate at the National Science Foundation. I can't think of anything more harmful than doing a COMPETES legislation that is, at its core, the most anticompetitive legislation that could be put on this floor. It is a danger to the 21st century.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today both as a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I can't think of a worse rule, frankly, that we could bring to the floor. We could have had bipartisan cooperation on America COMPETES so that we can invest in our science and our research and our technology, and yet that is not what is happening here today. As to the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, it doesn't allow for any amendments to the legislation that would fix and fund our Nation's crumbling infrastructure with predictability, stability, and for the long term. The highway trust fund and the current surface transportation authorization, as we know, are set to expire on May 31, leaving just 3 legislative days to extend it or 4,000 transportation workers will be laid off and work would stop on Federal highway programs all across the country right in the middle of prime construction and building season. Now, the responsible among us know that we can't walk away from the highway trust fund. Millions of jobs and thousands of businesses hang in the balance. But we also know that what is before us today is the least most responsible way to fund our infrastructure--2 months at a time. Can you believe it? Two months at a time, Mr. Speaker; no long- term projects, no opportunity for planning, no relief for workers, and at another pivotal moment in the construction season. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, today I am joining Ranking Member DeFazio and Eleanor Holmes Norton in introducing the GROW AMERICA Act on behalf of the administration. This bill would serve us well to provide $478 billion over 6 years for our highways, bridges, transit, rail, and highway safety programs. This long-term and robust funding bill is a 45 percent increase over our current spending on our tatterdemalion and crumbling infrastructure. It is the type of plan that we have to ensure that our major-league economy does not have the infrastructure that wouldn't even fit children playing T-ball. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle twiddle their thumbs 2 months at a time, America is falling apart. Once one of the leaders in the world in quality infrastructure, we are now number 16, according to the World Economic Forum. According to the American Society of Engineers, the overall assessment of our Nation's infrastructure ranks with a whopping D-plus. Now look at my home State of Maryland: 5,305 bridges are deficient; they are falling apart. That is 27 percent of the bridges in our State. Just a few months ago, one of my constituents was driving along Suitland Parkway, minding her own business, when a chunk of cement fell and hit her car hood because the bridge was in disrepair. Though it is not my preference, we have to extend the highway trust fund today, and I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to use this time to go through a bipartisan negotiation on how to pay for our long-term and fully funded investments to construct and rebuild our roads, bridges, transit, and rail infrastructure. Thirty-four extensions of the highway trust fund, 52 votes against ACA. Come on, let's get serious. Move away from the kids' table; get to the grownup table and fund our highway transportation and infrastructure.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, education is the key to building a workforce prepared to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st century global economy. However, every year more than 1.2 million students drop out of high schools across the United States. Students who drop out of high school not only reduce their opportunity to learn, but also tend to earn less over the course of their life and are often less prepared to compete in the workforce. Adults who drop out of high school and do not receive their GED earn on average 41 percent less than their counterparts who completed high school. In addition, reducing the high school dropout rate could provide a significant boost to our economy. A study by researchers at Columbia University estimates that the net economic benefit per student graduating high school is approximately $127,000. Mr. Speaker, that is why today I reintroduced my Broadening Opportunities Through Education Act. This legislation provides additional resources to states that raise the age of compulsory school attendance through age 17. These resources are designed to ensure that students at risk of dropping out receive the support they need to reach their fullest potential. These funds would go towards establishing or expanding work-based programs that integrate academic and career-based skills through career and technical training and apprenticeships; implementing early warning systems to help high schools and middle schools to identify struggling students and implement evidence based interventions; and increasing support systems for students through activities such as student advising and one-to-one mentoring. As Congress continues to work on strategies to address our deficit and grow our 21st century economy, we cannot forget that our greatest asset is the knowledge base of our workforce. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Broadening Opportunities Through Education Act and help me bring this program to fruition.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last night, I was absent from votes in the House, and therefore, missed rollcall votes 228 through 232. Had I been present, I would have voted: 1) ``aye'' on rollcall No. 228, the Polis Amendment, which would amend section 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code to reduce the minimum required number of operational aircraft carriers the U.S. Navy must have from eleven to ten; 2) ``nay'' on rollcall No. 229, the Brooks Amendment, which would strike section 538 of the underlying bill, related to a sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Secretary of Defense review of section 504 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the consideration of allowing ``DREAMers'' to enlist and serve in the Armed Forces; 3) ``nay'' on rollcall No. 230, the Walorski Amendment, which would extend prohibitions and further restrict the transfer of detainees located at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; 4) ``aye'' on rollcall No. 231, the Smith (WA) Amendment, which would provide a framework for closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and 5) ``nay'' on rollcall No. 232, the McCaul Amendment, which would amend section 2576a of title 10, United States Code to add border security activities to the list of activities deemed suitable for the Department of Defense to transfer excess property to federal and state agencies.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, during National Women's Health Week, I rise as the original cosponsor of a resolution recognizing the need for greater uterine fibroid research and the minority disparity rates of African-American and Hispanic uterine fibroid patients. I thank Congressman Scott for joining me to introduce this important resolution. Uterine fibroids are the most prevalent medical condition affecting women, with an estimated 80 percent of women developing an uterine fibroid by age 50. Actual incidence of fibroid tumors is estimated to be 3 times higher in African-American women and 2 times higher in Hispanic women compared to Caucasian women. Further, uterine fibroids are estimated to cost the United States up to $34.4 billion annually, with an estimated annual lost work cost of up to $17.2 billion through absenteeism and short term disability in women age 25 to 54. Those numbers are why I urge my colleagues to join Congressman Scott and me in seeking more research funding for the millions of women affected by fibroids.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, once among the world leaders in quality infrastructure, now, we rank just 16th, according to the World Economic Forum. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the overall assessment of our Nation's infrastructure ranks the United States at a whopping D-plus. We have just 4 legislative days until the highway trust fund expires. As we wait for the majority party to end their dysfunction and come to some--any--kind of agreement on extending the highway trust fund, 660,000 jobs hang in the balance. I know now that in Maryland, 5,305 bridges are in complete disrepair. That is nearly 27 percent of the bridges in our State. Just a few months ago, a woman was driving down the highway, minding her own business, when a chunk of cement fell down because it is in disrepair. I am not really sure how many lives the majority party is prepared to lose to dysfunctional and underfunded infrastructure. I am not sure how much economic insecurity we are willing to cause the American people, but it is time for us to invest in our Nation's infrastructure, create good-paying jobs, $1 billion, 35,000 jobs all across the economy. Let's get moving. Extend the highway trust fund. Invest in our infrastructure, our long-term infrastructure. Create jobs for the 21st century.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding. I think the American public, Mr. Chairman, must be quite confused. This rulemaking that we are talking about is actually about clean water; it is about a rulemaking process that hasn't been completed yet, and it is about a rule that we haven't seen, so it seems sort of odd that we are standing here commenting on it. I just want to remind the other side that, thanks to the Clean Water Act, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number of waters that now meet clean water goals nationwide has actually doubled with direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation, and wildlife. This is especially true from my home State of Maryland that is within the six-State Chesapeake Bay Watershed and several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, the Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is fed by 110,000 miles of creeks, rivers, and streams; and 70 percent of Marylanders get our drinking water from sources that rely on headwater or seasonal streams. Nationwide, 117 million people, or over a third of the total population, get our water from these waters. However, due to the two Supreme Court decisions that have been referenced, there is, in fact, widespread confusion as to what falls under the protection of the Clean Water Act. That is precisely why this administration is working to finalize their joint proposed rule clarifying the limits of Federal jurisdiction under the act. In fact, on April 6, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a revised clean water protection rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final review. From my understanding, the final rule may be published in the Federal Register later this spring. I share the view that we want OMB to just get on with it. Mr. Chairman, the chairman has complained about the confusion in the litigation. That is precisely why we need to get through a final rulemaking, which has been years in the making. If the gentleman seeks clarity, let the administration just finish its job. That is what the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Government to do 14 years ago with the 2001 SWANCC decision and, subsequently, the 2006 Rapanos case. Along with those Supreme Court decisions, the Bush administration, as has been said, followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance documents in 2003 and 2008. In fact, they remain in force today. It is, in fact, these two Bush-era guidance documents that have compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs faced by our constituents--opponents and proponents alike--who all just say they want clarity. You don't actually have to take my word for it. In fact, let me quote from the comments made by the American Farm Bureau Federation, something I don't do quite often: With no clear regulatory definitions to guide their determinations, what has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc and inconsistent jurisdictional theories. Those are the words of the American Farm Bureau Federation. We all agree that it is confusing. Let the Obama administration finish what the Bush administration started and failed to do, and that is publish a rule that finalizes the rule that gives stakeholders the clarity they have been seeking for 14 years. Quite oddly, H.R. 1732 would actually halt the current rulemaking and require the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and restart the rulemaking process. This is after 1 million public comments, a 208-day comment period, and over 400 public meetings. In appearances before the Senate, House, and joint committees, high- ranking Agency officials have testified that the revised rule will address many of the concerns expressed during the public comment period. They have also stated that the revised rule will provide greater clarity to the current permitting process, reduce regulatory cost, and ensure more exacting protections over U.S. waters. The bill that we are talking about would actually force the agencies to meet with the same stakeholders again and talk about the same issues again that they have already discussed several times over the last 14 years since the first Supreme Court decision--what a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money. Actually, the other side should be ashamed if they put a cost to restarting the procedure. In fact, the rulemaking has been more than a decade, as we have described, in development. We need to let the administration get on with its work. As others have pointed out, just 2 weeks ago, the House passed--and I opposed it; many of our colleagues opposed it--the Energy and Water Appropriations bill It contained a policy rider that explicitly prohibits the Corps from spending any money to develop the same new clean water rule that this bill wants us to restart. Let me repeat that. The House has already passed a provision that states the Corps can use no money not just this fiscal year, but in future fiscal years, going forward in perpetuity. Republicans try to make it sound as if all they want is for the EPA and the Corps to develop new rules right away, but it is really clear that what they want to do is stop these agencies from doing their jobs at all--no new rules and no clean water, what a shame.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite nearly universal calls for increased clarity and certainty from certain stakeholders, my colleagues have made it a priority to halt the current clean water rulemaking and to force agencies to go back to the drawing board and start the process all over again, before the public will ever even see the final product. After over a year of public outreach on a scale unprecedented in the history of the Clean Water Act, as well as countless congressional hearings, the agencies have submitted a revised clean water protection rule to the Office of Management and Budget for final interagency review, which is the last step before the revised final rule would be released to the general public later this spring. This, in fact, is the basis of my amendment. You see, Mr. Chairman, to be fair, several of my constituents have expressed similar concerns with the substance of the proposed rule. In fact, Maryland farmers have visited with me on more than one occasion, and I have heard those concerns, and that is why I have pressed the agency witnesses who appeared before our subcommittees on several critical areas. Indeed, in testimony to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the heads of both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency have identified several specific areas where the proposed rulemaking may have lacked specificity and where the agencies have committed to clarifying changes in the final rule to address these areas. For example, the American Farm Bureau and Maryland farmers expressed concern about the distinction between ephemeral--that is rain- dependent--streams, which are currently subject to the Clean Water Act, and erosional features, which are not. EPA has testified that the agencies expect the final rule to clarify the distinction between ephemeral streams and erosional features to ensure that the final rule does not inadvertently bring erosional features under the scope of the act. Numerous groups, including the National Association of Counties, have expressed concern about the impact of the proposed rule on ``ditches.'' In response, the agencies testified that the proposed rule not only codified the current exemption for ditches but also ``expanded the definition of ditches that would be exempt under the clean water rule to make it clearer, [including] ditches that basically drain dry along public lands and highways.'' Further, the agencies committed to provide greater certainty in the final rule on what ditches are and are not protected by the act. Other groups questioned whether the proposed clean water rule would capture municipal separate sanitary storm water sewer systems, that is, MS4s, or water reuse and recycling projects. The EPA Administrator testified before our committee that ``EPA has not intended to capture features . . . that have already been captured in . . . MS4 permits, [and it] is our intent to continue to encourage and respect those decisions and to encourage water reuse and recycling, which very much is consistent with the Clean Water Act and our overall intent.'' Further, the Administrator testified that the EPA would make it very clear that these exclusions are articulated in the final rule, ``so that people will see in writing what they have been asking us about.'' So my amendment simply addresses these concerns and claims. It says that if any of these claims prove to be true, then the Secretary and the Administrator are prohibited from issuing any final rule that would bring about these occurrences. Instead of using a legislative scalpel, my Republican colleagues have decided to use a meat cleaver. In my amendment, I have tried to address these concerns, and I have heard from my constituents and interested parties. Under the amendment, the administration cannot expand the scope beyond those water bodies covered prior to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the two cases that have been mentioned before, and it cannot be inconsistent with either Justice Scalia's or Justice Kennedy's judicial opinions in Rapanos. In addition to that, they can't increase the regulation of ditches, they can't eliminate any historical statutory or regulatory exemptions for agriculture, which do not exist under the 2003 and 2008 documents. There are questions about ditches under the 2003 and 2008 guidance, but they are interpreted differently in different parts of the country. As a fallback and an assurance to the regulated committee, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment so that clear legislative restrictions on the final rulemaking addressing the range of concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders are included. It will ensure that the rule does not go further than the Supreme Court decision and does not exceed historical scope, while reaffirming longstanding and existing exclusions. Both agencies have made it crystal clear in their testimony before our committee and other committees of the House and the Senate earlier this year in a joint hearing with the Senate that many of these concerns were unfounded or would be addressed in the final rule, and so what the amendment I am offering would do, it would be a backstop in the unlikely event that anyone would think differently about regulating streams, ditches, and farmland. I would ask for support of my amendment under the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you have a cost estimate of what it would cost to go back to the stakeholders for what you have described?

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Hoyer for, every year, introducing this resolution on behalf of the Washington regional delegation, and I rise as an original cosponsor. This annual competitive event encourages boys and girls, ages 9 through 16, to construct and operate their own soapbox vehicles. The children that participate in these races come from all over the national capital region to participate in this really fun event. The derby has become quite a tradition in Washington. The D.C. metropolitan area has hosted this tradition for over the last 20 years. It provides a terrific opportunity for children to appreciate the workmanship necessary to build the vehicles and for the thrill of competition. Winners of this event go on to compete in the national competition in Akron, Ohio, where they compete against children from all over the world. On race day, every Greater Washington Soap Box Derby participant starts the race day with a chance to become a world champion. The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police to ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are in place and that the event remains free to the public. I support this terrific opportunity for the children of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I may have one additional speaker, but I would like to say that the children who participate in this event do so with a lot of creativity and ingenuity. They spend an entire year designing their vehicles, then they test their vehicles; they experiment with their friends, and then they put them out on race day for the soapbox derby. Now, I haven't had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of participating in a soapbox derby, but they sure are fun to watch. Each year, Representative Hoyer makes sure that all of our delegation in the Metropolitan Washington region gathers to organize to make certain that children, from ages 9 through 16, are able to construct those vehicles, operate them themselves, and compete in the competition. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, the great challenge is that, on race day, in the morning, all of the young people participating in the soapbox derby get up; and on that day, first thing in the morning, every single one of them is a champion, right up until the finish line. It is an exciting time for these young people. Of course, they go on to compete in a competition in Akron, Ohio, where there are kids gathered from all over the world who also do the same thing: build those soapboxes and participate. The Washington metropolitan region is really grateful to be able to host this soapbox derby and, of course, with the good graces of this Congress, to be able to do that on the Capitol Grounds with the cooperation of the Architect. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip.

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 25 authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service on May 15 and a National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition. Both events will be coordinated with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police. The National Peace Officers Memorial will honor law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2014. According to preliminary estimates, over 125 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty just this last year, a 24 percent increase over the 102 officers killed in 2013. Firearms-related incidents were the leading cause of death among law enforcement officers in 2014, with 50 officers slain by firearms. The second leading cause of death among law enforcement officers was traffic-related fatalities, with 49 officers killed in that manner. In the State of Maryland, there was one law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty in 2014, Officer Jamel Claggett from the Charles County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are honoring and recognizing peace officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2014, but I would like to make a personal note that in the State of Maryland alone, just since the beginning of this year, three officers were killed and one police dog was also killed in the line of duty: Just a couple of weeks ago, Federal Protective Service Officer Lawrence Buckner was killed outside of the Census Bureau on April 9; just a few weeks before that, Prince George's County Police Officer Brennan Rabain was killed in an automobile accident on March 7; just prior to that, in January, a police officer from Baltimore, Craig Chandler, was also killed in a vehicle accident; a canine, Bella, from the Maryland Division of Correction in Maryland was killed in a fire incident also just a few weeks ago. It is a stark reminder of the jeopardy that officers place themselves in and a reminder of what they do every single day to protect each and every one of us. I have such a deep admiration and appreciation for the fallen officers who will be honored on May 15 and the ultimate sacrifices they have made on behalf of all of our local communities. I urge Members to join me in supporting this tribute to our law enforcement officers across the country who died in the line of duty in 2014. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I came to this floor opposed to this version of H.R. 1195, and as I have listened to the debate, I have become even more opposed to the legislation. Most fifth graders know a Trojan horse when they see one, and today's legislation is, indeed, a Trojan horse. Let me tell you why. Once again, Republicans are trying to roll back and limit consumer protections. Once again, they are attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by adding burdensome legislation that replicates what the Bureau is already doing and by stripping funding from the CFPB in future years. Let's remember that this was the agency that was created to prevent the very abusive practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis; yet here they go, pretending to help small businesses and community banks and credit unions but are gutting the agency that is responsible for protecting consumers. Just 6 years ago, we saw the fallout of the financial crisis right in my district in Prince George's County and in Baltimore City, where homeowners lost their homes. It was Black and Latino families who suffered the most in Prince George's County and Baltimore City, and it is not over for us. Many of those homeowners were small-business owners, and they used their homes to leverage their businesses. They can't do that anymore because they are still underwater and because the rules are still set against them. We are still in crisis, and we need a robust, unencumbered, unburdened Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers, homeowners, and small businesses that are still struggling and are vulnerable. We need a robust lifeline CFPB as our credit unions and community banks are struggling. They need real relief that is hidden behind this Trojan horse legislation. Many of my Republican colleagues have long opposed the CFPB, and they have long sought to dismantle it. This legislation is no different, and it needs to be defeated. If they want bipartisan legislation, we need to start all over again and do something that really is in the interest of consumers.