Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 5544, the Low-Dose Radiation Research Act of 2014. This bill authorizes an important research program carried out by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to examine the health impacts of exposure to low doses of radiation, such as doses resulting from certain medical tests, nuclear waste cleanup activities, or even terrorism events like dirty bombs. This bill builds on DOE's unique biological research expertise and capabilities, which actually led to the establishment of the successful Human Genome Project that paved the way toward breakthroughs in modern medicine today. Mr. Speaker, the bill also authorizes a National Academies study to identify current scientific challenges in this area and to help guide the program's long-term research agenda well into the next decade. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014, cosponsored by every Democratic member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, includes very similar language to what we now see in H.R. 5544, so we have no objection to this bill and support its passage. We also look forward to working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and, of course, on the other side of the Capitol--on far more comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act, as is strongly recommended by many of the most respected industry and academic leaders and organizations across the country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership and for his service in the Congress, and of course, we wish him well as that term comes to an end. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3044 will allow the transfer of 173 acres of Tennessee Valley Authority lands to the State of Mississippi for industrial and economic development. The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 withdrew lands from the Tennessee River System to provide for future development of power plants, industrial sites, ports, and supporting infrastructure. In 1971 at the confluence of the Tennessee and the Tombigbee Rivers, the Yellow Creek Port project was initiated. The purpose of the Yellow Creek Port project was to support economic development and local jobs in northeast Mississippi. The TVA and the State of Mississippi have jointly supported the development and growth of the port. TVA initially transferred 289 acres of land to the Yellow Creek Port to facilitate development back in 1971. H.R. 3044 would transfer an additional 173 acres of the land to the State of Mississippi. The acreage includes industrial, highway, and railroad easements and 54 acres of undeveloped land. The TVA has attempted to sell this land since 1984, with no interested buyers. Mr. Speaker, the TVA Act allows TVA, with appropriate congressional approvals, to dispose of property for particular uses. According to TVA, the agency places reversionary interest clauses in transfers and sales to ensure that those uses specified by Congress in the TVA Act are carried out. TVA then retains the right to retake possession of the property if the use condition is breached. In February the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee considered and passed S. 212, by a voice vote, which supported the transfer of these same 173 acres. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the net impact of the transfer would be insignificant and would not affect direct spending. TVA has confirmed that the transferred lands would be used for industrial development; and again, if for some reason the lands are instead proposed for some nonindustrial purpose, the TVA can legally have the lands returned to them. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any opposition to H.R. 3044, and as we have heard, the construction of the Yellow Creek Port in 1971 initially involved approximately 289 acres. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of H.R. 3044. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Recently, the Center for Responsive Politics announced that dark money has already exceeded $50 million--seven times the amount that was accrued at this time in the last midterm election. Justice Breyer wrote in this last Supreme Court decision: ``Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.'' We are not being heard, and that is exactly the position that we find ourselves in today because, as the Republican House votes to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time since its enactment, they have given us a choice. The Republicans want us to choose corporate insurance special interests, or we can choose the interests of the American people by passing a constitutional amendment that would restore democracy, government, and our elections back to the people of the United States. It is time that we pass this constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to let us begin to address the interests of the American people.

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of defeating the motion on ordering the previous question. The GOP has put forward H.R. 3522, which would undermine the Affordable Care Act by putting insurance companies back in charge of health care for everyday Americans. That is right. I mean, it is not a surprise, putting corporate special interests ahead of the interests of the American people. Instead, they are now taking the 53rd vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. We could be enacting a commonsense constitutional amendment, as my colleagues have said, that would better serve the people's interests. The Democracy for All constitutional amendment seeks to address the failure of our current political system, where the megaphones of moneyed interests are now drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. Since the Supreme Court's decision in 2010 of Citizens United, which struck down the limits on independent campaign spending by corporations, we have actually seen those with deep pockets threaten our democracy, spending unlimited, hidden amounts on our elections, and it gets worse with each passing election. Two years ago, outside groups, including more than 1,200 so-called Super PACs, spent $970 million on our elections. That is nearly $1 billion in secret, dark money. It is not fair, and the American people know it. $123 million of anonymous cash was also spent. Overall, spending totaled nearly $7 billion. Earlier this year, another Supreme Court decision struck down decades-old caps on the total amount that any one individual can contribute to Federal candidates in a 2-year cycle. Now those individuals--and there are only a handful of them across the United States--can contribute unlimited amounts from their own pockets into elections. The result has only increased the role that money plays in American politics. Recent reports show that undisclosed political spending, better known as ``dark money,'' will, once again, reach record levels in this November's election.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for the United States when Republicans in this Congress see a problem and then choose not to work with Democrats to solve the problem. That is exactly what has happened here today: their draconian way or the highway. Let's be clear about what the problem is: unaccompanied minor children, frightened, some fleeing violence, needing due process, and deserving due process. This is as much about who these children are as it is about who we are. As a mother and a legislator, I know that we should be compelled to act as a matter of humanity, but also as a matter of law. We know we have problems on the border that are in need of solutions. Republicans have rejected one solution--comprehensive immigration reform--to address the problem. They have rejected another solution-- the request of the President for a supplemental appropriation that includes resources for judges, representation, and services for minor children, and assistance to the countries of origin. Now today, in the eleventh hour, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle demonstrate once again their lack of humanity and failure to solve yet another problem for the American people.

Ms. EDWARDS

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up H.R. 1010. America deserves a raise by raising the minimum wage, which will jump-start the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President of the United States.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, just when we think the level of dysfunction by the Republican majority in this House can't get any worse, no, they surprise us and find a way to prove us wrong. They are going to cap off 7 months, Mr. Speaker, of the worst do-nothing Congress in this Nation's history, and Republicans have now decided to chart a dangerous and unprecedented path by suing the President of the United States. The American people have to hear this. Suing the President of the United States, Mr. Speaker. And for what? Because the President is doing his job? So when House Republicans are not doing their jobs, they choose to sue the President of the United States. And the American people do see this for exactly what it is. So we move from one political stunt to the next, Mr. Speaker, from shutting down the government--that is what Republicans did--to a lawsuit, and then onward to impeachment. This do-nothing Congress, Mr. Speaker, suing the President of the United States. We should be working to make college more affordable, to enact comprehensive immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, raise the minimum wage, renew unemployment benefits, improve the Nation's infrastructure. And instead, House Republicans are suing the President. I thought this was a fringe element, Mr. Speaker, of the House Republican majority, but it is not. It is the majority. But somehow, Republicans in the House of Representatives--you know what? We get it. The Republicans in the House don't like the President. They don't like the President, Mr. Speaker. But they are suing the President of the United States. Shame, shame, shame.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 935. In the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome that it would grind to a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities. Now, some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide general permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the Agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost nonexistent level of concern expressed after almost 3 years of implementation, you would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill. Contrary to the rhetoric, the EPA and the States have successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit, a PGP, for the last 2\1/2\ years that adopted several commonsense precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. They do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost- effective manner. This sky has not fallen. Farmers and forestry operators have had two successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully addressed multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness while, at the same time, complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA. I say ``sensible'' because, as we should clearly understand, the intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different. FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved uses and restrictions. Very sensible. However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality-- two very distinct purposes. It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirements is a surrogate for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label. Farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of the pesticide on local water quality. So why are groups, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to CropLife America, so adamantly opposed to this regulation? Let's explore that. One plausible answer is that these groups do not want to come out of the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to discharge unknown pesticides, in unknown quantities, with unknown mixtures, and at unknown locations. I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially harmful materials almost completely below the radar. In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were purchased from the commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive information was available or required on the quantities, types, or locations of pesticides applied in this country. Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our Nation's surface and groundwater, which leads me to question how eliminating any reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human health and the environment. All this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and it would make the accountability for these discharges even more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides than those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real world. During the debate this past Monday, several speakers questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so obvious that it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked. First, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of pesticides for certain applications would be a problem. Second, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would actually be a mutually agreed-upon benefit. Also, it is the Clean Water Act and not FIFRA that requires pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being applied throughout the Nation. Again, if data is showing that a local water body is contaminated by pesticides, I would think the public would want to quickly identify the likely sources of pesticide that is causing the impairment. Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware that, despite repeated requests to both EPA and the States, of any specific example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services. So despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not significantly increased the compliance costs to States or individual pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or the EPA to ban the use of pesticides. So let me summarize just a few points. One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the appropriate times and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact on human health or the environment. Number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by filing of an electronic notice of intent. Three, Federal and State data make clear that application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many years, was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the Nation from being contaminated by pesticides. So, if we care about water quality, more needed to be done. I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that existed prior to the issuance of Clean Water Act pesticide general permits. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or significant financial burden, and it has been implemented seamlessly across country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does not exist. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a couple of points here. For the record, 45 States actually manage their own pesticide programs. So it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government or the EPA. In fact, contrary to what we have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker, small applicators are already covered. They don't need to do anything. They are covered already under the permitting process. And then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45 States--a State like Idaho, for example, currently has 122 active permits, and there has been no charge for that permit. It is free from the Federal Government. And that is true for actually a number of States. Now, we have heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations would have. But, in fact, for almost 3 years now, there has been no drama. The process has worked well. And confusing the FIFRA process and the purposes of the Clean Water Act, I think in some ways, is what brings us here today. As I said earlier, they are very distinct. And, in fact, just because we need to cover applying pesticides and controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn't absolve us of a responsibility also to make certain that our water bodies are clean. There is another myth, actually, that has been put forward here that we have heard. And that is that maintaining the Clean Water Act would subject pesticide applicators to litigation and increase citizen suits. In fact, this is false. If a pesticide applicator abides by the terms of the Clean Water Act, the pesticide general permit--which applies in accordance with the FIFRA label and minimizes the use of the pesticide and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts--they are, by the terms of the Clean Water Act, immune from lawsuits by any party. Another myth that we have just heard here is that the permitting process, Mr. Speaker, the FIFRA requirements and the Clean Water Act, are duplicative. As I have said earlier, FIFRA addresses the safety and effectiveness on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse impacts on human health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. In contrast, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of local water bodies, with direct considerations on the potential impact of additional pollutants to specific waters. So measuring the human health and environment with uniform labeling and protecting the waters are two separate purposes. Another myth that we have heard here is that most of the pesticides that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides that are no longer used domestically. There is no evidence of pesticide contamination by currently used pesticides. This is absolutely false. Although the U.S. Geological Survey did publish a report in 2006 that documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the USGS, including pesticides such as DDT and chlordane that were previously banned as recently as 2014, the USGS has published several research studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams in high corn and soybean regions of the United States. So we have heard a lot of mythology here, but it is important for Congress to deal in reality. So I just wanted to clear those things for the record. And I would inquire of the gentleman if he has additional requests for time because I am prepared to close.

Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from 144 environmental organizations, community-based organizations around the country that oppose H. Res. 935. Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, CATA--The Farmworker Support Committee, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida, Greenpeace, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, League of Conservation Voters, Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Pesticide Action Network, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers Carolina, July 25, 2014. Re Oppose H.R. 935 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013'') Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 935 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''), which would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting water supplies from direct applications of pesticides. Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 935 that would undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with more information on the issue. Regulating pesticide discharges to waterways under the Clean Water Act is critical. Despite current regulation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, pesticides continue to impair our waterways in significant quantities and have caused real harm to public health and ecosystems. H.R. 935 would render ineffective the Clean Water Act pesticide general permit that took effect in 2011 (``pesticide general permit''). This permit is necessary to protect our waterways, public health, and fish and wildlife. There have been mischaracterizations of the existing permit that we must correct: The pesticide general permit has no significant effect on farming practices. The permit in no way affects land applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff will not require permits, even when they contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean Water Act remain. The pesticide general permit allows for spraying to combat vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides that pesticide applications are covered automatically under the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared emergency pest situations.'' The pesticide general permit--which has been in place for more than two and a half years now--simply lays out commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups opposed. Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all Americans by opposing H.R. 935. Sincerely, Marty Hayden, Vice President, Policy & Legislation, Earthjustice; Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; Sara Chieffo, Legislative Director, League of Conservation Voters; Dalal Aboulhosn, Senior Washington Representative, Sierra Club; Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety & Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker Association of Florida; Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive Director, CATA--The Farmworker Support Committee; Mary Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs, Defenders of Wildlife; Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides; Brett Hartl, Endangered Species Policy Director, Center for Biological Diversity; Nina Bell, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental Advocates; Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace. Pete Nichols, National Director, Waterkeeper Alliance; Heather Ward, Executive Director, Waterkeepers, Carolina; Mark Riskedahl, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental Defense Center; Tara Thornton, Program Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Marylee Orr, Executive Director, Louisiana Environmental Action Network; Paul Orr, Riverkeeper, Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper; Jason Flanders, Program Director, San Francisco Baykeeper; Kristin S. Schafer, Policy Director, Pesticide Action Network; Lisa Arkin, Executive Director, Beyond Toxics; Gus Gates, Oregon Policy Manager, Surfrider Foundation; Kim Leval, Executive Director, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I think it is important for us to deal in facts and not in mythology. And a couple of the facts are these: In 2008, States reported to the EPA--that is, State reporting agencies--that 16,819 miles of rivers and streams, 1,766 square miles of bays and estuaries, and 260,342 acres of lakes are impaired or threatened by pesticides. So it is simply not the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no identified pesticide contamination in our water bodies. It is simply not true. I just want to note also for the record, Mr. Speaker, that, again, there has been no evidence at all that, again, despite the repeated request of the EPA and State-run permit programs, that there are specific examples where the application of the Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services. So if there was a problem and a burden, then identify it. And there simply has been no identification of such a problem. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to review our recent history. Just on Monday of this past week, the House of Representatives actually defeated the bill that we are considering tonight, H.R. 935, under suspension of the rules. So having gone through that defeat, tonight we have debated the merits again of that same piece of legislation under a rule that does not allow any amendments to improve the bill to be offered, debated, or voted on. Tomorrow, the House will, once again, vote on passage of H.R. 935, the bill that failed under a suspension of the rules on Monday. This legislation will undermine one of our Nation's most successful environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, in limiting the potential contamination of our Nation's waters by pesticides. Contrary to some of the rhetoric--some of which we have heard tonight, Mr. Speaker--the Environmental Protection Agency has successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit for the last 2\1/2\ years. That regulation has several commonsense precautionary measures that limit contamination of local waters by pesticides--we have heard from the States even since 2008 that pesticide contamination in thousands of miles of streams, rivers, and estuaries are in fact contaminated by pesticide--while it would allow pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-effective manner. Now, last Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House narrowly approved a similar bill, H.R. 872, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 292- 130, under the guise of regulatory uncertainty under a yet-unseen Clean Water Act permit program. However, since that time, the EPA has issued a reasonable and protective Clean Water Act permit program that preserves vital farming, forestry, and mosquito control activities at the same time as protecting our Nation's waters. So a year passed, and we have implemented a program that is underway now. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act is a key to those of us who value clean drinking water and fishable, swimmable waters or who represent States that depend on tourism, like my home State of Maryland, since we have the fourth longest coastline in the continental United States, the Chesapeake Bay--which is the largest estuary in the United States--and several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, Patuxent, Potomac, and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District. The shoreline of the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries stretch for over 2,000 miles, and thousands of streams, rivers, and acres of wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the bay. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, over the past 40-plus years, billions of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number of waters that meet clean water goals nationwide has doubled, with direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation and wildlife. The act represents a huge step forward by requiring States to set clean water standards to protect uses such as swimming, fishing, and drinking and for the regulation of pollution discharges. Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly want to return to a laissez-faire policy that provided no accountability to who was using what pesticides, where they were using those pesticides, and in what amounts and resulted in thousands of miles of streams and lakes being contaminated by pesticides. I would urge my colleagues to take the commonsense approach that the EPA has taken and to, on both sides of the aisle, vote ``no'' on H.R. 935 and to once again vote down legislation that is looking to solve a problem, Mr. Speaker, that simply does not exist. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to Maryland's Federal Primary Election day being Tuesday, June 24, 2014, I was absent from votes in the House, and instead in my Congressional District in Maryland. I, therefore, missed rollcall votes 341 and 350-354. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 341 (H. Res. 636, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act); ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 350 (Pallone amendment); ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 351 (Waxman amendment); ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 352 (Welch amendment); ``Aye'' on rollcall No. 353 (Motion to recommit H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act); and ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 354 (Final passage of H.R. 3301).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of a resolution that recognizes the importance of providing basic, preventative heart screenings for women wherever they seek primary care. I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for joining with me to introduce this resolution. Heart disease remains the leading cause of death for women in the United States, causing one in four deaths among women each year. For the past three decades, the number of deaths from heart disease for women has exceeded those of men. I am concerned that heart disease claims the lives of more than 400,000 women each year. Nearly half of all African-American women have some form of cardiovascular disease. Among Latinas, awareness that heart disease is the leading cause of death is the lowest, at 34 percent. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to bring awareness to the burden of heart disease, so we can reduce heart disease among women in the United States by ensuring that, wherever women seek care, they get basic, preventive heart health screening for heart disease. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important and timely resolution.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4412, the NASA Authorization Act of 2014. I want to say first a special thank you, Mr. Speaker, to our chairman, Mr. Smith; our ranking member, Ms. Johnson; and my partner in crime, our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Palazzo. This has indeed been a bipartisan effort. It didn't start out that way, but America and our national space program should be glad that it has ended that way. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, is recognized across the world as a symbol of the United States' greatness as a Nation and its leadership in science and technology. It should not be a surprise that so many developed and emerging nations seek to follow suit in pursuing space exploration. Space exploration and the United States' preeminence in space is critical to our economic success in the 21st century. NASA, in fact, is our crown jewel. It is one of the things that our government really does do best. NASA's space and aeronautics programs advance our technological competence, challenge our industries and workforce in ways that sustain their global competitiveness, advance scientific understanding, and truly inspire the next generation to dream big and to garner the skills to turn those dreams into action. In my own State of Maryland, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center supports more than 15,000 civil service and private sector jobs in my home county of Prince George's County, including highly skilled occupations such as engineers, technicians, mathematicians, and scientists. NASA also collaborates extensively with Maryland's high-tech business sector. These collaborations encourage the expansion of the skilled workforce that has made Maryland a leader in research and technology. In fact, our State's economy is strengthened by our collective investment in space. And that is true for Maryland, but it is also true across the Nation, because we are explorers and we are innovators. The NASA Authorization Act of 2014 builds on the bipartisan support that Congress has given NASA as a multimission agency with programs in space and Earth science, aeronautics, human spaceflight, and exploration. It also authorizes funding consistent with fiscal year 2014 appropriations that were enacted through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. And while I, too, would have preferred a multiyear authorization of appropriations that would have provided the stability that NASA and its contractor workforce need over time, this bill is foundational, and it provides important policy direction that will strengthen our Nation's space program. In particular, H.R. 4412 sets the long-term goal for NASA's human exploration program of sending humans to the surface of Mars and directs NASA to provide a human exploration roadmap outlining the capabilities and milestones needed to achieve that goal. Recognizing two of the primary systems needed to accomplish this, H.R. 4412 directs the expeditious development, test, and achievement of the Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule for operations as the highest priorities of NASA's human exploration program. The bill also includes provisions to ensure the full and productive utilization of the international space station, the ISS, and that includes the development of a strategic plan for ISS research and a report on the progress of the organization chosen to manage the ISS national laboratory. Mr. Speaker, NASA is in the process of working with the commercial industry on the development of human spaceflight systems that can transport NASA's astronauts to and from ISS on U.S. systems. This bill is faithful to the key recommendations of the Columbia accident investigation report as indicated by the ranking member. In the area of science, the bill directs NASA to seek to ensure, to the extent practicable, a steady cadence of large, medium, and small missions. It requires new National Academies science strategies in extrasolar planet exploration and astrobiology and an assessment of NASA's Mars mission plans and goals. H.R. 4412 also sustains a strong and comprehensive Earth science program--that is important to us at Goddard Spaceflight Center, but it is also important to the Nation--and a sense of the Congress on the importance of the James Webb Space Telescope to science and that priority be given to ensure that the program stays on budget and on schedule. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are all becoming, also, sensitive to orbital debris or space junk. H.R. 4412 includes a number of provisions to advance our scientific and technical understanding of these issues and to identify potential options for mitigating the risk they pose. Further, NASA's aeronautics research and development activities are critical to ensuring innovation in our aeronautics industry, sustaining safe operations, and mitigating the effects of aviation operations on the environment. The bill ensures that NASA maintains a strong aeronautics research portfolio ranging from fundamental research through integrated systems. H.R. 4412 also provides important policy and programmatic direction on NASA's space technology program, and it reaffirms the importance of NASA's education activities, especially as they involve the NASA mission directorates and the scientists and engineers engaged in NASA programs. The Space Grant Program, in particular, provides critical opportunities for engaging students in the space-related as well as broader STEM fields, and this bill ensures the continuation of Space Grant and requires an independent review to recommend measures to enhance the program's effectiveness. The bill also provides important good government policy direction, including on cost controls and cost estimation, avoiding conflicts of interest in major NASA acquisition programs.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it also provides for detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts, information technology governance, and increased transparency in Space Act Agreements. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our committee has worked hard to improve the original base bill and pass it on a bipartisan basis. I want to thank our ranking member again and our chairman and Chairman Palazzo. I particularly want to thank all of our staff, especially our subcommittee staff and our personal staff: Chris Shank, Tom Hammond, Jared Stout, Allison Rose-Sonnesyn, Gabriella Ra'anan, Richard Obermann, Allen Li, Pam Whitney, Megan Mitchell, and Anne Nelson. With that, I urge the passage of H.R. 4412.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, due to attending a previously scheduled event in Maryland, I was absent from votes in the House on Monday evening, May 19 and missed rollcall votes 218-219. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcall No. 218, H.R. 2203, and No. 219, H.R. 685.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Gibbs, and ranking member, Mr. Bishop, and congratulate them and all of our staff on the work on this conference report. I rise in support of this bill. I just want to point out, however, that the environmental streamlining provisions in the House- and Senate-passed versions were based on an assumption that a significant number of project delays are due to environmental reviews. I could not disagree more. I would prefer that the environmental provisions in the conference report were not included, but I believe we have improved them significantly. We have also ensured that the public will still be able to participate effectively as part of the NEPA process on water projects that have a profound effect on health, safety, and well-being. I also would like to commend the conference committee on adopting provisions of the State revolving fund for the first time since 1987 that includes innovative financing of water infrastructure projects. As part of both programs, I am proud to say that we will, for the first time, consider an idea that I championed, the use of innovative, green, and low-impact technologies. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewomen from New York, from Tennessee, and from Wyoming for your leadership and for doing what women do in this Congress, which is work together toward a common good. So I thank you very much for your leadership. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 863, the National Women's History Commission Act. It is a bill that would establish a commission to study the potential creation of the National Women's History Museum right here in Washington, D.C., and, as has been stated before, not at any cost to the taxpayer. It would showcase the contributions that women have made throughout our history, both in this country and around the world, contributions that have historically been underrepresented, to say the least, in books, museums, and other records of our Nation's great story. There are institutions, for example, in Maryland, the Maryland Women's Heritage Center in Baltimore, that are really leading the pushback in our State against the void of women's representation in our historical records. The Baltimore Heritage Center serves as a museum, an information resource center, and a gathering place for events focused on impacting girls and women. When I visited the Heritage Center, number one, they said to me, are you supporting the National Women's History Commission Act?

Ms. EDWARDS. This will complement those histories and tell the story of women at the Goddard Space Flight Center, women who are in science, technology, engineering, and math; women who are engineers, explorers and innovators. So, I want to thank the gentlewomen for their work on this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support the commission bill, to study the process--there is no cost to the taxpayer--and to see into law, finally, telling the stories of women all across this country.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge as a simple fact that women deserve equal pay for equal work. Same job, same experience, same pay. But that is not happening. On the aggregate, women earn just 77 cents on the dollar. For African American women, it is only 64 cents, and for Latinas, it is a staggering 54 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned by white men, white non-Hispanic men doing the same job. As we know, the consequences are great. These pay gaps translate into a loss for African American women of more than $18,000 a year, and for Latinas, more than $24,000 a year that they lose to this pay gap. Families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends meet. The pay gap is about our Nation's overall economy, and it is about women's retirement security. The fact is that when women succeed, America succeeds, and it is time to address the pay and work-family balance disparities that affect women. Some have said that the argument for equal pay for equal work is politics. Well, Madam Speaker, it is not. It is about pay. It is time for 25 courageous Republicans to step up and join 197 Democrats to end wage discrimination and give women what women have earned: equal pay for equal work.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Madam Speaker, I want to rise this evening to discuss our annual budget. Congress has a number of responsibilities, but a big one is that Congress is tasked annually with developing a budget that lays out our Nation's priorities in spending and lays out a budget that reflects our values. Democrats have been working to provide a fair shot for everyone to succeed by creating good-paying jobs and an opportunity for working families. Our country is, in fact, strongest when our economy grows from the middle out, and not from the top down. Unfortunately the fiscal year 2015 Republican budget introduced by Paul Ryan takes the opposite approach. It benefits the few at the top by showering tax breaks on millionaires and corporate special interests, while shifting the burden of the Federal budget to middle class families. Once again, Mr. Ryan and Republicans have been convinced that the best way to help working families is to stop helping working families. Unfortunately, the Ryan budget resolution would actually harm families, most especially, women and children. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Ryan budget would cost jobs and slow our recovery, costing 1.1 million jobs in fiscal year 2015, and rising to about 3 million in the following year. Republicans are raising taxes on middle class families with children by an average of at least $2,000 a year in order to cut taxes for millionaires. Now, let's just take a look at that, Madam Speaker. A recent analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice finds that, under the Ryan plan, taxpayers with income exceeding $1 million in 2015 would receive an average net tax decrease of over $200,000 in that fiscal year. Now, let's balance this. Families with children would have to pay an additional $2,000, and millionaires would get the benefit of a decrease in their taxes of $200,000. $2,000 for working families, and $200,000 for millionaires. Now, of course, the Ryan budget doesn't touch tax breaks for big oil and gas companies that ship jobs overseas. After all, you have to have priorities, priorities and budgets that are a statement of values. So it is very clear that the Ryan priorities and the Ryan budget priorities benefit millionaires. It is very clear, unsurprisingly, that the Ryan budget also repeals, yet again, the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that 9.3 million people now have health care as a result of the Affordable Care Act, that according to a Rand Corporation study. Now, repealing the Affordable Care Act would allow insurance companies, once again, to treat a woman and being a woman as a preexisting condition, would once again enable insurance companies to charge women more than men. Insurance companies would also be able to deny women coverage because of preexisting conditions, including a history of domestic violence, breast and cervical cancer, and C-sections. Under this budget, millions of women and their families would be stripped of the private marketplace health plans and expanded Medicaid coverage that they have obtained under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, more than 47 million woman would again have to pay out-of- pocket-costs for lifesaving preventive health services like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. Up to 4 million women seniors, that is right, 4 million women seniors would fall, once again, into the prescription drug doughnut hole, and they would have to start reaching back into their pockets once again to pay for their prescription drugs because the Ryan budget reopens the doughnut hole. I want to repeat that for the American people. The Ryan budget reopens the doughnut hole that Democrats closed. As a result, seniors in the doughnut hole will pay an additional $18,000 over 10 years, on average, for their prescription drugs. Look, women make up about 55 percent of Medicare enrollees, and they would suffer the most, frankly, when the Medicare guarantee is replaced, under the Ryan budget, with a voucher in 2024. That is right. The Ryan budget wants to change the Medicare system, take away the Medicare guarantee for the 55 percent of the enrollees who are women, for all enrollees, with premiums for traditional Medicare going up about 50 percent on average. Think what that means for America's women who are seniors. Indeed, the Republican plan would draw traditional Medicare into a death spiral. It would end it as we know it. Not just that, but the Ryan budget also slashes Medicaid by $732 billion over 10 years, or nearly 25 percent in 2024, with the largest impact on women. I will continue, because the Ryan budget does such devastation to America's women, that it bears repeating. But with that, I will yield some time to my colleague from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for pointing out the many ways in which the Ryan budget impacts the women of Nevada and impacts the women of this country. The gentlewoman mentioned something that I think, again, bears repeating. The Ryan budget cuts food stamps by $137 billion over the next 10 years, which would, in fact, be devastating for millions of America's women, because 62 percent of adult food stamp recipients, in fact, are women. And at least 200,000 women and children would be dropped from the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, if the 15 percent cut in 2016 non-defense appropriations was applied across the board. The Ryan budget calls for at least $500 billion in cuts to income support programs like the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, unemployment insurance, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and child nutrition programs, including school lunches. That is right: taking food right out of the mouths of our youngest children who need that nutrition in order to learn and be 21st century learners. Sixty-six percent of individuals who depend on senior meals like Meals on Wheels are women. Those senior meals would be cut by 15 percent in 2016, if the GOP cut in non-defense appropriations was applied proportionately. Up to 5.6 million women students would find college less affordable due to $145 billion in cuts to Pell grants under the Ryan budget. Up to 170,000 children would lose access to Head Start, and up to 3.4 million disadvantaged children at 8,000 schools would lose vital Title I education programs. I keep going on, and it seems incredibly devastating to America's families and, particularly, to America's women. It is almost as though the Ryan budget were a Mack truck just running right over top of America's women. Now, Democrats have an agenda and a budget that, in fact, reflects our values of strengthening the middle class, of closing the opportunity gap, of enabling women and their families to succeed. It is a budget that helps women and families address some of the biggest economic challenges facing them. It calls for raising the Federal minimum wage, for ensuring equal pay for equal work, for expanding family and medical leave, and for making child care more affordable. In my home State of Maryland, child care costs for an infant can run to $12,936 a year for child care for one infant. In a lot of cases, that is more than you pay for a 4-year institution, or a community college, just to have your child in child care. These are devastating for America's families. In fact, America's families are spending 35 percent of their income, of their family's income, in child care. That is more than we are spending on mortgages. It is certainly more than we are saving, Madam Speaker. As we know, women make on average just 77 cents on a dollar a man makes. For African American women and Latinas, the gap is even larger. African American women earn just 64 cents, and Latinas earn only 54 cents for every dollar earned by white, non- Hispanic men. Two-thirds of the minimum wage earners in this country are women, and family and leave protections fail to cover nearly half of full-time employees. The Democrats' budget, in fact, takes a look at these things and says, you know what, people are working hard, and they are trying to take care of themselves and their families; and, in fact, in this country, with so many women who are either principal breadwinners or, certainly, partner breadwinners in their families, the cuts envisioned by the Ryan budget would be devastating for America's women. We know that child care expenses, for example, that are important to men and women are consuming so much of American families' income, and yet the Ryan budget would take $2,000 away from working families and enable millionaires to get the benefit of $200,000. Think about that-- your average family, $2,000; millionaires, $200,000. According to the Ryan budget, the budget actually fails to call for bills promoting equal pay for equal work for women. It fails to increase the minimum wage. It fails to provide for paid sick days for workers. The Ryan budget fails to help working families afford the cost of child care. We do have solutions, as Democrats, to these challenges. I mean, after all, it is really true that, when women succeed, America succeeds. Our agenda ensures that women will have the tools they need to fully participate in the 21st century economy. Madam Speaker, Republican priorities are making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and they are shrinking the size of government, regardless of the damage that it would cause. As I have detailed, the Ryan budget doubles down on policies that, in fact, hurt working families. I think that it is time, Madam Speaker, for us to pay attention to what is happening to women--to women who are increasingly in the workplace, but are saddled with the burden of incomes that are not keeping pace, needing assistance to help them get by, not because they are not working, not because they are not contributing; and the Ryan budget does more devastation to America's women. So I would urge my colleagues to, once again, take a look at this and to say, you know, in a country that has so much and that promises so much and where there really should be more opportunity for all, that we don't need a budget that just rips apart the lives of women and children and families, and the Ryan budget does just that. I look today at the Congressional Progressive Caucus alternative budget. I voted for that because it is good for America. I looked at this Congressional Black Caucus budget. I voted for that because it is good for America. I will look at the Democratic alternative to the devastating Ryan budget because it is good for America. It is good for America's families. It is good for America's women. Madam Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.