Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise today to pay tribute and to honor the life of Sylvia Frasier, who was one of 12 dedicated civilian employees and contractors that were senselessly murdered at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC, on September 16. Mass shootings are always difficult to bear. My heart breaks for their loved ones and for the tight-knit military, government, and contractor community found in the Washington metropolitan area. As her funeral service is tomorrow at the Rhema Christian Center Church in Northeast Washington, DC, I want to remember the legacy Ms. Frasier leaves behind. She earned a bachelor of science in computer information systems and a master's in information systems. Ms. Frasier worked at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) as an information assurance manager since 2000. Her duties at NAVSEA included providing policy and guidance on network security, and assuring that all computer systems operated by the headquarters met Department of Navy and Department of Defense requirements. According to those that knew her best--her family and colleagues--Ms. Frasier was a friend to everyone she met and a stranger to no one. One friend stated that her personality was ``bright, just like her blond hair, and lit up a room.'' A colleague at work recalled what she would miss most about Sylvia are all the jokes they shared at the beginning of their phone calls before they got down to business. In a statement, her family said ``if there are any words to describe her, it would be faithful, family oriented, and dedicated professional.'' Ms. Frasier's outgoing personality just wasn't suited to sitting still. She had choir rehearsal every Saturday morning, church on Sunday mornings, lots of travel for the Navy, friends and family to spend time with, and yet she still worked a second job in the evenings and on weekends because she was a people person. Ms. Frasier was a deaconess, altar counselor, and member of the arts and music ministry at Rhema Christian Center Church. So, her faith was obviously very important to her. Sylvia Frasier's record of service was characterized by sacrifice, by hard work and dedication to duty, and most of all by achievement. She leaves behind a legacy of service that others can aspire to. Now that her time on earth has come to a needlessly premature end, it is my hope that Sylvia Frasier has found the peace she has earned. On behalf of this House, I extend the thanks of a grateful nation and our sincere condolences to James and Eloise Frasier, her parents; each of her siblings and their families; and to the many friends whose lives she touched. My thoughts, prayers, and deepest sympathy go out to all of the victims of this horrendous tragedy and their families. May God continue to comfort and sustain each of you.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, it's really hard to know what to say anymore. It's impossible for us to rationalize what has become completely irrational, but I'm just going to say what it is. From the other side, this bill is mean. It's unconscionable. And it's really just plain wrong. The rational person would ask, don't they know that nearly 4 million people would have benefits cut and would lose their benefits entirely? A rational person would ask, don't they know that millions of people, beneficiaries, already work, that they go to school, and that they're looking for work? I know what it's like to struggle to feed a child, to wonder whether there's food tomorrow or the next week. Don't they know that this is what families across America are struggling with right now? I don't know. I'll tell you what, I see the plan--shut down government, starve children, the elderly, the disabled, demonize the poor, blame them for everything. But I'm going to just tell you, when I go to sleep at night, I sleep well. After you cast this vote, after Republicans cast this vote today, they won't sleep well.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, climate change is not a science debate; it never was. As we know, science is never universally agreed upon. It's a constant reexamining of what is deemed the squats quo. Nonetheless, the science surrounding climate change is near universal and it is incontrovertible. Over several decades of study, an overwhelming majority of scientists, including many at NOAA and NASA Goddard, in fact, in my district, as well as researchers worldwide, have concluded that climate change is real, is caused by man, and will have a significant impact on our Earth, it's process, the safety of our public, and our economy. These findings simply must quell the ideological differences and guide our policy decisions with regard to our environment in all due haste. As a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I remain astounded that so much climate denial exists within these Chambers. This doubt is translated into slashing funding for climate research and Earth science research, both short-term and long-term. It's resulted in preventing agencies with the expertise to maintain and develop Earth-observing systems and conduct the analysis necessary to understand our Earth--all slashed. Just 2 weeks ago, our House Science Committee reported out legislation that would cut NASA's Earth science budget by a third, something like over $600 million. NASA is a major contributor to our U.S. Global Change Research Program, and such a cut would not only devastate Earth science research, but hamper our ability to understand what is truly a matter of national significance, indeed, global significance. Unfortunately, my home State of Maryland will suffer disproportionately if this Chamber refuses to act. Maryland has the fourth longest tidal coastline and is the third most vulnerable to sea level rise, one of the major consequences of climate change. Islands and low-lying communities throughout our State will be impacted by rising seas and severe weather events like Hurricane Sandy. Just last week, The Washington Post reported that Maryland's coastal waters could rise 6 feet by the end of this century. This increase could cause flooding in major cities like Baltimore and Annapolis. Areas on the lower half of the Delmarva Peninsula could be especially impacted. While our State has been proactive about preparing for these kind of environmental changes, thermal expansion of our oceans and waterways will pose significant problems for the State, indeed, for our Nation. But this is not one State's concern; it's a 50-State concern and a global concern. Goddard Spaceflight Center, which is located just outside my congressional district, is home to a number of climate scientists who are genuinely concerned about observed and predicted trends for the future. This historical trend of warming and sea level ice, in particular, are not fiction or hyperbole. The are, in fact, facts that are indisputable and in many ways terrifying. I want to bring to your attention image 1 here. In Maryland, the warming trend over 100 years has increased from 2 degrees Fahrenheit to 6.1 degrees, just since 1960. This is significant and concerning warming in just my State. The U.S. trends are equally staggering, and the global trends are even more overwhelming. But what concerns me even more is this chart here. This chart depicts polar sea ice, which is important to control and moderate global climate. As sea ice melts in the summer, it absorbs the sunlight and warms our poles. What's happening is that, because, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, even a slight warming of the poles will quicken the pace of global warming and likely lead to more severe climate patterns. Since 2000, Arctic ice during the summer has been melting at rates that are scaring scientists. Here, what you see is a sharp decline during the summer ice melting. Last year, half of the sea ice actually melted during the summer. I want to highlight one more thing. Our most conservative models didn't predict what we've actually observed in terms of decline in sea ice thickness. Our climate model simulations have failed to keep up with actual significant loss. This problem is twofold: First, additional cuts to climate research and gaps in our satellites--and there are gaps because we're not funding them--make these observations even less accurate and weaken our modeling; Second, the poles are actually warming faster than we ever predicted. It's estimated that by 2020, all the sea ice during the summer will be melted. It's time for us to act. For the sake of the future generations of our economy, our environment, let's restore climate research capacity. Let's act for future generations.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the life and work of Dr. Sarah Moten, a woman who dedicated her life to furthering the causes of education and development in Africa. Dr. Moten passed away Tuesday, July 9, 2013. Dr. Moten will be missed, but her legacy lives on in the lives of those she touched through her work. Her prolific career in federal and international agencies and organizations serves as an inspiration for all of us who strive to impact others' lives in a positive way. Dr. Sarah Moten was an accomplished academic. She earned a Bachelor's degree in Elementary Education from Hampton University, a Master's in Education, Guidance, and Counseling from George Washington University, and a Doctorate in Education, Administration and Supervision from Clark Atlanta University. She was awarded honorary doctorates from Elizabeth City State University, Chicago State University, and the University of Massachusetts Boston. Dr. Moten also served as the Director of International Affairs at the University of the District of Columbia. Dr. Moten was dedicated to uplifting children in Africa through education, with particular regard to equal access to education for girls. In her decades-long career, Dr. Moten worked tirelessly as Country Director in Swaziland, Kenya and Sierra Leone and also as Special Assistant to the Africa Director for the U.S. Peace Corps. In addition, Dr. Moten served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Refugee Assistance at the Department of State. She also served as Special Assistant to the President Emerita for the National Council of Negro Women, the Coordinator of the Education Democracy Development Initiative for Africa, and the Chief for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Africa Bureau Office of Sustainable Development, Education Division, among other notable positions. Dr. Moten's continuous work on areas including education, refugee affairs, diplomacy, and economic development influenced countless lives and earned her a reputation as one of the greatest champions for Africa. For her work, Dr. Sarah Moten was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the Foundation for Democracy in Africa, the Worldwide Award for Women in Education and Government by Swarthmore College, the Outstanding Partners in Education Award by World Education, the Distinguished Leadership Award from Boston University's African Presidential Archives and Research Center, and the John L. Withers Memorial Award from USAID, among other distinguished recognitions. During this time of bereavement, I hope all who grieve find comfort and peace in remembering the profound impact Dr. Moten had on so many. Dr. Moten will live on through those who knew her and through those who were touched by her work. Mr. Speaker, today we remember and celebrate the life of a generous and remarkable woman. I send my thoughts and prayers to all who knew Dr. Sarah Moten and all who mourn her loss.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it increases hunger in America.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. EDWARDS. Is it in order to amend the underlying bill and the rule that currently provides for billions in subsidies to corporate farms while children and families go hungry, school lunch programs are decimated, and Meals on Wheels is taken from the disabled and senior citizens?

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could tell us whether it would be in order to allow the majority to amend the underlying bill that provides for agricultural subsidies to prohibit Members of Congress who receive financial benefits payments and taxpayer subsidies from the underlying legislation from actually voting on the legislation from which they directly profit financially? Would that be in order for the majority to amend the bill for that purpose?

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. Would it be appropriate to ask the majority to make an amendment to the bill to prohibit Members who receive taxpayer subsidies from benefiting financially and to prohibit them from voting on the underlying legislation from which they profit financially?

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Parliamentary inquiry, please. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, please.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order, as we have heard many times on this floor, for a Member of the House to simply not mention by name individual Members of the House, but to mention categories of Members? That happens all the time. Mr. Speaker, is it not in order, when there are Members on the other side of the aisle who have said ``Obama,'' ``Obamacare,'' ``That Nancy Pelosi is a train wreck'' on the floor of this House and their words have not been taken down and they have not been seated? Is it not in order for the gentlelady to have been recognized and to be able to speak on this issue merely saying ``Republicans''? That could be a lower case ``republicans.''

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in 1969, led by the late Apollo Astronaut Neil Armstrong, American ingenuity changed history as humanity took a giant leap forward on the surface of the moon. That history, as preserved on the lunar surface, is now in danger, as spacefaring commercial entities and foreign nations begin to achieve the technical capabilities necessary to land spacecraft on the surface of the moon. The United States must be proactive in protecting our unique cultural heritage left by the seven Apollo lunar landings. I am excited to have introduced H.R. 2617, ``the Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act,'' which would expand and enhance the protection and preservation of the Apollo lunar artifacts while providing for greater recognition and public understanding of this achievement for generations to come. I would like to thank Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for her commitment to the space program and for being an original cosponsor of this bill. It is also significant that we have introduced H.R. 2616, ``the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2013,'' legislation that reauthorizes NASA and ensures the Agency remains a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science, aeronautics, space technology, and human space flight and exploration. The Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act will ensure that the scientific data and cultural significance of the Apollo artifacts remains unharmed by future lunar landings. This Act will endow the artifacts as a National Historic Park, thereby asserting unquestioned ownership rights over the Apollo lunar landing artifacts. The legislation will additionally require the Secretary of the Interior to pursue nominating the historic Apollo 11 lunar landing site, where humanity left its first steps on the moon, as a World Heritage Site. The bill builds on the recommendations of the 2011 report, ``NASA's Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the Historic and Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts.'' Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Act addresses an increasingly important aspect of our cultural heritage that I want to be available for future generations. I hope that all Members will join me in supporting ``the Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act'' by cosponsoring H.R. 2617.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2616, ``the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2013.'' The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, is the nation's crown jewel for spurring innovation, highly-skilled and good paying jobs, and inspiring the next generation of scientists. Since the Apollo era, NASA has been a cornerstone of domestic innovation, economic growth, and international competitiveness. Unfortunately, in the past few years, Congress has not funded NASA adequately in a way that reflects its unique role and its many contributions. Simply put, recent flat and reduced funding had required NASA to do too much with too little. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Space Subcommittee, on which I proudly serve as the Ranking Member, has historically been known for its bipartisanship and commitment to a strong and vibrant space and aeronautics program at NASA. Last Wednesday, Committee leadership released a committee print of its authorization bill. Notwithstanding the fact that this current version of the Committee leadership's legislation incorporates some positive clarifications from the version initially circulated for discussion two weeks ago, it still cuts NASA's funding in Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) by over $1 billion from the requested level. The Committee leadership's bill does not contain funding commensurate with the tasks NASA is already being asked to undertake while also adding NASA unfunded mandates. In particular, the majority's legislation amends existing law to create the milestone of enabling humans to land on the Moon, while maintaining deep sequestration cuts over the life of the bill. I regret to say that if enacted, it would not help NASA meet the challenges facing the Agency. That is why I, along with 11 original cosponsors of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, wish to provide an alternative which I hope will be the foundation for bipartisan support. This legislation is a pragmatic path forward that will give NASA a clear sense of purpose and direction in a way that also recognizes the nation's need for fiscal restraint. NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science, aeronautics, space technology, and human space flight and exploration. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2616 does a number of important and necessary things by: Preserving NASA's purchasing power relative to FY12 enacted levels by authorizing $18.1 billion for FY14 with inflationary increases over the three year authorization period of FY14 through FY16; Providing a clear goal of a crewed mission to the surface of Mars and requiring a roadmap which identifies intermediate destinations and activities that contribute to enabling the effective achievement of that goal; Recognizing the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle as the highest priorities for carrying out the Mars goal and authorizing increases that bring SLS funding to $1.8 billion by FY16; Emphasizing congressional commitment to safety in NASA's human spaceflight activities by requiring an independent review of NASA's commercial crew safety processes and procedures and providing for other measures to enable full government insight and oversight in ensuring safety; Providing robust funding for commercial crew system development of $700 million per year; Maintaining our commitment to International Space Station, ISS, operations through 2020 and initiating a process for determining if and how long ISS should operate beyond 2020; Authorizing increases for ISS research to augment discovery-based science and maximize the full and productive utilization of this unique laboratory; Restoring Planetary Science to $1.5 billion annual funding, following recent cuts to the program; Maintaining a sound Earth Sciences program that ensures observing systems development, and advances research, knowledge, and applied data uses that benefit society; Sustaining a stable aeronautics research program, consistent with FY12 enacted levels, that supports research priorities, strategic initiatives, and flight demonstrations; Recognizing the importance of investing in space technology to enable future missions, spur innovation, and contribute to economic growth and job-creation; Sustaining NASA's Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, STEM, Education Activities and continues current agency education and outreach activities supported by scientists and engineers; and Including a number of ``good government'' provisions such as establishing measures to strengthen NASA's cost estimating and fiscal management practices to minimize cost overruns in projects and assessing the capabilities and resources needed to expand NASA's Near- Earth Objects program to include smaller objects. In closing Mr. Speaker, this fiscally responsible bill puts NASA back on track to greatness and provides flexibility in how the agency is to implement engineering and scientific details. This Authorization bill is a vitally important opportunity to set the policy direction and authorize funding needed to both sustain NASA's global excellence and preeminence in space and aeronautics and provide a clear and inspiring path forward for the nation's human exploration of outer space.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Barrow, for leading this Special Order. I am just so honored really to be here to celebrate and honor somebody I call a friend, John Dingell. I notice, as we're talking here today and as so many have approached the podium, that everyone who approaches says: John Dingell, my friend, my colleague, my mentor, someone I look up to, someone I respect. I would just like to say to my good friend from Michigan that I can't really change those words because they echo my own sentiments. I want to share with you--and so many of us have talked about the long legislative legacy of John Dingell. As I sat here, Mr. Dingell, I thought, well, I too, when you came into Congress, I had not been born yet. It was about 3 years before I entered the world. When you took that courageous vote in support of the Voting Rights Act and civil rights, I was 6-years-old. I recall at the time living here in the Washington metropolitan area that my father and mother used to bring us to this Capitol almost every Sunday after church. They would bring us and we would run up and down the east front of the Capitol. We would picnic on the west front of the Capitol. I am thinking today how wonderful it is to know that there was someone who was in this institution who so valued this institution and who, even when I was a 6-year old, John Dingell was working to protect my rights. When I think about that, Mr. Dingell, I think of all of the Members who lined up even before we began this Special Order and talked about the need to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we create a formula for the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court would support, that institutes and puts into place the formula for the way that we protect our voting rights in section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and almost to one, including John Lewis, none of us would be here had you not had the courage to take that vote in 1964. So it's such an honor to serve with you and to know that while that may have been the battle in 1964, that you are fully prepared to engage in the battle here in 2013, and what an honor that we all have the great privilege of being able to serve with John Dingell. I almost think, and Mr. Kildee mentioned this, but I almost think there is hardly anything that impacts our modern day laws that we can't attribute to the great hard work and public service of John Dingell. The fact that I got up this morning and turned on a faucet and ran a glass of water and was able to drink it and know that it was clean, was about John Dingell. That I walked outside today, and even on a stuffy day like this, knew that I could breathe air that was okay--we still have work to do, Mr. Dingell--but to know that that clean air, and the cleaner we make our air, is attributed to John Dingell. I think back to my grandmother who came to live with us at a point as she was aging--and it was actually just prior to the passage of Medicare--and how different families' lives are now because of the protections that they have for health care as they age and are disabled. Those things are attributable to the great work, the legislative legacy and the service of John Dingell. So here we are today, and when I first came into Congress, I came in a different kind of way. One day John Dingell pulled me aside in the cloak room and he said, ``Come sit down, I want to talk to you, I want to get to know you.'' And I was, frankly, afraid of him. I knew his history, I had watched several Energy and Commerce hearings, and I knew that he was a great friend of my predecessor--a great friend of my predecessor. I sat down and I talked to him, and what I gained from John Dingell was the kind of honor and dedication that he has, and reverence that he has, for this institution. It is unlike any that we see, and we learn from that. So we talked, and we became friends. Then a funny thing happened. Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, and an inauguration was coming forward, and again another reminder that John Dingell's 50 years of service are about this amazing legislative work, but it is also about the people of his district--the children, women, men, families, of his district. There was a high school in his district--actually, I'm not quite sure it was still in his district, but at one time he represented that high school--and they had gotten the great gift of being able to play in the inaugural parade for President Obama. Somehow or other things got confused and they were staying in a hotel that was many, many miles, a couple of hours away, from Washington, D.C., and they would have had to get up at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning to get to the staging area on time. I represent a district just outside of Washington, D.C., in Maryland. John Dingell reached out to me and he told me this story, and I said, Well, maybe we can figure out something. We found a high school out in Prince George's County, Maryland, and a parent-teacher organization and the students. They welcomed these students from Michigan that they didn't know at all into their high school. They fed them pizzas and sodas and everything. So the students were able to actually get to the inaugural parade on time. John Dingell and I have been locked at the hand and the hip ever since. Those students were so grateful to him. What I saw in this great legislator is that the people of his district really did come first and he looked out for them, and they knew that he looked out for them. Like I said, I don't know whether he still represented them or not. I suppose over that 57 years, the way lines get drawn, at some point or other he did and he didn't, and he did and he didn't. But whatever, he thought of them as his constituents and they thought of him as their Member of Congress. I thought that that is the kind of Member of Congress that I want to be. I think there are so many of us who serve in this institution who really do value it and who listen, who really listen to the message that John Dingell gave us about the need to work together and to preserve and protect our democracy by working in a kind of way that gives value and service to all of our communities and to this great Nation. So for that, I want to thank John Dingell for being such an important part of this institution and important part of the way I have learned to become a Member of Congress. I want to say, just finally, on health care, when I came to the Congress, I had had an experience of not having had health care and getting very sick and going to an emergency room and having a lot of bills that I couldn't pay because I didn't have health insurance. When we gaveled in that health care bill, the Affordable Care Act, it was John Dingell sitting as speaker pro tempore who gaveled in the Affordable Care Act with the gavel that he used for Medicare. Then during the course of that debate, I helped to gavel in the debate on health care. There was one moment that John Dingell was speaking on the floor about his father's experience and about his experience working on health care. I was sitting in as speaker pro tempore. Mr. Dingell, I will never forget that picture because for me it was what we do as legislators, but it also felt very personal, and it felt so wonderful to know that in your service you never stopped not a single day of the 57 years to make sure that millions of Americans like me could have health care that was quality and that was affordable and that was accessible. So I thank you so much for your service, and I am so honored to serve with you.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House on Friday afternoon, June 14th, due to attending a family funeral out of town. The House considered amendments to H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``aye'' on rollcall No. 230 (Holt amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 231 (McCollum amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 232 (Nolan amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 233 (Larsen amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 234 (Gibson amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 235 (Coffman amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 237 (Smith amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 238 (Polis amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 239 (Polis amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 240 (Van Hollen amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 241 (Blumenauer amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 242 (DeLauro amendment); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 243 (Motion to Recommit H.R. 1960 with Instructions); ``no'' on rollcall No. 229 (Turner amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 236 (Walorski amendment); and ``no'' on rollcall No. 244 (final passage of H.R. 1960).

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 266 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, H.R. 1797, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when the majority began this Congress, it began with the idea, in their language, that they would adhere to fiscal responsibility and to constitutionality--in fact, we read the Constitution on the floor of this body--and that they had learned the lessons from the election slaughtering in 2012, and that is to stop the assault on women's health care. But, oh, no. Here we are today with a bill, H.R. 1797, that violates the Congressional Budget Act, that violates the Constitution, and that violates the doctor-patient relationship that a woman has with her doctor, and we haven't focused on jobs. So, when you look at H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, it would impose a ban across the country on abortion after 20 weeks. Aside from ignoring medical realities and placing the lives of mothers with serious medical conditions at risk through governmental interference with the doctor-patient relationship, the underlying bill also includes reporting requirements that, according to the Congressional Budget Act, which it would violate, would add costs to local law enforcement. With a total of 25 States introducing 64 similar abortion-ban measures in the last 3 years, this bill is yet another assault on women's reproductive rights and is blatantly unconstitutional. Abortion care in this country is a private, medical decision that's made between a woman and her health care provider. Those are the only people who should be in the room. And yet here in this legislation they've created just a narrow exception that doesn't even take into account the risk to a woman's health and would subject physicians to criminal penalties for caring for their patients. H.R. 1797 contains unreasonable, unjustified penalties for doctors, including 5 years in jail, and would have a negative impact on abortion care and reproductive health care all across the country. By jeopardizing and criminalizing abortion care, we limit the options women have to receive comprehensive reproductive health care. And these limitations could lead women to access abortion care that is both unsafe and dangerous to their health. I'd like to yield 15 seconds to the other side if they would care to address the question of whether this closed rule means that there will not be a single amendment or alternative offered to this bill, which has a profound effect on women's health and reproductive rights. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she cares to answer that question.

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, reclaiming my time, under the rule, it's the case that the bill I believe that we'll vote on today for final passage has not followed regular order, and it has been rewritten after its adoption in the Judiciary Committee. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly opposes a 20-week ban citing the threats these laws pose to women's health. With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr. Peters).

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

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it's very clear to me that the underlying bill, in fact, does violate the Congressional Budget Act. It imposes an unfunded mandate on local police departments for the work that they do. Now, it's this crowd on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who is opposed to unfunded mandates. Nevertheless, it's also true that, in fact, the decision to receive an abortion in this country, particularly late in a pregnancy, is an intensely personal decision, and yet it's the suits on the other side of the aisle who've decided that it's their decision to interfere with a woman's right to make those choices between herself and her doctor. It's a decision that none of us wants to face and one that legislators, particularly Members of Congress, should not interfere with. The bill also cites the Constitution as its authority in order to qualify under the rules of the House. And yet it is blatantly-- blatantly--unconstitutional, completely inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. And so I'd like to yield 15 seconds, again, to the gentlewoman from the other side to ask her whether, under the definitions in this bill, what does it mean to not have protection of the life of the mother include psychological or emotional condition? Well, the gentlewoman can't answer that, and so I suppose I could ask her, as well, if the Speaker would allow, I yield, again, 15 seconds to the gentlewoman, if this bill cites the Constitution as its authority in order to qualify under the rules of the House, and yet it's blatantly unconstitutional, do House rules allow it to be considered, allow H.R. 1797 even to be considered on the floor of this House if it's unconstitutional? I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know that the gentlewoman from North Carolina and the other side would prefer to yield and move on with a bill that violates the Budget Control Act, violates the Constitution, and violates the relationship between a doctor and a patient; and yet the decision to receive an abortion is a woman's, and a woman's alone. In addition, H.R. 1797 infringes on the right of the District of Columbia to make decisions about the way in which it cares for its residents. I mean, the majority is all over the place--interfering with the District of Columbia, interfering with women's rights to make the decision by themselves, and actually stepping on the toes of local law enforcement to impose costs on them to enforce an unconstitutional bill. Thank goodness it won't become law. The sponsor of this bill is certainly entitled to his beliefs--and it was a ``his,'' because on the Judiciary Committee that considered this, there's not a single Republican woman who had the chance to consider this on the Judiciary Committee. And yet the role of the government should not be to limit access to health care or to limit the freedom and liberties of the public. We should recognize that this decision is one best left to a woman, in consultation with her doctor, her family, and her faith. Women across this country don't rely on Congress and politicians to advise them on mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, or maternal health needs; and abortion is no different. As with these other procedures, we should make comprehensive health care available to all women and allow them, with the consult of their health provider and loved ones, to decide when, how, and why they take care of their health. Americans, including women, sent a clear message last November at the polls. They're tired of Congress meddling in their business and taking extreme and divisive legislation targeted at assaulting women's health. And so with that, I'd actually yield another 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she would care to respond: Whether today, given that 40 percent of women are primary breadwinners in their household, but women continue to face workplace challenges, pay inequity, and other barriers to fully contribute to our economy, would you agree that this bill does not address those economic challenges for women, or create jobs, and is an exercise in political theater at best? With that, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman to respond.

Ms. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1797, which the House will consider later today. It is another in a long, long line of assaults on women's health; and it is blatantly unconstitutional. Reproductive health, including abortion care, is a private medical decision between a woman and her health care provider--period. A woman's right to choose is a fundamental freedom, and there is no place for dark-suited politicians to impose their personal beliefs on a woman's private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 doesn't even include an adequate life exception that takes a woman's health into account. It is patently unconstitutional and is completely inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, once again it is clear that my Republican colleagues are unable or unwilling to put forth ideas to create jobs, strengthen the economy, or invest in America's future. Instead, here we go with another ideological battle. American women have one unified message for Republicans: stay out of our doctors' offices, stay out of our health care, and leave us alone.