Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, over the past four decades, tens of thousands of refugees who have fled lands of conflict, persecution, or turmoil have traveled to Minnesota to find a new home and start a new life. Often, these families or individuals, young and old, arrive in Minnesota without possessions, without language skills, and without certainty about their futures. Minnesota has welcomed refugees from Laos, Vietnam, Russia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Liberia, Somalia, Burma, Bosnia, and dozens of other countries who are now our friends, neighbors, and co-workers. There are thousands of success stories, but starting a new life in Minnesota requires support, assistance, and a willing partner. The St. Paul-based International Institute of Minnesota, IIM, is one of America's premier refugee resettlement agencies. Since 1975, IIM has sponsored and resettled more than 22,000 refugees. Their resettlement work, along with the extensive education and training programs they provide for new Minnesotans, has resulted in refugees transitioning from conflict and uncertainty to stability and economic self- sufficiency. IIM's work is both valuable and essential to the contributions refugees continue to make, as they become New Americans, to Minnesota's economy and the strengths they bring to our communities. One of IIM's innovative and successful job training programs is the Medical Careers Pathway for New Americans, a sectoral-based training model within the healthcare industry. IIM developed the program that defines a pathway to employment and economic independence for newcomers in Minnesota. It has evolved over the years to meet both the needs of low-income New Americans and the demand from the industry for a well trained and qualified healthcare workforce. The program includes three areas of training--Nursing Assistant Training, NAR; College Readiness Classes, CR; and Medical Career Advancement, MCA. This established career pathway helps participants move from entry to advanced positions in healthcare by helping them navigate complex higher education systems so that their long-term goal of career advancement and economic independence are attained. Critical language, academic support services and life skills tools are provided, including strategies for balancing work, family and the stress of living in poverty. The pathway recently added a FastTRAC Initiative with St. Paul College and Roseville Adult Basic Education to increase passing rates for students in the Anatomy and Physiology course. The program has graduated and certified nearly 1,800 nursing assistants. Eighty-five percent of these certified graduates have been employed. Two-thirds of these IIM clients were unemployed when they entered the training program. Because of their dedication to their work and caring for the elderly, eighty-eight percent of graduates are still employed at one year, helping several longterm care business partners stabilize their workforce. The Director of Nursing from St. Anthony Park Home recently said, ``I do not know what we would do without this training program.'' The Pathway program has helped nearly 400 New Americans advance from entry-level positions in healthcare to nursing and other professional jobs within the industry. These program graduates are providing quality healthcare to hospital patients and long-term care residents, some of whom require bilingual caregivers, while easing the expected healthcare labor shortage in Minnesota. The IIM is a model for refugee resettlement in the U.S., but the innovation and success of their Pathway program should also be considered a refugee job training model deserving of expansion, as well as replication across the country. I want to commend IIM for their valuable work and urge state and federal partners working on refugee resettlement and job training to continue to support IIM's success.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4281. This three-month transportation authorization extension does nothing to address the long-term needs of America's crumbling infrastructure. The National Governors Association is arguing against this unnecessary, shortsighted approach, saying: ``a string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for state and local governments and the private sector.'' Likewise, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said earlier this week: ``Frankly, there is no length of extension adequate for the construction industry, its workers, and the business community in general.'' Earlier this month, the Senate passed a two-year transportation authorization with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 74 22. This Senate bill will save or create over two million jobs, including 28,100 jobs in Minnesota according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. If the Republican House leadership brought this legislation to the floor today it would pass with bipartisan support and reach the President's desk for signature prior to the expiration of the current authorization on Saturday. However, the Republican majority is rejecting this bipartisan opportunity, which is guaranteed to authorize federal transportation programs at current levels for two years. Republican leaders refuse to even bring the Senate bill to the floor for a vote. Instead, they continue wasting time in negotiations with extreme Tea Party Members in their own caucus in an effort to bring a hyper-partisan, job-destroying transportation bill to the floor. The Republican transportation bill, H.R. 7, would cut funding for 45 states, including over $313 million in cuts to Minnesota, and eliminate over 500,000 jobs nationwide. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman from Illinois, told Politico that H.R. 7 ``is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen.'' He added, ``It's the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service.'' I agree with Secretary LaHood. Minnesota's economy and workers would be significantly harmed by H.R. 7. The construction industry in my state suffered the most significant job losses of any sector during the recent recession. Construction jobs are again being added in Minnesota but, as of March, only one quarter of the 46,000 construction jobs lost in the recession have been recovered. This Republican transportation bill would reverse the positive momentum for Minnesota's economy and throw thousands of workers back on the bench. These devastating economic consequences are unacceptable and completely avoidable. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 7 and this short-term extension so the House can instead vote on the bipartisan Senate reauthorization to put Americans to work rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Act. This misguided legislation undermines Medicare, raises deficits and restricts states' rights. Last year, House Republicans voted to end the Medicare guarantee for seniors. Fortunately, Senate Democrats blocked this dangerous proposal from becoming law. Now, House Republicans are trying again to dismantle the program in their fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. The Republican proposal would end the Medicare guarantee by pushing future seniors into the private insurance market with a voucher that fails to keep up with the rising costs of health care. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Republican voucher proposal could force future seniors to pay $6,400 more for health care every year. Republicans claim that shifting rising health care costs onto future seniors will save billions of dollars. What do House Republicans proposed do with those savings? Reinvest in Medicare? Increase funding for education? Reduce the national debt? Remarkably, House Republicans are proposing to take Medicare dollars from future seniors to give a new $150,000 tax cut to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America today. House Republicans introduced H.R. 5 to distract attention from their radical plans to dismantle Medicare and give more handouts to billionaires. H.R. 5 repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the Affordable Care Act. IPAB was established in the new health care law to protect Medicare's long-term sustainability. The Board will do this by keeping program costs at a manageable level and preventing special interests from delaying implementation of reforms that strengthen Medicare. IPAB will be composed of fifteen non-political experts, including doctors, consumers and senior advocates recommended by Congressional leaders, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If Medicare costs exceed certain targets, these experts will make recommendations to Congress on ways to stabilize Medicare by reforming payment and delivery systems. Congress retains the power to reject these recommendations and pass their own reforms to reduce Medicare spending. IPAB experts are prohibited by law from recommending changes to Medicare that ration care, increase seniors' costs, reduce benefits or restrict eligibility. IPAB does not harm Medicare or seniors, but eliminating IPAB would weaken Medicare and raise the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office found that repealing IPAB will add $3 billion to deficits over the next ten years. To offset this cost, House Republicans impose new federal rules to legal cases involving medical malpractice, product liability, health insurance and related issues. The broad provisions of this bill would offer new protections to drug companies, nursing homes, insurance companies and HMOs. These new restrictions would severely limit a patient's ability to recover damages suffered as a result of medical negligence, defective products or irresponsible insurance products. Every year, approximately 200,000 severe medical injuries are caused by negligence. Only seventeen percent of these patients ever file a malpractice claim. Patients who do seek legal recourse may not obtain full and just compensation for their injuries due to the caps on awards imposed by H.R. 5. The National Conference of State Legislatures strongly opposes this federal mandate on states arguing that federal medical malpractice legislation is unnecessary. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 5 noted the new medical malpractice caps ``might cause providers to exercise less caution, resulting in an increase in the number of medical injuries attributable to negligence.'' I urge my colleagues to reject these extreme and unprecedented changes mandated to state medical malpractice laws that will result in less justice for victims, less patient safety, and less flexibility for states to make their own laws. Further, I urge my colleagues to stand up for seniors and protect Medicare by opposing H.R. 5.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this Republican budget is a political document. It's the House Republicans' platform for November. The GOP platform puts our economy and millions of jobs at risk. They gut protections for seniors and families in need. They abandon local communities at a time when Washington should be a partner for opportunity and economic growth. The Republican platform cuts student loans and grants for higher education by $166 billion. The Republican budget forces seniors to pay out of pocket an average of $600 additional every year for medications they need because the GOP reopens and throws seniors back into the Medicare part D doughnut hole. This budget drives Americans into an enormous GOP pothole, gutting Federal transportation investments by 25 percent, abandoning communities and businesses that need improved infrastructure to remain competitive. This Republican budget cuts regular folks and then protects and showers benefits on the wealthiest and most privileged millionaires and billionaires. The Republican platform should really be called Millionaires' Manifesto, because it will borrow billions of dollars from Communist China to guarantee every millionaire a tax cut worth nearly $400,000, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And all that is added to our national debt. The Republican budget gives oil companies $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies, while they are gouging Americans who are working hard when they fill up their tank at the gas pump and the oil companies continue to make record profits. The GOP budget sounds extreme. Well, it's only because it reflects the core values of the Tea Party House Republicans: protect the rich, cut off the poor, and walk away from the middle class. Democrats have a budget that prioritizes deficit reduction and invests in the middle class. Democrats strengthen our American competitiveness by investing in education, basic research, modern infrastructure and green energy: investments that will create jobs. I urge support for the Democratic proposal.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Sergeant Tom Bergren of the Saint Paul Police Department, and his retirement after 32 dedicated years of service. Sergeant Bergren represents the finest example of a dedicated community law enforcement professional. His interest in public safety began early. As a child, he would visit his grandparents' home in Saint Paul to pick up local calls on the police scanners, longing to be the responder on the other end. His career formally began in Circle Pines, Minnesota, when in 1976 at 19 years old, he became a reserve officer. After 3 years of service to the residents of Circle Pines as a reserve officer, and later as a full time community-service officer, he entered the Saint Paul Police Academy. After graduation, Sergeant Bergren served a number of different roles in the Saint Paul Police Department, including time as an officer in the K 9 unit and as an investigator in auto theft. Bergie, as he became known by those close to him, became a homicide investigator in 2004, ultimately this would be the role that would shape his career. This job demands the utmost dedication, and he not only exceeded these expectations, but inspired those he worked with to do so as well. It was this unrelenting dedication that would help him solve the biggest case of his career. In 2007, a triple homicide took place in the North End Neighborhood of Saint Paul. Over 4 long years and hundreds of interviews, Sergeant Bergren tirelessly sought to bring closure to the families and bring the assailants to justice. It was this dedication that not only saw the conviction of the two perpetrators, but created a bond between Bergren and families of the victims. Sergeant Tom Bergren's unparalleled commitment to serving the public has earned him many awards through the years. In 2007, he earned the Detective of the Year award from the Saint Paul Police Department, and just recently, he received a fourth Medal of Commendation from the city. On his desk sits a sign from the mother of one of the victims of the 2007 homicide, which states ``never, never, never give up.'' On behalf of myself and all of the residents of Saint Paul, I want to thank Sergeant Tom Bergren for never giving up in his efforts to protect and serve the public. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Sergeant Tom Bergren's 32 years of valiant and dedicated service, I am pleased to submit this statement for the Congressional Record.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Senator Gary W. Kubly, public servant and Lutheran Pastor. Senator Kubly passed away earlier this month at the age of 68, after a hard-fought battle with Lou Gehrig's Disease. As our community mourns the loss of this beloved civic leader, we must pause to celebrate Gary's legacy and reflect upon his years of service. Gary's lifelong career of service began when he joined the United States Air Force during the late 1960s. After leaving the military, Gary became a public school teacher prior to moving to Minnesota in 1970 to attend Luther Theological Seminary in Saint Paul. After graduating from Luther Seminary in 1974, Gary began his career as a Lutheran Pastor, serving two churches near Granite Falls, Minnesota prior to his election to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1996. Throughout his 15 years in the Minnesota Legislature, Gary touched many lives, and his absence will be felt by all who had the privilege of knowing him. I was honored to serve with him for four years in the Minnesota House of Representatives prior to his election to the Minnesota Senate. He was a constant voice for the residents of the counties he served in southwestern Minnesota, making sure rural communities had an advocate at the Capitol. Whether serving our country, his Church or his constituents, Gary's dedication to serving others was remarkable. His sense of duty and honor are irreplaceable, and his voice will be missed at the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, please join me in this tribute to Senator Gary W. Kubly.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R. 2117 proposed by the gentleman from Colorado. This amendment would require the Secretary of Education to present this body with a plan to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal financial aid dollars. I was regrettably detained and unavailable to vote on the following amendment to H.R. 2117. Rep. Polis (CO) Amendment #5: Would require the Secretary to present a plan to prevent waste, fraud and abuse to ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. Had I been present to vote I would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment #5.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Someone was saying today that you remember your first and your last time. The first time I met Donald Payne was in my first term on the Education and the Workforce Committee. We were talking about the inequities in college funding for minorities, and they were talking about the Hispanic higher education institutions and about historical black colleges. I spoke up, and I said, What about the tribal colleges? Mr. Payne said, And we will never forget the tribal colleges again when we list off all of our colleges that serve our minority youth. And he never did, so I thank him for that. The last time--and it's fitting that Congresswoman Woolsey is on the floor with me--was at the State of the Union address. Usually, Donald sat on this side. Lynn and I had the privilege of keeping him warm that night. So, with that, here are my remarks. Today, the U.S. House of Representatives and the American people lost a statesman and a dedicated leader committed to human rights, quality education and social justice at home and around the world. It was my honor to serve with Donald Payne on the Africa Subcommittee, as well as on the Education and the Workforce Committee. I will always remember Donald as a friend and as a gentleman, a kind soul who spoke with authority and who legislated on behalf of those who were often too voiceless. My deepest condolences to Donald's family, to his staff, to his New Jersey constituents, and to people all over the world. (Mr. BISHOP of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today the U.S. House of Representatives passed the St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act (S. 1134) by a vote of 339 to 80. Originally spearheaded by Congresswoman Bachmann (MN 06), S. 1134 authorizes construction of a $700 million mega-bridge over the protected St. Croix River between Minnesota and Wisconsin, benefiting only 18,000 cars per day. Every policy debate has two sides and I worked hard to reflect the voices of Minnesotans in the Fourth District, as well as those Stillwater and Oak Park Heights residents who are deeply concerned about this mega-bridge project. Congress' passage of this $700 million bridge bill doesn't diminish its excessive cost, size, negative effect on Highway 36 traffic congestion, or its adverse impact on the St. Croix River. Supporters of this legislation, including Senators Klobuchar and Franken, and Governor Dayton, assume responsibility for protecting communities along Highway 36 from crippling traffic congestion and the families and businesses of Oak Park Heights from property tax increases--the direct consequences of the project they so strongly championed. I want to thank my friend and Minnesota colleague, Representative Keith Ellison (MN 05) for his eloquence on the floor of the House in opposition to S. 1134. I share Congressman Ellison's concern that replacing one bridge at a cost of $700 million to the exclusion of more than 1,100 other structurally deficient bridges in Minnesota places too many communities and motorists at risk. I am committed to working with Representative Ellison, Governor Dayton and all Minnesota members of Congress and state legislators to repair or replace these substandard bridges.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Could you please tell me how many minutes I have besides the 2.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin prepared to close after the last speaker that I have on my side?

Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield myself 2 minutes. As I said at the beginning of this debate, this bill, S. 1134, is a bad bill. It reflects our irresponsible fiscal policy, bad transportation policy, and bad environmental policy. The way the law has been structured into making this moment happen specifies only one type of bridge could be built, and it had to be a bridge that went 65 miles an hour. And then the legislation before us today takes it even farther and for the first time puts in that a bridge that is going to be a replacement bridge in a wild and scenic river must be an extradosed bridge. It mandates the size and the scope of the bridge. Ladies and gentlemen, we just could have had a piece of legislation that would have allowed an exemption without the specification that was added in this legislation. I could have stood here and supported it, but I cannot support a $700 million interstate bridge when there is one 6 miles away. The Stillwater bridge needs to be replaced, but it won't be replaced, actually, because the historic lift bridge is going to be used as a bike and pedestrian bridge which in perpetuity the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota will have to maintain and repair and will continue during the summer to be raised and lifted as boats go through. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that I have seven bridges in my congressional district with hundreds of thousands of car trips a day in worse condition than the lift bridge in Stillwater. This mega-bridge also will feed directly into Minnesota State Highway 36. Tens of thousands of my constituents along Highway 36, Oakdale, Maplewood, Roseville, North St. Paul, and Little Canada will be suffering with crippling traffic congestion and higher property taxes to pay to relieve that congestion. This is a bad piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I would ask how much time I have remaining and of Mr. Petri how many more speakers he has left.

Ms. McCOLLUM. And are you closing or is Representative Bachmann closing?

Ms. McCOLLUM. I have one other speaker, then, after Mrs. Bachmann.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as remains to my colleague from Minneapolis, Mr. Ellison, who faced firsthand the tragedy of what happens when a bridge collapses. As I pointed out, I have seven bridges that have hundreds of thousands of cars every day on them in worse shape than the Stillwater bridge. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Minneapolis.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The bill before the House today, S. 1134, is a controversial bill that represents wasteful government spending, bad transportation policy, and bad environmental policy. A new bridge across the protected St. Croix River between my State of Minnesota and Wisconsin needs to be built. The aging Stillwater Lift Bridge needs to be replaced and everyone agrees on that, but I support a more affordable and more appropriately scaled replacement bridge. This bill is controversial because it does much more than authorize a replacement bridge. This bill mandates construction of an exotic and massive extradosed style bridge some 219 feet above the St. Croix River at a cost of $700 million for only 18,000 cars per day. This $700 million extradosed megabridge will connect Oak Park Heights, Minnesota--population 4,700--and Houlton, Wisconsin-- population 386. I quote from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, January 25, 2012, about Houlton, Wisconsin, it ``is not big enough for a stop sign on its main street.'' Houlton, Wisconsin, may not have a stop sign, but Congress could give it a $700 million bridge. This bill is controversial because, if you look at page 2, line 10 of the bill, you will see that the bill dictates the location of this $700 million megabridge, and I quote from the bill, ``approximately 6 miles north of the Interstate-94 crossing.'' In other words, this bill mandates a 65-mile-per-hour interstate freeway bridge connecting a town of 368 people and builds it only 6 miles from an existing interstate crossing on the same river. What would the Tea Party call an effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars? Would they call this that? The fiscal watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense calls the bill, and I quote from them, ``A massive misuse of taxpayer money.'' In a letter to Congress opposing this bill, the Taxpayers for Common Sense said: In an era of trillion-dollar deficits and a $15 trillion national debt, it is simply unacceptable to spend $700 million on a bridge to carry so few vehicles when an interstate bridge exists nearby. This bill is controversial because it is opposed by the Interior Department, which testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 28, 2011, opposing S. 1134. I quote from the Director of the National Park Service, when he stated: The Department cannot support this legislation as the National Park Service is determined that the St. Croix River Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river and these impacts cannot be mitigated. To be very clear, I asked Interior Secretary Salazar 2 weeks ago during an Interior appropriations subcommittee hearing a direct question. That was on February 16, just this month. I asked: Does the Interior Department still oppose S. 1134? Interior Secretary Salazar responded, saying: Our position remains unchanged. A wild and scenic river is a wild and scenic river. The position of the Parks Service as articulated a year ago is the position of the Department. We have, as you know, Congresswoman McCollum, met with the delegations from the two States and Secretary LaHood and I have offered to work with a work group to see whether or not an alternative can be found. Unfortunately, despite opposition from the Interior Department, an offer to work on a compromised solution, Congress will now be voting on a $700 million megabridge. This bill is controversial because it will directly result in a property tax increase for the residents of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, a community in which Minnesota's new redistricting map places it in my new congressional district. According to a unanimously passed resolution by the Oak Park Heights City Council, the passage of S. 1134 by Congress will do this to the city of Oak Park Heights. I quote from the city council's resolution: It will require an estimated $443 in annual property tax increase for the next 10 years to most city homeowners and businesses. A vote for S. 1134 will be a tax increase on Minnesotans. This bill is controversial because it puts Congress in the position of prioritizing spending of $700 million of taxpayers' money to replace one bridge while Minnesota has more than 1,100 additionally structurally deficient bridges--far less costly--that all are in desperate need of repair or replacement. In fact, dozens of Minnesota State legislators wrote our delegation saying: We are united in our concern that the current design of the bridge is far too expensive, particularly in light of much more cost effective alternatives. Those State legislators, many from my congressional district, urge defeat of this legislation. Former Vice President and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale, an original sponsor of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, opposes this bill, saying that the passage, and I quote from Vice President Mondale, ``would be a profound mistake.'' He urges a vote against the bill. This bill was even controversial in the Senate. Senator Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington oppose S. 1134, saying: In our opinion, waiving the protections of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for the lower St. Croix is bad policy and sets a dangerous precedent. Here in the House, this bill is also controversial. It is controversial because this bill is an earmark, pure and simple. This bill designates a specific project in a specific location and it mandates the construction of a $700 million extradosed bridge design, and it does that all through an exemption to Federal law. Of course, earmarks are banned in the House except when a bill comes to the floor on suspension of rules and all the rules and points of order are waived, just like this one. This megabridge was highlighted in a New York Times editorial. The editorial highlights my Minnesota colleague and megabridge champion, Representative Bachmann, who has called for a redefinition of what an earmark is to accommodate ``a bridge over a vital waterway.'' Today Congresswoman Bachmann has been successful in bringing this earmark to the floor. It's not just me. My dear friend from Minneapolis, Mr. Ellison, and other House colleagues and the U.S. Department of the Interior are opposing this $700 million bridge. The bill is also opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association, American Rivers, League of Conservation Voters, former Vice President Mondale, and a whole lot of Minnesotans who care deeply about fiscal responsibility, wise transportation investments, and responsible environmental conservation. Tomorrow we will vote on this bill. The question is: Will the House give a rubber stamp to a $700 million megabridge or will this Congress reject this bad bill and direct Minnesota and Wisconsin to come up with a smarter plan that would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? Every Minnesotan and every Wisconsin Member of this House supports a replacement bridge, none more than me. But I ask my colleagues to reject this fiscally irresponsible bill. Not one dollar of Minnesota transportation funds will be lost. I have a Minnesota Department of Transportation document in my hand that outlines how hundreds of millions of dollars could be reprogrammed across our State creating thousands of jobs and rebuilding roads and bridges in great need of repair. S. 1134 is a bad bill, and it should be defeated by Democrats and Republicans alike. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. McCOLLUM. With that, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Ms. McCOLLUM. In reclaiming my time, I will not yield to the gentleman on my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. McCOLLUM. In response, I don't think my constituents consider me an outside group. With that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as Representative Bachmann approaches the well, the gentleman from Wisconsin has the right to close, and I would like to know how many other speakers he has.