Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Ms. Robin Philips, for her lifelong commitment to defending women and girls' rights at home and abroad, and to congratulate her on her retirement. In 1995, Ms. Philips joined the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, a non-profit organization dedicated to addressing domestic violence and other human right issues. She went on to found the Women's Human Rights Program that has made The Advocates, as it is known, a global leader on women's rights. In 2002, Ms. Philips became the Executive Director of The Advocates. Under her leadership, Ms. Philips recruited thousands of volunteers to contribute their time and talent to providing legal services, outreach efforts, fact-finding, and operational support, strengthening not only the organization but the whole human rights movement. By keeping The Advocates' work primarily volunteer-driven, the organization was able to leverage $156,300,282 (approximately $7 million/year) worth of in- kind legal services over the past 22 years. Through it all, The Advocates has provided pro bono legal counsel to more than 7,000 victims of persecution, torture, trafficking, prolonged detention, and family violence in the Upper Midwest Region. One shining example of Ms. Philips' accomplishments includes a report issued by The Advocates in 2008. The report laid the foundation for Minnesota's Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Youth Act, transforming the state's approach to addressing sex trafficking by prioritizing the protection and support of victims and those at risk. Under Ms Philips' leadership, The Advocates led many high-profile transitional projects in Peru, Siena Leone, and Liberia, which highlighted the dire need for human rights advocacy in post-conflict healing and reconciliation processes. At the request of the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), The Advocates led the Liberian TRC Diaspora Project by documenting the human rights abuses experienced by the thousands of Liberians who were arrested, tortured, abused and forced to leave the country after prolonged civil war during the 1990's. Under her leadership, The Advocates recruited over 600 volunteers to provide more than $10 million in pro bono services to the Liberian TRC. As a result, The Advocates documented statements, stories and testimonials from more than 1,600 Liberian individuals and witnesses in the US, UK and Ghana. Through the Liberian TRC Diaspora Project, The Advocates held the first public hearings of a national truth commission in St. Paul in June 2008. Today, Liberia is implementing several of the recommendations made in the report, most notably by establishing a War and Economic Crimes Court. Ms. Philips' tireless efforts working with partners and advocates around the world to abolish the death penalty and to defend and protect the LGBTQI community is commendable. Finally, her commitment to building schools and providing education to young people in Nepal from Pre-K through 10th grade by serving more than 1,000 low-income Nepali students today exemplifies the spirit of American ingenuity and being a great Samaritan. Above all, Ms. Philips is a trailblazing leader and a human rights champion. Mr. Speaker, please join me in this well-deserved tribute to Robin Philips on her retirement after nearly three decades of defending human rights at home and abroad.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the distinguished career of Ramsey County Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt on her retirement after 28 years of public service on the Ramsey County Board. Since her election in 1996, residents of District 7 in Maplewood, North Saint Paul and White Bear Lake have been well-served by her leadership. Currently, she also leads the board for the third time as Chair. During her 28 years of distinguished leadership, Commissioner Reinhardt has made lasting impacts in areas including transportation, housing, public safety, fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, and more. In 1999, she testified before a congressional committee on how local units of government can work together more effectively. In 2000, she was presented with the Bruce F. Vento Distinguished Service Award by the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless. In 2012 she was named County Commissioner of the year by the Association of Minnesota Counties. Under her leadership as longtime chair of the budget committee, Ramsey County has earned the top bond rating for 21 consecutive years. Commissioner Reinhardt's long-standing advocacy for environmental sustainability that originally led her to run for a seat on the county board against a 22-year incumbent. Previously, she was a founding board member and chairperson of the Recycling Association of Minnesota and chairperson of the White Bear Lake Recycling Advisory Committee. She is currently a member of the Association of Minnesota Counties' Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Local Government Advisory Committee, Vice Chair of the Environment, Energy and Land Use Committee for the National Association of Counties, and Vice-Chair of the Ramsey/Washington Recycling and Energy Board. She is recognized across the country as a leader in environmental stewardship and a champion for sustainable practices throughout Minnesota's east metro communities. Commissioner Reinhardt holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters of Business Administration from Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul. She received a Doctorate in Public Administration from Hamline University, where her dissertation informed her county work by focusing on calculating the cost savings of juvenile crime prevention. It has been an honor to have Commissioner Reinhardt serve as my commissioner. I have deep respect for Victoria's work and dedication to public service and am grateful to call her a friend. As she retires, I wish her well, along with her husband JP and her entire family. Mr. Speaker, please join me in this well-deserved tribute to Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt on the occasion of her retirement after nearly three decades of distinguished public service on the Ramsey County Board.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act. This bill is the latest Republican attempt to manufacture a crisis and reject commonsense rulemaking from the Department of Energy. Mr. Speaker, why would we want less efficient washers and dryers? Americans want home appliances that are going to save them money on their energy and water bills. I learned this lesson well when I worked at Sears selling home appliances. The customers who I helped buy a new appliance would ask me about the energy efficiency of the new appliance they were considering and how it compared to the one they had at home. That is why I support the commonsense energy efficiency standards set by the Department of Energy. The Biden administrations' past and planned energy efficiency actions are estimated to save Americans $1 trillion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion metric tons over the next thirty years. This bill would tie the hands of the Department of Energy (DOE) as they finalize and enforce efficiency standards for laundry machines. Contrary to the fearmongering of the Republican House majority, the Biden Administration did not create these rules to take away your home appliances. Congress mandates that DOE sets efficiency standards for appliances. The proposed rules would update twelve years old energy efficiency standard. The new standards were part of a consensus recommendation made by appliance manufacturers and efficiency advocates. H.R. 7673 would prohibit DOE from finalizing these new standards. With only six legislative days to go until temporary funding expires for the federal government, the House Republican majority has thus far failed to complete a spending package for Fiscal Year 2025. They also failed to act on the Farm Bill, which is now 14 months overdue. Yet, this week, the Republicans are wasting precious time considering a bill to ban energy efficiency standards for laundry machines. This is a disappointing, yet unsurprising, end to what has been a historically unproductive Congress. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7637 should be rejected. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (NDAA). It is with regret that I must oppose this legislation that sets policy for the Department of Defense. I do want to acknowledge the work that Ranking Member Smith and the Armed Services conferees did to remove many of the worst social policy riders contained in the version of this legislation that passed the House earlier this year, however, I have three problems that leave me unable to support the legislation today. First, I want to address concerns I have long had with how the authorizers on the Armed Services Committee use the NDAA to constrain the Appropriations Committee in our work to responsibly fund the Department of Defense. In the House, I serve as the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which has the responsibility to allocate annual funding for the Department of Defense. As appropriators, we have a statutory defense budget cap under the Fiscal Responsibility Act that we must meet. Absent an action by Congress, we cannot appropriate beyond what the law allows. Unfortunately, while this NDAA conforms to the level of Fiscal Responsibility Act, it sets defense spending expectations that in the short-term will complicate appropriators while we work to complete the Fiscal Year 2025 Defense Appropriations Act. In the long-term it does nothing to control the unsustainable trajectory of defense spending that must at some point be confronted. Let me provide an example of this clash of unsustainable spending priorities within our national security budget. That is the challenge of balancing support for our military personnel and their families with resourcing the rest of the defense budget. To be very clear, I have always supported pay raises for our troops. I worked with the Department of Defense to appropriately fund them when I was Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the 117th Congress. I also improved funding for the Basic Allowance for Housing, Basic Allowance for Subsistence, childcare services, and safer barracks. But this NDAA includes a 4.5 percent pay raise for all service members, and an additional pay raise beyond that for junior enlisted service members that totals 14.5 percent. Appropriations will need to find the resources this fiscal year and in future fiscal years, to cover this cost. I also have concerns with how this could impact the balance of the entire military pay scale. But we know that the quality-of-life concerns for military families go well beyond pay. Critically important things like affordable housing, quality healthcare, and childcare access must be addressed. And we know that the dramatically rising costs of resourcing our military personnel must be balanced against our other national security priorities. Among those include supporting the development of innovative defense technologies, fixing a fundamentally broken shipbuilding industry, modernizing major weapons programs, and ensuring our troops have the best training and equipment possible so that they can complete their missions and come home safely. We also live in a world of significant geopolitical conflict. That requires additional resources to fund U.S. operations overseas that were not planned for during the development of the Pentagon's annual budget. This NDAA includes language requiring the Department and the Services to implement plans to get programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Sentinel Program, or our fundamentally broken shipbuilding process under control. Based on my own experience with these programs, I question whether these efforts in the NDAA will be successful. But I do know that Congress cannot afford to wait any longer to fix a broken Pentagon acquisition process that produces delays and cost overruns in these and other programs. Unfortunately, the costs of accepting this process are now running headfirst into the rising costs of increased military personnel pay and supporting quality-of-life improvement programs for military families. None of this is sustainable in the long-term, and it will fall to the appropriators to balance the dollars. At some point, Congress must stand up and make quicker and tougher decisions when it comes to festering procurement problems in the Department of Defense. We must fix our broken defense acquisition process and stop boxing the Appropriations Committee into corners. Second, I am disappointed that this legislation includes a provision allowing the Air Force to transfer certain Air National Guard personnel with space missions to the Space Force absent consultation with the Governors. The precedent this will set in upending the Governor's authority over their National Guards is deeply concerning to me, and I made that clear in hearings the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee had with the Reserve Component and the Department of the Air Force. That is also why nearly every Governor in the United States opposes this proposal. As a former member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, I worked at the state level with the Minnesota National Guard to provide them with the necessary state resources to do their jobs. So, it is unfortunate to see that the Air Force failed to follow a collaborative process with the Governors in advancing their legislative proposal in Congress. If they had, I think we could have found an outcome that satisfied all parties. I believe by accepting the more expansive Senate version of this language, that the Armed Services Committee has made a serious error they will regret. Finally, I am deeply opposed to Speaker Johnson's eleventh-hour insertion of a controversial provision that was not included in the House version of the bill which would prohibit TRICARE from providing gender affirming health care to children in military families. This language is discriminatory. It is a signal to military families with transgender children that their service is not valued. Make no mistake, it will force service members to choose between continuing their own military service or providing their families with the health care they need and deserve. The language is also overly broad, and it is not clear what the text of the bill defines as ``medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization.'' No one knows exactly what this means. But it will prevent the teenager of a service member, who is facing great health care challenges, from getting the physical and mental health support that they need. The decisions on how the TRICARE regulations will be written will be made by bureaucrats in Washington, not families and their doctors. Republicans in Congress should get their heads out of the personal lives of our military families and worry more about providing our service members with the support they need to perform their missions effectively and come home safely. Mr. Speaker, again I am disappointed that I cannot support the legislation today. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill so we can get a more bipartisan compromise NDAA.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of ``Almanac'', the iconic Twin Cities PBS television show and the longest-running primetime TV program in Minnesota history. On December 7, 1984, Almanac broadcast its first episode, beaming in-depth coverage of state and federal public affairs into Minnesotans' homes. Forty years later, the program continues to inform audiences every Friday evening about the latest developments in politics, government, history, culture, sports, and more. Today, program hosts Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer are joined by reporters Mary Lahammer and Kaomi Lee, in addition to local personalities Kevin Kling, Sheletta Brundidge, Tane Danger, Paul Douglas, Larry Fitzgerald, Sr., and others. Under the guidance of producer Kari Kennedy and a variety of expert guests and public figures, this team uses their deep knowledge of our state to provide analysis, entertain, and inform viewers about the issues shaping Minnesotans' lives. Throughout its 40 years, Almanac has played a special role in Minnesota politics as a source of in-depth reporting, thoughtful analysis, and even music and humor. This Friday night TV staple has enhanced our state by fostering respectful discussion across party lines and informing viewers in every corner of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the 40th Anniversary of Almanac, a trusted and reliable pillar of journalism in Minnesota, broadcast on Twin Cities Public Television and livestreamed via the PBS App every Friday night at 7:00 p.m. Central.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act (H.R. 8446) and the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources (HEATS) Act (H.R. 7409) would both limit the ability of the American public to have a say in protecting our public lands and determining how our natural resources are used. H.R. 8446 gives cover for the copper industry to gain access to tax credits and expedited permitting processes. Only critical minerals on the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) list can access these federal supports, and we should not be playing politics with that process. Foreign-owned mining conglomerates stand to benefit the most from this legislation, as they seek to fasttrack copper mines like those that threaten the watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota, or the sacred site of Oak Flats in Arizona. These companies will have no obligation to contribute to our domestic supply with the minerals they pull out of our public lands. But our surrounding communities will bear the costs of pollution that all copper mines create. The least we can do is ensure the public and our federal government has the full opportunity to review these mines. The American public should also not be subsidizing new copper mines when we have secure supply chains that meet our needs, as determined by the USGS. The USGS list of critical minerals intentionally differs in important ways from the Department of Energy's list of critical materials. Minerals only make it on to the USGS list if their supply chain is at risk of disruption. The tax credits that Congress passed to encourage the development of at-risk critical minerals should not go to support the copper industry, when the U.S. is already a global top-five producer and a top-ten exporter of copper. The other bill under consideration today, the HEATS Act, would completely exempt certain geothermal projects that impact subsurface federal resources from the environmental review process if less than half of a geothermal project is non-federal. That means that if a project starts on private land but drills underground into publicly owned areas, it would not have to abide by the federal regulations. I want to be clear that geothermal is an important renewable energy source, and that advancing geothermal energy is a worthy goal. That is why the House has already passed bipartisan legislation, and the Biden Administration has streamlined the process for certain categories of geothermal projects. I secured community project funding for a Geothermal Heat Pump to replace the inefficient natural gas-based system at St. Paul's Como Park Zoo and Conservatory. However, we must ensure that when geothermal projects impact our federal resources, they go through our federal review process. The Bureau of Land Management, who overseas our federal subsurface areas, is concerned that this bill would undermine their ability to ensure public safety, to uphold environmental laws, to consult with tribal nations, and to fulfill their core mission of managing our natural resources for multiple use. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both these misguided bills and protecting public review of projects that impact our public resources.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will consider two bills that aim to fix problems within Social Security law, H.R. 82 and H.R. 5342. I rise in support of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. This legislation takes a necessary and long-overdue step forward in improving Social Security and ensuring that retirees across America have access to their hard-earned benefits. H.R. 82 has strong bipartisan support--the most of any bill during this session of Congress--and there's good reason for that. This bill repeals the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), two provisions of Social Security law that reduce and, in some cases, fully cancel out Social Security benefits for Civil Services Retirement system recipients and other public sector employees who have worked in state and local government. The GPO and WEP create financial hardship for America's retired teachers, police officers, postal workers, firefighters, and other public employees and their families who have spent their careers in public service. H.R. 82 bill passed the House by a vote of 327-75, with one Member voting present. I oppose H.R. 5342, the Equal Treatment of Public Service Act, an alternative bill proposed to address shortcomings within Social Security law. Unlike H.R. 82, this bill fails to address the GPO and takes the WEP exemption away from millions of Americans who are currently exempt. Additionally, instead of asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, this bill is paid for by expanding the number of people subject to the WEP, resulting in a benefit cut for millions of everyday Americans. Social Security is the nation's number one anti-poverty program for the elderly and for children. We must keep this program strong and ensure that it is working for all Americans. I stand with America's public employees in their mission to change this program for the better.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. This legislation would grant the Secretary of the Treasury the unilateral authority to suspend the tax-exempt status of any organization deemed ``terrorist supporting'' without due process or evidence. U.S. law already prohibits nonprofits from providing material support to terrorists. Additionally, I am deeply concerned about how this legislation could provide President-elect Trump's incoming administration with unchecked power to cause irreparable damage to any nonprofit he deems a threat to his own political agenda. This could be disastrous for nonprofits across the country, including those doing important work in the Fourth District like Springboard for the Arts, the Playwrights' Center, and the Center for Victims of Torture. More than 120 civil society groups--including the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, the NAACP, and the League of Conservation Voters--signed a letter opposing this bill due to the potential for abuse. I include in the Record this letter. I stand with them, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. September 20, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to express our deep concerns with H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror- Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. Specifically, this bill includes the text of H.R. 6408, legislation we strongly oppose as it raises significant constitutional concerns. Because H.R. 6408 vests vast unilateral discretion in the Secretary of Treasury, it creates a high risk of politicized and discriminatory enforcement. The executive branch already has extensive authority to prohibit transactions with individuals and entities it deems connected to terrorism and nonprofit organizations are already prohibited from providing material support to terrorist organizations. In fact, it would be a federal crime for them to do so. Moreover, we do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to the President for his signature. Without any evidence as to the need for this legislation, H.R. 6408 authorizes broad and easily abused new powers for the executive branch. It grants the Secretary of the Treasury virtually unfettered discretion to designate a U.S. nonprofit as a ``terrorist supporting organization'' and to strip it of its tax-exempt status if the Secretary finds that the nonprofit has provided material support to a terrorist group, even if the ``support'' is not intentional or connected to actual violence. While the sponsors of this legislation have stated that it is needed to avoid what they refer to as ``time-consuming bureaucratic process'' under current law, what the bill sponsors are actually seeking to avoid is fundamental due process. If this bill were to become law, the Secretary of Treasury could strip a US nonprofit of its tax-exempt status without providing the nonprofit a meaningful opportunity to defend itself before a neutral decisionmaker. The legislation further does not require disclosure of all the reasons for such a decision or the evidence relied upon to support it. Nor would the government be required to provide any evidence in its possession that might undermine its decision, leaving an accused nonprofit entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as material support. The potential for abuse under H.R. 6408 is immense as the executive branch would be handed a tool it could use to curb free speech, censor nonprofit media outlets, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups across the political spectrum. Moreover, the addition of this authority to the tax code would allow the IRS to explicitly target and harass domestic nonprofits using its investigative authority. It is also not hard to imagine a future administration using this power in far broader circumstances that have nothing to do with the hostilities in Gaza. And as more recent congressional oversight efforts make clear, these efforts are part of concerted attack on civil society that is targeted at more than just groups involved in the campus protests regarding Gaza. The executive branch could use this authority to target its political opponents and use the fear of crippling legal fees, the stigma of the designation, and donors fleeing controversy to stifle dissent and chill speech and advocacy. And while the broadest applications of this authority may not ultimately hold up in court, the potential reputational and financial cost of fending off an investigation and litigating a wrongful designation could functionally mean the end of a targeted nonprofit before it ever has its day in court. The lack of guardrails creates the potential for future administrations to weaponize these powers against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum. Even if they may never be designated as ``terrorist-supporting,'' let alone charged with a crime, nonprofits will curtail their activities as a precaution in order to avoid stigmatizing and financially devastating punishments. That is why we strongly urge you to oppose the inclusion of H.R. 6408 in H.R. 9495. Sincerely, #WelcomeWithDignity, 18 Million Rising, Advocacy for Principled Action in Government, Alliance for Peacebuilding, American Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Friends Service Committee, American Oversight, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amnesty International USA, Anethum Global, Arab American Institute (AAI), Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, Asian Law Caucus, Aunties Coalition, Ayuda, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Borderlands Resource Initiative, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Center for American Progress, Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), Center for Common Ground, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for International Policy, Center for Media and Democracy, Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Victims of Torture, Charity and Security Network, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Civil Liberties Defense Center, Coalition for Civil Freedoms, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), COLAGE, Colorado Immigrant Rights, Coalition Color of Change, Community Change Action, Council on American- Islamic Relations. DAWN, DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, Defending Rights & Dissent, Demand Progress, Democratic Messaging Project, EarthRights International, Earthworks, Emgage Action, Empowering Pacific Islander Communities, Ensaaf, Equality Federation, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Faith in Action, Food Shift, Free Press Action, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends of Human Rights, Greenpeace USA, HEART. Hindus for Human Rights, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, ICNA Dallas, Immigration Hub, Indivisible, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Islamic Association of The Colony, Islamic Center of Quad Cities, Just Foreign Policy, League of Conservation Voters, McKinney Islamic Association, Medical Center Islamic Society, Middle East Democracy Center (MEDC), MLFA, MoveOn, MPower Change Action Fund, Multicultural Center. Muslim Advocates, Muslim Counterpublics Lab, Muslim Justice League, Muslims for Just Futures, NAACP, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans, National Disabled Legal Professionals Association, National Education Association, National Immigration Law Center, National Iranian American Council Action, National Lawyers Guild-Mesoamerica subcommittee, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Network of Abortion Funds, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Georgia Project Action Fund, New Israel Fund, North American Indian Muslim Association, NTIC, Oil Change International. Organization for Identity & Cultural Development (OICD.net), Othman Bin Affan Mosque, OPAWL--Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, Oxfam America, Palestine Legal, PASNY, Peace Action, Peace Appeal Foundation, Peace Catalyst International, Peace Direct, People for the American Way, People's Action, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Plus, Positive Women's Network-USA, Presbyterian Church (USA), Office of Public Witness, Project On Government Oversight, Project South, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen. Refreshed Refined Reformed R3 Inc, Reproductive Freedom for All (former NARAL Pro-Choice America), Restore the Fourth, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, Shoulder to Shoulder Campaign, Southern Poverty Law Center, Stop AAPI Hate, The Interfaith Center of New York, The Seed Program by Kai, Inc., The Sikh Coalition, The United Methodist Church-- General Board of Church and Society, The Workers Circle, The X-Lab, Tides Center, Tides Foundation, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action (USCPR Action), Win Without War, Women for Weapons Trade Transparency, Women's March.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 175th anniversary of Washington County, Minnesota. On Tuesday, October 29th, the county board will hold a special meeting, open to the public, at the Washington County Historic Courthouse in Stillwater, the county seat and the birthplace of Minnesota. The recently restored Historic Courthouse was built in 1870 and served as the administrative and judicial center of the county for more than 100 years. The first of Minnesota's counties, Washington County was established on October 27, 1849 through an act of the Minnesota Territorial Legislature which divided the Minnesota Territory into nine counties: Washington, Ramsey, Benton, Itasca, Wabasha, Dakotah, Wahnahta, Mahkata, and Pembina. The county was named in honor of George Washington. Among the smallest Minnesota's counties by area, it is the fifth largest county by population at 267,568 people according to the 2020 census. The easternmost county of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area, its southwestern border is defined by the Mississippi River and the St. Croix River which forms the county's eastern border with Wisconsin. At its southernmost point is the confluence of these two great rivers. With diverse communities ranging from urban to rural, Washington County is home to a variety of thriving commercial, industrial, natural, and agricultural industries. Top among these industries is Health Care followed by Manufacturing, Professional, Scientific & Technical Services, Finance & Insurance, and Retail Trade. Population growth and a vital economy have allowed Washington County to develop a prosperous and diverse local labor force. Washington County also boasts plentiful natural beauty, including the St. Croix River Valley, which was among the first areas to be designated as a ``National Wild and Scenic River'' by the federal government in 1968. William O'Brien State Park and Afton State Park offer hiking, camping, swimming, skiing, fishing, biking, birdwatching, and other outdoor recreation just a short drive from Saint Paul and its east metro suburbs. The river towns of the St. Croix, including Scandia, Marine on St. Croix, Stillwater, and Afton offer historic charms to weekend tourists throughout the year. Throughout 175 years, Washington County has played a special role in Minnesota as a place of historic significance and great natural beauty. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating this anniversary of special significance to our east metro community, the Fourth Congressional District, and the entire state of Minnesota.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 136, the latest Republican attempt to put polluters over people and stifle innovation in cleaner transportation. H.J. Res. 136 would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing the proposed rule to further reduce harmful air pollutant emissions from light-duty and medium-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, nearly one-third of total pollution. But the transportation sector has been innovating. Electric vehicles (EVs) do not produce any tailpipe emissions, and as such they are safer for our health and environment. The Biden administration is fighting to protect American's right to clean air and a safe climate by addressing dangerous pollution from the transportation sector I'm proud of the work Democrats did to pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. These landmark pieces of legislation are already helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help consumers, businesses, and governments make the switch to low and no emission vehicles. Already, Minnesota has received $68 million to build out an EV charging network, $17 million to build out infrastructure for Metro Transit's fleet of low-no busses, and $1 million to help school districts in Minnesota offset the cost of switching to low-no school busses. Not to mention, the tax credits Minnesotans have been able to claim for purchasing a new EV. All of these investments will help reduce climate pollution, improve public health, and save drivers money through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Every American deserves access to clean air, yet approximately 72 million Americans are exposed to higher levels of air pollution due to their close proximity to high-traffic trucking routes. These Americans are more likely to be low-income and communities of color. It is estimated that the EPA's new rule will lower respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and cases of childhood and adult asthma caused by exposure to dangerous pollution. I am proud of the historic investments Democrats made last Congress to develop cleaner, zero- emission technologies that will protect public health. Passing H.J. Res 136 would abandon the progress we have made to address public health concerns and promote environmental justice in our nation's infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, not only will H.J. Res. 136 harm our public health and contribute to climate pollution, but it would also block the Biden Administration, and any future administration, from taking meaningful action to curb dangerous NOx pollution light- and medium- duty vehicles. It should be rejected.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8205, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. H.R. 8205 is a poorly written Republican messaging bill that seeks to undermine and discredit our Nation's nonprofit support systems. It would do nothing to ``keep violent offenders off our streets.'' Any misconduct by nonprofit bail funds is already a crime under federal wire fraud and money laundering statutes, and both statutes convey harsher penalties than insurance fraud. These nonprofits support low- income people who are in pre-trial detention to be able to post bail. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Defendants for non- violent crimes do not deserve to lose their jobs or be forced into poverty simply because they cannot afford to post bail. Mr. Speaker, I continue to stand ready to work toward real, impactful solutions to address violent crime. Instead debating this bill, Congress should be investing in community violence intervention, fully funding our Federal law enforcement, preventing the flow of weapons of war into our communities, and supporting our local law enforcement agencies.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an exemplary staff member of the House Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Walter Hearne, as he retires from Federal Government service this year. For twenty-five years, Walter has served the U.S. Congress with distinction. He began his career in 1999 as a Staff Assistant with the Senate Budget Committee where he developed an affinity for the federal budget process. In 2002, he transitioned to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House Committee on Appropriations, where he served for several years as professional staff on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government and the Subcommittee on Transportation and the Treasury. In 2004, Walter began working on funding our national security when he joined the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. For seven years, Walter worked to pass annual appropriations bills that improved the quality of life for service members and their families including improvements in medical care, housing, and child development centers. At the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Walter also worked to pass several supplemental appropriations bills in support of ongoing military operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. In 2011, Walter brought his national security and appropriations experience to the Subcommittee on Defense, where he would work for the next fourteen years. On the Subcommittee, Walter primarily served as the professional staff member in charge of the Air Force portfolio. He worked on programs of tremendous national security importance like the modernization of America's nuclear triad, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-46 tanker, and Intelligence Community programs. Ultimately, Walter would assist in shepherding fifteen appropriations bills through Congress while serving as staff on the Subcommittee on Defense. In the 117th Congress, I was honored to serve as the Chair of the Defense Subcommittee during a particularly tumultuous time in America's national security. This Congress included the COVID-19 pandemic, the end of the War in Afghanistan, and the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I was able to be successful as Chair during the 117th Congress because of the incredible Subcommittee staff serving with me, Walter chief among him. As Chair, I knew I could always count on Walter's utmost professionalism, deep wealth of knowledge, and his best counsel, which he has always provided to Clerks and Chairs of the Subcommittee from both parties. His work and was critical to helping me enact the Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year 2023 Defense Appropriation Acts, and I will always be grateful to him for his work. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in recognizing Walter Hearne's achievements over 25 years working in Congress and his record of incredible service to our Nation. I wish him all the best in the years to come.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a slate of Republican bills offered this week that will do more harm than good in defending the United States' interests from the Chinese Communist Party. Immediately upon their return from the August district work period, House Republicans have picked right back up with their prioritization of political talking points over responsible legislation. The Republican Majority is pushing forward a package of bills that revive failed programs, forgo due process, and undermine our academic institutions and domestic supply chains. Under the guise of deterring the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, the bills on the flow this week actually make it harder for us to protect national security interests and serve the interests of the American people. H.R. 8333, the BIOSECURE Act, lists specific biopharmaceutical companies that are subject to federal contracting bans with no clear indication of why those companies were chosen. The bill lacks any due process to add or remove a company as a ``biotechnology company of concern.'' This sets a dangerous precedent going forward for companies that find themselves listed in this bill--or any other similar legislation. H.R. 1516, To establish Department of Homeland Security funding restrictions on institutions of higher education that have a relationship with Confucius Institutes, and for other purposes, defines any connection to a Chinese public school or university as a relationship that is a threat to U.S. security. It would bar Universities with any of these connections from receiving any funds from the Department of Homeland Security, whether that funding is for securing college campuses against possible school shootings or receiving financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after an emergency. The Protect America's Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2024, H.R. 1398, is equally responsible. The Republican Majority would revive a defunct program at the Department of Justice that failed to address any of the actual threats posed by the Chinese Government and only succeeded in ruining the careers of academics and scientists of Chinese descent. Discriminatory impacts aside, the bill is plainly redundant, as the Department of Justice already prosecutes cases of economic espionage and trade secret theft. H.R. 1425, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act hampers the United States' ability to respond to emerging pandemics and undermines the Biden-Harris administration's foreign policy agenda. House Republicans have introduced this bill under the pretense that any international agreement negotiated by the World Health Organization (WHO) is an international treaty, however, this is patently untrue. This legislation would only create more barriers, red tape, and headaches for our country as we respond to developing health threats around the world. H.R. 7980, the End Chinese Dominance of Electric Vehicles in America Act, would threaten the viability of the EV tax credit for consumers created in the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169). Congress has already set requirements for collecting the full $7,500 tax credit that strengthen the long-term EV domestic supply chain while also lowering our reliance on China. This bill would add additional requirements that are frankly unachievable and would virtually eliminate access to the EV tax credits that have helped thousands of people afford to purchase new EVs, saving Minnesotans money on gas and making the air in our communities cleaner. Finally, the Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, H.R. 9456, undermines bipartisan-negotiated provisions from the Fiscal Year 2024. Consolidated Appropriations package that are helping to investigate national security threats from foreign investments into agricultural land, biotechnology, and other aspect of the agricultural industry. The Republican bill threatens to overwhelm the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and undermine its ability to investigate and stop real threats. We should not be undermining established law voted for by House Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Speaker, the interference of the Chinese Communist Party, Russia, and other foreign adversaries poses real threats to our economy, our national security, and our democratic institutions. We need serious, deliberative, nonpartisan solutions to deal with these threats. Instead, the Republican Majority has brought bills to the floor this week that are ineffective at best and outright harmful at worst. I oppose all of these bills and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this six-month Continuing Resolution and the accompanying SAVE Act. Most of us do not want a CR and it is deeply unfortunate that one is necessary. Once again, the Senate did not get its work done and failed to pass any Appropriations bills off the floor. The House Republican Majority wasted months writing bills loaded with extreme social policy that the American people do not want. And still, Republicans only passed half their bills--why? Because they were so unpopular with their own conference. Having failed to complete this work, Republicans now want to kick the can for six months. They will waste half the fiscal year, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. A CR this long would be irresponsible. The Department of Defense has also identified the consequences for our national security. A six-month CR would have negative impacts on our Military Personnel and their families. It would not include funds to cover the 4.5 percent pay raise for Service Members. It would not fund the nearly $3 billion increase required by law for the Basic Housing Allowance. And it would not include funds needed to cover medical costs for military families and stabilize the Military Healthcare System. The Services would not be able to offer new enlistment and reenlistment bonuses--harming recruitment efforts. New program starts can't happen under a CR. This harms innovation and delays getting weapons and equipment into the hands of our personnel quickly. Keeping major defense programs on time and on budget will be more difficult. A CR will delay multi-year procurement of platforms like: heavy lift helicopters and Virginia Class Submarines. It will pause investments in our space-based satellite architecture. It will prevent full funding for the Columbia Class Submarine, and delay procurement of the B-21 Raider. Finally, CR's damage the readiness of the Joint Force. Training exercises and operations that are needed to ensure we can win any fight--they won't happen. The Navy will suffer a delay of 58 ship maintenance availabilities, limiting work for our public and private shipyards. Air Force flying hours, weapon system sustainment, and ground combat readiness will suffer. We know this to be true--why? We just had a nearly six-month CR in Fiscal Year 2024 which impacted DoD's ability to budget appropriately. The last thing we should do is compound this problem. We also have the Fiscal Responsibility Act to consider. Because if all 12 appropriations bills are not enacted by the end of April, sequestration takes effect. What does that mean? Across the board spending cuts impacting everything from national security, to infrastructure, to healthcare and education. That is a gamble none of us should want to take. To make a bad deal even worse, the Speaker has tacked on a partisan voter-suppression tool known as the SAVE Act, in an attempt to appease his most extreme Members. If this bill became law, the vast majority of Americans would need more than one document to vote. We need to be removing barriers to the ballot box not adding more. The Senate will not pass this bill, and it will not become law. We should reject this legislation--pass a clean short-term CR--and roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 6-month continuing resolution. It is deeply unfortunate that any CR is necessary. Once again, the Senate did not get its work done and failed to pass any of the appropriations bills off the floor. The House Republican majority wasted months writing bills loaded with extreme social policy that the American people do not want. Republicans passed only half their bills. Why? Because they were so unpopular, their own Conference wouldn't vote for them. Having failed to complete their work, Republicans now want to kick the can down the road for 6 months, wasting half the fiscal year and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. A CR this long would be irresponsible, and the Department of Defense has identified the consequences for our national security. This CR would have negative impacts on our military personnel and their families. It would not include the funds to cover a 4.5 percent pay raise. It would not fund the nearly $3 billion increase required by law for the basic housing allowance. It would not include funds needed to cover medical costs for military families and stabilize the military healthcare system. These services would not be able to offer new enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. New program starts can't happen under a CR, harming innovation and delaying getting weapons and equipment to our personnel. Keeping major programs on time and on budget will be more difficult. A CR will delay multiyear procurement of platforms like heavy lift helicopters and the Virginia-class submarines. It will prevent fully funding the Columbia-class submarine and will delay procurement on the B-21 Raider. Finally, the CR damages the readiness of the joint force. Some training exercises and operations just won't happen. The Navy will suffer a delay of 58 ship maintenance availabilities, limiting the work for our public and private shipyards. Air Force flying hours, weapon system sustainment, and ground combat readiness will all suffer. We just had a nearly 6-month CR in fiscal year 2024, which impacted DOD's ability to budget appropriately. The last thing we should do is compound this problem. We also have the Fiscal Responsibility Act to consider. If all 12 appropriations bills are not enacted by the end of April, sequestration takes effect. What does that mean? It means across-the-board spending cuts impacting everything: our national security, infrastructure, healthcare, and education. I strongly believe we should reject this legislation, pass a short- term CR, roll up our sleeves, and get back to work.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Amherst H. Wilder Foundation in Saint Paul, Minnesota on its 100th anniversary of providing community mental health and wellness services. For 100 years, this nonprofit organization has provided vital and supportive mental health services to children and families in Saint Paul. Wilder's Child Guidance Clinic was founded in 1924 as one of the first of its kind in the Nation. It is an outpatient psychiatric clinic for children and their families and is nationally acclaimed for its treatment as well as its training center. Serving children who are experiencing emotional distress, it is one of the oldest continuously operated children's clinics in the country. Currently, Wilder provides outpatient mental health and wellness services for children, adults, and families, as well as addiction and recovery services for adults at Wilder Community Mental Health & Wellness Clinic--a Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) in Minnesota. As a CCBHC, Wilder increases access to community-based mental health and substance use disorder services, especially to underserved communities and serves individuals through in-person and telehealth appointments, regardless of ability to pay. Wilder's diverse team of mental health experts provides culturally appropriate mental health and wellness services that support people and their families. In addition, Wilder delivers mental health and wellness services in schools across Saint Paul and the Twin Cities. Mr. Speaker, please join me in paying tribute to the caring and dedicated mental health professionals, practitioners, and staff of Amherst H. Wilder Foundation--as well as the people they serve--as they celebrate 100 years of providing critical community mental health and wellness services.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the speech given in this chamber by Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. The speech given by the Prime Minister was outrageous. He disrespected his role as a foreign leader speaking before a joint session of Congress. He used the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to make blatantly political attacks on American citizens who disagree with his policies. He also made a full endorsement of former President Trump. One wonders if the Prime Minister's attacks were an attempt to salvage his own political survival in Israel by making it appear that he has the full support of the American people, which he does not. This was a disturbing day for many Americans and a tragic day for Israelis and Palestinians who are desperately looking for leadership-- not political grandstanding. What the American people want, and what Prime Minister Netanyahu failed to deliver, was a clear plan to end the violence and bring about a lasting two state solution in the region.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, my colleague from Minnesota has offered an amendment which doesn't make sense. I will explain why, Mr. Chairman. The amendment is directed at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is wilderness and how it is designated, what happens in the Superior National Forest, and the way this amendment is drafted. First, the amendment would prohibit the administration from designating the BWCA as a national monument. When the Antiquities Act was passed by Congress to give the President the ability to protect vulnerable lands that contain valuable scientific, cultural, and historic resources, the BWCA was already protected. Wilderness, Mr. Chair, is the most protected and restricted designation we have for public lands. The level of wilderness that it affords far exceeds what the national monument designation offer is. What I think the Member is attempting to do, and I might disagree with him but he has the right to do it, would be to leave out the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area and just talk about the Superior National Forest which is not part of that wilderness area, and then his amendment would make sense. I wouldn't support it, but his amendment would make sense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, the gentleman from Minnesota from the Eighth Congressional District and I might disagree on some of those things. I can't, in good conscience, support this amendment because it is not drafted in a way that would even do what the gentleman would like to do. It is just written wrong. The Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area is protected. It is wilderness. Any portion thereafter that is in the amendment would be parts that are not part of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area. So by having that in the amendment, the amendment is not drafted properly. For that and other reasons, I just close with this: I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. We look forward to, in the future, having this discussion maybe next year with an amendment which the gentleman and I could disagree on the principle and not the way it is drafted. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment, unfortunately, like the last one, is flawed. In fact, in my opinion, it is not even relevant. It prohibits the administration from using funds to expand the Boundary Waters wilderness. I want to be clear. The executive branch cannot expand wilderness, period. They can't. Only an act of Congress, only we can expand wilderness. Unless Republican House leadership is planning on bringing a bill to the floor to expand the BWCA wilderness boundaries or a bill allowing the administration to unilaterally designate public lands as wilderness area, this amendment makes no sense. Like the past amendment, this amendment is directed at the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area. Unfortunately, they betray a fundamental understanding of what wilderness is and how it is designated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the school public trust lands that are being purchased are not being purchased to be put into wilderness. They can't be. The Forest Service can purchase them, and the county can purchase them if they are up for sale. The State of Minnesota has a say in it. I served in the State house. However, the Biden-Harris administration cannot--cannot--even if purchased designate them as wilderness unless we, as the Congress, the House and Senate, vote affirmatively to do so and then send a bill to the President's desk. I understand the passion. It is clear that my colleague, the gentleman from the Eighth Congressional District, and I have different points of view on the BWCA and its protection of this pristine water up there, but these two amendments just bring the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area into a political fight that it doesn't belong in because the amendments are not drafted properly. Mr. Chair, I am probably ready to close, but I am going to reserve the balance of my time for now.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I understand what the gentleman is attempting to do, but the way this is drafted doesn't do it. I want my colleagues to think hard about amendments that fundamentally represent the laws that govern wilderness areas, including the Boundary Waters. I hear you loud and clear that you don't agree with decisions made by this current administration, but the decisions that you are talking about into the future are not part of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area. Mr. Chair, for that reason, I reject this amendment because it is technically flawed, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Pingree for the time, and I thank Chairman Simpson and the staff on both sides of the aisle for their work on the subcommittee, especially the work that they did on wildland fires and, when it comes to shared responsibilities to our Native-American brothers and sisters, for the great work done on the bill there. As of today, I still have to strongly oppose the bill because it does not meet the needs of the American people. This summer, our Nation has experienced dangerous levels of heat with records shattered across the West. We are seeing the impacts of a warming planet, increased severe weather events that cause devastating wildland fires, and extreme cycles of drought and floods, which I personally have witnessed in my district both on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. This bill ignores reality. It fails to confront climate change, and in doing so, it fails our communities and our constituents. The Republican majority has made unacceptable cuts in this bill to the arts and humanities, our national parks, public lands, and the Environmental Protection Agency in part because of the allocation. I do think the allocation was raised a little bit when we went to our full markup. The 20 percent cut to the EPA will increase the risk to all of our constituents who rely on the agency to safeguard their air, their water, to clean up harmful pollution, to test chemicals and consumer products, and respond to emergencies like last year's train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, or when the EPA had to come out with their emergency team to clean up a disaster waiting to happen at a closed facility in my district. The MPCA and the St. Paul Fire Department were happy to have them there. This also underscores harmful partisan riders in this bill. Most of these have nothing to do with the appropriations or even the jurisdiction of the committee. The Republican majority continues to use appropriations bills to advance discriminatory and harmful language and scores points with their extreme right political base, as we see in much of Project 2025. These riders promote the interests of corporate polluters. They target the rights of our fellow citizens, and they have no place in funding legislation. Two of these poison pills are attempts to overturn protections put in place for the watershed that flows through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. I submitted two amendments to strike these harmful provisions from this legislation, but the Republican majority in the Rules Committee did not make them in order, denying a vote on protecting the most pristine, priceless watershed in the United States and even in North America, I would say. My hope is that we can work together in conference to improve this bill. As of this moment, the deep cuts and the poison pill policy riders it currently contains makes my vote a ``no'' on this bill.