Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the unspeakable violence that the Government of Syria has committed--and continues to commit--against its own citizens. For the past eleven months, the Syrian people have engaged in peaceful demonstrations to demand their basic, universal human rights. These demonstrations have been met with unrelenting bloodshed and torture. Thousands of Syrian men, women, and children have been slaughtered. There can be no question: President Bashar al-Assad must step down, or be removed from power. Last week, the United States, the Arab League, and a growing international coalition together called for a United Nations Security Council resolution that would end the crisis and begin a transition to democracy in Syria. I am appalled that Russia and China have chosen to veto this measure, and stand with a brutal dictator rather than the Syrian people. This veto is an outrage, and serves only to endorse President Assad's ongoing massacre. On February 4th, the day of the U.N. Security Council vote, the Syrian military launched a devastating attack on the city of Homs that continues today. Hundreds of unarmed civilians have been killed. I strongly support President Obama's efforts to work with America's western and Arab allies to stop the bloodshed. Though China and Russia have chosen to stand with Assad, the world will not. Already, nations across the Middle East and throughout the world are expelling Syrian diplomats, tightening sanctions, and ratcheting up pressure on the Syrian government. The time has come for President Assad to step down, and for the Syrian people to determine their own future.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both H.R. 3582 and H.R. 3578. These misguided bills make it easier for Congress to pass budgets that give wealthy individuals unaffordable tax breaks while devastating America's communities with cuts to schools, hospitals and road and bridge repairs. H.R. 3582, the Pro Growth Budgeting Act, requires the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to use ``dynamic scoring'' as part of a macroeconomic impact analysis of tax provisions. This new method is based on the false premise that tax cuts pay for themselves, which would hide the true costs of passing even more tax cuts for America's wealthiest individuals. H.R. 3578, the Baseline Reform Act, mandates a fundamental change in how CBO forecasts future discretionary spending in its baseline, requiring CBO to unrealistically assume that spending in the future will stay the same and not keep pace with inflation. Over the long- term, this could result in a substantial decrease in vital government services that niillions of Americans rely on. Both of these bills present a distorted picture of the federal budget outlook. H.R. 3582 and H.R. 3578 will fail to create jobs, reduce the national deficit, or put the country on a fiscally sustainable path. By bringing these bills to the floor, the House Republican Majority is once again failing to focus on the most pressing need of our constituents: growing the economy and creating jobs. It is time to leave behind the failed Republican economic policies of the last decade. The Great Recession proved that deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when America is fighting two wars destroys jobs and produces enormous deficits. Republicans and Democrats need to come together around a new agenda that makes strategic investments in our country. We can start with President Obama's American Jobs Act, which would put more than 1 million Americans back to work, according to independent economists. By working together, we can build a stronger, more competitive economy for the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to oppose them.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. With that, I would urge colleagues to vote this bill down. February 8th, 2012, Remarks by Betty McCollum--Tax Expenditures and Budget Rescission Authority I respect the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Budget Committee; I oppose passage of this H.R. 3521. This bill grants the Executive Branch more power and will do little to reduce our deficit. Make no mistake; this bill sacrifices Congressional authority, because we have failed to do our jobs by taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction. If H.R. 3521 was a serious effort to reduce our deficit, it would address the hundreds of billions of dollars we currently spend through our tax code. In fiscal year 2010, tax expenditures constituted a bigger part of our budget than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or national defense. Tax expenditures were twice as large as all non-security discretionary spending combined. With the federal budget on an unsustainable path, our country's fiscal problems need to be addressed in a way that is both effective and equitable. Scaling back and reforming ``tax expenditures'' must be an important part of that effort. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles report explained that spending in the tax code cost over $1 trillion every year. They called these ``tax earmarks.'' Why? Because they are special tax breaks granted to special taxpayers. Tax expenditures are not periodically reviewed, unlike the budgets of individual federal government departments and agencies, which are set by Congress annually through the appropriations process. A report by the Joint Committee on Taxation says: ``Tax expenditures . . . may be considered to be analogous to direct outlay programs, and the two can be considered as alternative means of accomplishing similar budget policy objectives.'' Very few Members know what is hidden in our tax code, because it is not subject to annual scrutiny like the budget. The hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on these ``tax earmarks'' must be addressed if we are serious about putting our country on a sustainable fiscal path. And without the opportunity to include tax expenditures, which are a larger part of our budget than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or national defense, we will not get our fiscal house in order. Therefore, I will vote no on H.R. 3521.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the chairman. I respect the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the Budget Committee, but I oppose passage of H.R. 3521. This bill grants the executive branch more power, and it will do little to reduce our deficit. Make no mistake, this bill sacrifices congressional authority. If H.R. 3521 were a serious effort to reduce our deficit, it would address the hundreds of billions of dollars we currently spend through our Tax Code. In fiscal year 2010, tax expenditures constituted a bigger part of our budget than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and national defense. Tax expenditures were twice as large as all nondiscretionary spending combined. With the Federal budget on an unsustainable path, our country's fiscal problems need to be addressed in a way that is both effective and equitable. Scaling back and reforming tax expenditures must be an important part of the effort. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles report explained that the spending in the Tax Code costs over $1 trillion every year. They call these tax earmarks. Why? Because they are special tax breaks granted to special taxpayers. Tax expenditures are not periodically reviewed; and unlike the budgets of individual Federal Government Departments and agencies, which are set by Congress and annually reviewed through the appropriations process, special interest earmarks in law today contribute directly to deficit spending. A report by the Joint Committee on Taxation says tax expenditures ``may be considered to be analogous to direct outlay programs, and the two can be considered as alternative means of accomplishing similar budget policy objectives.'' Very few Members know what's hidden in our Tax Code because it's not subject to annual scrutiny like the budget. Special interest spending in our Tax Code does not deserve more protection in the budget process than public interest appropriations that support our local communities, our police and fire departments, and our schools.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3835, a bill that represents more of a political stunt by Republicans than an honest way to address the shared sacrifice needed across the Federal Government in these difficult fiscal times. Members were not allowed to consider a bill offered by Representative Chris Van Hollen, H.R. 3858, that would have prevented members of Congress from receiving an automatic pay raise in 2013. I would have voted in favor of that bill. With so many Americans still looking for work and struggling to pay their bills, it is only fair and right that members of Congress put their needs first. However, Republicans chose to tie our salary freeze with those of Federal employees. Previously, they had not been linked. I regret that House Republicans thought it was more important to score political points than showing the American people that Members of Congress on a bipartisan basis support the existing Congressional pay freeze. Such actions only serve to deepen the cynicism of Americans who have grown increasingly fed up with the polarization of Congress.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr Speaker, I rise today to honor the inspiring career of Mr. Doug Johnson, an international leader and voice for human rights, on the occasion of his retirement from the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT). When the Center for Victims of Torture opened in Saint Paul, Minnesota in 1985 it was the first center of its kind in the United States and only the third torture treatment center in the world. Doug Johnson became its Executive Director in 1988 and served in this role for the next 23 years. Today, because of Doug's extraordinary leadership and commitment to eradicating torture, CVT is helping thousands of torture survivors from over 60 countries at centers in Minneapolis, Saint Paul, the District of Columbia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Jordan, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thanks to Doug Johnson's vision, CVT has become a global leader in the treatment of torture. Doug and CVT have received numerous awards for their pioneering work, including the National Crime Victims Service Award, which is the highest civilian honor awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice. CVT is also a leading advocate for torture victims. Doug worked closely with former Minnesota Senator Dave Durenberger to pass the original Torture Victims Relief Act in 1998, which authorizes federal funding for torture survivor rehabilitation programs in the U.S. and abroad. The United States is the world's largest donor to torture survivor rehabilitation thanks to leaders like Doug Johnson. CVT's central and steadfast conviction that torture is a crime against humanity--a crime against all of us--is one that I share. It is a weapon of terror, intimidation and cruelty that seeks to dehumanize its victims and traumatize their communities. Torture victims face debilitating and unimaginable physical, social, emotional and spiritual scarring. Unfortunately, thousands of our brothers and sisters around the world have experienced this horror and are struggling each day to live with its aftermath. That is why the work of the Center for Victims of Torture is so incredibly important. While it is easy for many of us to point fingers at foreign governments when human rights are abused and torture is used to coerce, silence, or intimidate, it takes the courage of one's convictions to stand up to one's own government when abuses are exposed. During the past decade, Doug was a voice for America's best and highest ideals of due process and respect for human rights. When the American people learned of torture as a sanctioned interrogation technique by our own government in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, or other clandestine prisons, it was Doug Johnson who spoke out loudly and fearlessly. He rallied human rights leaders and policy makers to condemn these abuses and sought to expose them for what they were--torture. Doug influenced the debate in Congress and helped elevate torture as an issue of national significance. CVT is a Minnesota treasure and it has been my pleasure to work closely with Doug Johnson over the past eleven years. The legacy of Doug Johnson will live on in CVT's work providing hope for survivors of torture around the world and bring us ever closer to a world free from torture.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Gary Eichten, a Minnesota broadcasting legend, as he prepares to retire after a distinguished 45-year career at Minnesota Public Radio, MPR, News. It is increasingly rare today that one spends his entire career with one employer, but it is even rarer that one can say he helped to put his employer on the map. Eichten can make that claim, beginning his career in 1967 at Minnesota Public Radio as a student announcer at Collegeville's KSJR, MPR's first station. Today, MPR is one of the nation's premier public radio systems with a reputation for integrity and thoughtful civic engagement. Gary Eichten personifies this tradition. As host of the MPR News ``Midday'' program, Eichten has been a familiar and down-to-earth voice on its airwaves, providing a forum for civil discourse that truly informs and educates the public. Throughout his career, he has retained his trademark Midwestern sensibility. His colleagues sum it up best, describing him as an ``everyman in the newsroom.'' A recent article in the Star Tribune describes Eichten as a ``kid from Mankato,'' Minnesota, who ``traded stories and barbs with state legislators, sitting governors and presidential hopefuls. An evasive answer might be met with Eichten's lovable grumble: `Aw, c'mon, Senator.' '' Eichten's success as a broadcaster has earned him many well-deserved awards, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Award for Best Local News Program. He also assisted in the development of two Peabody award-winning documentaries. In 2007, Eichten was inducted into the Pavek Museum of Broadcasting's Hall of Fame. Most recently, Eichten was awarded with the prestigious 2011 Graven Award by the Premack Public Affairs Journalism Awards Board for his contribution to excellence in the journalism profession. For many years, Eichten and MPR Midday have been part of my midday ritual. As an MPR listener, I have appreciated his timely and insightful interviews. As an elected official, I have respected his tough, but fair questions--always delivered civilly. It has been an honor to be a guest on his show. The excellent journalism practiced by Eichten and MPR is even more important today, because it has become a rarity in today's media landscape. A testament to his notable career is the ``Heckuva Farewell'' planned for Eichten on January 19 in St. Paul. The evening will begin with what Eichten does best, an interview, with a guest who happens to be a former Vice President--Walter Mondale. Following this interview, Eichten will have the microphone turned on himself as he is subject to an interview about his incredible career at MPR. I know Minnesotans are looking forward to this night. As he retires after 45 years on Minnesota Public Radio, Eichten's voice will be missed, but his legacy of broadcasting excellence will continue. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Gary Eichten, a Minnesota icon.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 1540; the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill includes dangerous provisions that put fundamental American values at risk. Section 1021 of this Conference Report authorizes the President of the United States to detain indefinitely--without charge, without trial, and without due process--any individual suspected of terrorism. The section is written so broadly it raises legal questions about whether indefinite detention may be applicable to American citizens detained on American soil. Specifically, this provision empowers the President to detain anyone who ``substantially supported'' forces ``associated'' with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that are ``engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.'' It is troubling and problematic that the legislation fails to define any of these terms. In an editorial today titled ``Politics Over Principle'' the New York Times argued against the legislation saying it could grant presidents ``the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.'' Senator Lindsey Graham, a sponsor of the Senate's defense authorization bill, stated clearly the far-reaching intent of this section. He said the indefinite detention provision: ``does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.'' Proponents of these indefinite detention powers argue the language merely codifies policies instituted by the George W. Bush Administration and continued under the current administration. This argument ignores the fact these policies are quite possibly unconstitutional. Congress should be investigating and reforming existing policies, not codifying them as permanent American law. Congress has a sacred duty to defend the liberties that generations of Americans fought to establish and preserve. This conference report sacrifices the most fundamental of those liberties while gaining little, if any, additional security. If the provisions of Section 1021 are enacted, it would be the first time Congress has enshrined indefinite detention into law since the McCarthy Era. In addition, the Conference Report before us today is a disappointing statement about fiscal responsibility. When the Defense Authorization bill passed the House in May, it included my amendment to cap funding for military bands at $200 million. This amendment would have saved taxpayers $125 million. Unfortunately, the Senate stripped this relatively modest but sensible cut from the bill. By protecting a bloated budget for the military's bands, it would appear that the Senate is elevating pomp and circumstance to a national security priority at the expense of fiscal responsibility. If Congress does not have the gumption to limit spending on military bands to $200 million in a time of financial crisis, how will we be able to cut the $600 billion from the defense budget required by the upcoming budget sequestration? Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this national defense authorization. Congress should pass a bill that supports our troops and their families, responds to emerging threats to our national security. However, I cannot support legislation that erodes basic American freedoms. I request unanimous consent to insert a copy of the aforementioned New York Times editorial into the Record with my remarks. [From The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2011] Politics Over Principle The trauma of Sept. 11, 2001, gave rise to a dangerous myth that, to be safe, America had to give up basic rights and restructure its legal system. The United States was now in a perpetual state of war, the argument went, and the criminal approach to fighting terrorism--and the due process that goes along with it--wasn't tough enough. President George W. Bush used this insidious formula to claim that his office had the inherent power to detain anyone he chose, for as long as he chose, without a trial; to authorize the torture of prisoners; and to spy on Americans without a warrant. President Obama came into office pledging his dedication to the rule of law and to reversing the Bush- era policies. He has fallen far short. Mr. Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the abuses of power under his predecessor, and he has been far too willing to adopt Mr. Bush's extravagant claims of national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for those abuses. This week, he is poised to sign into law terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law. The measures, contained in the annual military budget bill, will strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military, which has made clear that it doesn't want the job. The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial. The bill, championed by Republicans in the House and Senate, was attached to the military budget bill to make it harder for Mr. Obama to veto it. Nearly every top American official with knowledge and experience spoke out against the provisions, including the attorney general, the defense secretary, the chief of the F.B.I., the secretary of state, and the leaders of intelligence agencies. And, for weeks, the White House vowed that Mr. Obama would veto the military budget if the provisions were left in. On Wednesday, the White House reversed field, declaring that the bill had been improved enough for the president to sign it now that it had passed the Senate. This is a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency. To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen. And the modifications are nowhere near enough. Mr. Obama, his spokesman said, is prepared to sign this law because it allows the executive to grant a waiver for a particular prisoner to be brought to trial in a civilian court. But the legislation's ban on spending any money for civilian trials for any accused terrorist would make that waiver largely meaningless. The bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can't go into them all. Among the worst: It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court. It will make it impossible to shut the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And it includes an unneeded expansion of the authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan to include indefinite detention of anyone suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda or an amorphous group of ``associated forces'' that could cover just about anyone arrested anywhere in the world. There is no doubt. This bill will make it harder to fight terrorism and do more harm to the country's international reputation. The White House said that if implementing it jeopardizes the rule of law, it expects Congress to work ``quickly and tirelessly'' to undo the damage. The White House will have to make that happen. After it abdicated its responsibility this week, we're not convinced it will.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so- called Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (H.R. 3630). The title of this bill is misleading at best. H.R. 3630 does not create jobs or relieve the struggles of the middle class. Instead, it drastically reduces federal benefits for the unemployed and slashes health care funding by over $17 billion. Moreover, it contains highly partisan and controversial policy riders that would have no chance of becoming law if considered under regular order. Let me be clear. Congress must extend the payroll tax cut and offset the extension responsibly. Federal unemployment benefits, in their current form, must be extended before the end of the year. We must prevent a 27.4 percent cut to Medicare physician payments that jeopardize seniors' access to necessary health services. Action is urgently needed to address these issues. However, the House Republican proposal before us today unjustly places the burden of paying for these fixes on those in our society who can least afford it: the unemployed, low-income families, and seniors. In this bill, House Republicans cut the weeks of unemployment insurance by more than half: from 99 to 59 weeks. Over 43,000 out-of- work Minnesotans will lose unemployment insurance as a result of this change. This is economically counter-productive and morally wrong. This provision will do real harm to Minnesota families and undermine our fragile economic recovery. The result of this cut would be more foreclosures, more repossessions, more homelessness and more anguish for struggling mothers, fathers and children. Remarkably, my Republican colleagues are heaping insult on this injury by inserting a provision to allow drug testing of applicants for unemployment insurance. Notably, this provision does not apply to the millions of Americans who receive federal funding through other programs and tax benefits. With this ridiculous provision, Republicans are telling millions of unemployed Americans they are untrustworthy and irresponsible. Republicans are choosing to waste taxpayer funds on a big-government drug testing program instead of providing much-needed support to families struggling with unemployment. I could not disagree more with the shameful priorities expressed through the inclusion of this provision. H.R. 3630 also cuts more than $17 billion in federal funding from hospitals and health providers. This cut will reduce reimbursements for outpatient services, cut payments for unpaid health care debts, shrink the prevention and public health fund, and impose an increase in Medicare Part B premiums for certain beneficiaries. These cuts threaten to restrict access of low-income Minnesotans and seniors to needed health care services. The House Republican majority had other options for offsetting the costs of H.R. 3630. Among those options was a small and temporary increase on the amount of taxes paid by those Americans least affected by the Great Recession. House Democrats will attempt to improve H.R. 3630 today during floor debate by replacing cuts to health care and unemployment insurance with a 3.6 percent surcharge on incomes over $1 million a year. At a time when income inequality in America is at an all-time high, this is a necessary step to restore economic fairness and opportunity. I will support this motion when it comes to a vote this afternoon. This Democratic motion is also important because it includes language requiring Members of Congress to publicly disclose their personal trading activity in the stock market. Increasing transparency to prevent Members of Congress from inappropriately profiting from insider knowledge is a common-sense reform that should be immediately enacted. If these improvements to H. R. 3630 are not included, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the legislation. This bill is likely to be a missed opportunity for true compromise. It does important things, such as extending the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans and preventing a 27.4 percent cut to Minnesota physician reimbursements with a two-year fix. In addition, it extends the physician work geographic adjustment, which ensures Minnesota providers are not additionally penalized by the Medicare payment system. Yet, the decision to pay for these measures with cuts to seniors, low-income families and unemployed Americans was entirely avoidable and thus, completely unacceptable.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, President Obama deserves tremendous credit for ending America's war in Iraq, honoring his commitment to bring all U.S. troops home by the end of 2011. As commander-in-chief he has always set the appropriate course of action in Iraq while always honoring the service and sacrifice of our troops and our military families. The Iraq War has been a tragedy for far too many American and Iraqi families. The human costs of this war--in deaths, suffering, and permanent loss--cannot be calculated. U.S. troops served and fought with a profound sense of duty to our country. For this, all Americans should be grateful. The family members and loved ones of our brave troops also endured tremendous sacrifices that can never be repaid. Those selfless Americans who sacrificed their lives and bodies in service to our country, must always be remember them and Congress must always fulfill the promises it has made to our veterans and their families. At home we cannot ignore the war's other costs. The Iraq War directly added $800 billion to the nation's debt--a bill that will be paid by our children and grandchildren. Meeting the long-term health care needs of Iraq war veterans will require hundreds of billions more for decades to come and that's an obligation Congress must never balk at paying. Over the past nine years, my opposition to this war has been well known. Iraq was a war of political choice, not strategic necessity. While Iraq is no longer ruled by a dictator, the human price the Iraqi people paid in death, destruction, violence, and misery casts a very dark shadow over their country's future. In the final analysis, America's war in Iraq was a strategic and human tragedy that must never be repeated. Now, as armchair generals in their disgraced neo-conservative pinstripes plot a new misadventure, this time with Iran, the American people must not be deceived, not be driven by fear, and not yield to another expensive and painful war of choice. Mr. Speaker, I request the attached New York Times editorial regarding the end of America's war in Iraq entitled ``A Formal End'' be included. [From the New York Times, Dec. 15, 2011] A Formal End It is a relief that the American role in the misguided Iraq war is finally over. It came to an official close on Thursday with an appropriately subdued ceremony in Baghdad. We mourn the nearly 4,500 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives. After so much pain and sacrifice, Iraqis now have the responsibility for making their own better future. The fighting is not over, and success is still a long shot. The United States has a major role to play: encouraging, supporting and goading Iraq's leaders to make the long- delayed political compromises that are their only hope for building a stable democracy. The fact that Saddam Hussein is gone is a genuine cause for celebration. But the list of errors and horrors in this war is inexcusably long, starting with a rush to invasion based on manipulated intelligence. The Bush administration had no plan for governing the country once Saddam was deposed. The Iraqi economy still bears the scars from the first frenzied days of looting. The decision to disband the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army helped unleash five years of sectarian strife that has not fully abated. Iraq's political system remains deeply riven by ethnic and religious differences. America's reputation has yet to fully recover from the horrors of Abu Ghraib. The country is still paying a huge price for President George W. Bush's decision to shortchange the war in Afghanistan. American policy makers, for generations to come, must study these mistakes carefully and ensure that they are not repeated. As for Iraq today, the authoritarian tendencies of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki are deeply troubling. A member of the Shiite majority that was badly persecuted under Saddam, he has been far more interested in payback than inclusion. Washington has pushed him over the years--but, often, not hard enough. The Baghdad government promised jobs to 100,000 members of the Sunni Awakening movement--insurgents whose decision to switch sides helped end the civil war--but only half that have been hired. Parliament still needs to enact a law, called for in the Constitution, that would provide a legal basis for determining who should be prosecuted for supporting Saddam's Baath Party or other extremist ideologies. Iraq's leaders have many more issues to resolve. Incredibly, they have still not decided how to divide the country's oil wealth. There is no agreement on who will control the oil- rich city of Kirkuk, which is claimed by both Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdish regional government. Iraq's oil production still has not rebounded, and basic services like electricity are still woefully inadequate. Iraq needs an impartial justice system. Washington has pressed Baghdad for years to end corruption and build a representative government. It will need to keep pressing. After investing billions of dollars, the United States has had more success rebuilding Iraq's security forces. But Iraqi and American commanders say these forces are not ready to fully protect the country against insurgents or potentially hostile neighbors. There are critical weaknesses in intelligence, air defenses, artillery and logistics. The Obama administration was unable to reach a new defense agreement with Baghdad that would have allowed several thousand American troops to stay behind as backup. We hope that the Iraqi Army will do better than expected. The administration must be prepared to offer limited help if the army does get into serious trouble. President Obama, who first ran for office campaigning against the war, has never wavered on his promise to bring the troops home. The last few thousand will be out of Iraq by year's end. We celebrate their return. But this country must never forget the intolerable costs of a war started on arrogance and lies.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the students, alumni, parents, faculty and staff of Hill-Murray School in Maplewood, Minnesota on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary. This educational institution has a distinguished record on academics, community involvement and athletic success. Archbishop Murray Memorial high school was founded in 1958 by the Benedictine Sisters as a school for young women. In 1959, just a few blocks down the street, the Christian Brothers founded the Hill High School as a school for boys. Classes officially began in both schools in 1951, and in 1971 the schools merged and the Hill-Murray School was born. During the past 50 years, Hill-Murray has strived for excellence in all areas. Its mission statement declares the school ``is committed to developing creative and responsible leaders for tomorrow's world who will provide effective moral leadership in their local and global communities''. This charge is reflected in both the school's design and its results: from its students, 92% of whom enroll in post-high school educational institutions; to its classrooms, where the student-teacher ratio is 14:1; and to its teachers 79% of whom hold advanced degrees and 80% of whom have more than 5 years of experience. Following the school's mission to prepare students not only for college but for the broader journey of life, Hill-Murray students in grades nine through twelve complete two service requirements per year helping the economically disadvantaged, the physically or mentally impaired, and the elderly. With its emphasis on developing the entire person, 90% of the student body participates in extracurricular activities. The Hill-Murray athletics department has one of the finest histories in the State of Minnesota. In the past 5 years, Hill-Murray teams and individual athletes advanced to the Minnesota State Tournament in boys and girls basketball, boys and girls track, boys and girls golf, girls tennis, competitive cheerleading, and danceline. The boys Hockey team is regarded as one of the best in the state, and earned its 3rd State Championship in 2008. Additionally Hill-Murray has produced 6 National Hockey League players, 3 World Hockey Association players, over 70 Division I NCAA players; 2 Major League Baseball players, and 3 Olympians including a member of the gold-medal winning 1980 U.S. Hockey team responsible for the `Miracle on Ice.' Mr. Speaker, in honor of all members of the Hill-Murray family, I am pleased to submit this statement for the Congressional Record recognizing the many contributions this school has made to the State of Minnesota and the United States of America during the past 50 years.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the REINS Act (H.R. 10). This reckless legislation would put American families at risk while doing nothing to create jobs. If enacted, H.R. 10 would delay and possibly block agency rulemaking in critical areas of public health and safety. This legislation would require that any ``major'' new rule be approved by Congress and the President within 70 legislative days. If Congress fails to act by the deadline, the proposed rule could not be reviewed again until the next Congress. My Republican colleagues do not deny this cumbersome process would prevent many new rules from taking effect. They argue preventing new rules is necessary to stimulate hiring and strengthen the economy. The House Republican majority has used similar justifications to undermine existing regulations that create a level-playing field for business and protect the health and safety of American families. Earlier this month, Republicans passed the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527) and Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010). These bills add new layers of bureaucracy intended to hamper enforcement of important environmental, labor, financial and food safety laws. Evidence does not support Republican claims that federal regulation is to blame for persistently-high unemployment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), only 0.3 percent of Americans laid off in 2010 lost their jobs due to ``government regulations.'' In 2011, the BLS found even fewer layoffs attributable to regulations--0.18 percent. A McClatchy News survey of small businesses in August 2011 did not identify a single business owner who complained about regulation in their industry. In fact, McClatchy reported that ``most seemed to welcome it and some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.'' Bruce Bartlett, a former advisor to Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said congressional Republicans' anti- regulatory fervor has nothing to do with jobs. Bartlett recently wrote: ``Regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.'' Economists from across the political spectrum agree the real impediment to hiring is weak demand in the economy. Increasing demand is the focus of President Obama's proposed American Jobs Act, which independent economists say would create over 1 million jobs. Despite the jobs crisis facing over 14 million Americans, House Republican leaders refuse to bring the American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote. H.R. 10 and other anti-regulatory bills will not only fail to create jobs, they expose American families and small businesses to new and unnecessary risks. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill, arguing it would ``delay and in many cases thwart'' implementation of important rules and increase unnecessary confusion and uncertainty in the economy. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards warns that H.R. 10 ``would make it virtually impossible for federal agencies to ensure that American families are protected from tainted food, unsafe drugs, predatory financial schemes, dirty air and water, and dangerous workplaces.'' Abandoning Americans to an unregulated marketplace is not a solution for economic growth--it is a sure threat to public safety. In recent years, many Americans have died as a result of E.coli and salmonella outbreaks in our food supply. A failure to enforce federal workplace safety standards resulted in the tragic deaths of 29 miners in West Virginia. Under-regulation allowed irresponsible bankers and mortgage lenders to destroy the education and retirement savings of millions of Americans. America is, in fact, facing a regulatory crisis. Not the crisis of ``over-regulation'' my Republican colleagues claim, but a series of crises resulting from a failure to enforce and enact common- sense rules. Sensible regulation is necessary for an efficient, fair and innovative private market. But we should not be surprised that industry will not always support--and rarely ask--to be regulated. History shows that industry groups initially opposed new requirements for seat belts and air bags, limitations on mercury pollution and even restrictions against child labor. In the short-term, narrow private interests often conflict with the broader public interest. Over time, well-designed and consistently-enforced rules often prove to be less costly and more beneficial than originally expected. Democrats and Republicans should be working together to improve the federal regulatory structure. Our shared focus in Congress should be on reforming regulations to increase results and reduce costs. Partisan attempts to weaken common sense rules and protections will not make our economy--or our country--stronger. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 10 because it undermines public safety and distracts Congress from the urgent task of creating jobs.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act. Regrettably, the House Republican majority is choosing to waste precious floor time debating this political statement instead of allowing a vote on President Obama's American Jobs Act. Contrary to the claims of my Republican colleagues, H.R. 1633 has nothing to do with job creation or economic growth. This legislation addresses a nonexistent issue since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated repeatedly it has no intention of regulating ``farm dust.'' However, it cannot be said that H.R. 1633 would have no effect. This legislation creates new loopholes that allow open-pit mines, gravel mines, smelters and coal-processing facilities to escape public-health protections under the Clean Air Act. Enactment of this legislation would result in more pollution leading to more premature deaths, asthma attacks, respiratory disease and heart attacks. House Republicans say they are standing up for family farmers when in fact they are aiding corporate polluters. While the Minnesota family farmers I have heard from have serious challenges, they assure me that farm dust is far down on their list of priorities. Their real concerns relate to rising costs for seed, fertilizer, land, rent and machinery. They worry about protecting their land for the next generation in the face of federal cuts to conservation programs. They struggle with consolidation in the agricultural sector and the ability of the biggest farms to expand at the expense of smaller ones. Political debates in Washington about farm dust are not a factor in their lives. H.R. 1633 is just another veiled Republican assault on our nation's landmark clean air laws. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return our attention to the real problems that are impacting job growth in our economy.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3220, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City, MN as the Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post Office. A Minnesota native and sixteen year veteran of the Marine Corps, Master Sergeant Fedder was serving his fourth tour overseas and his first in Afghanistan when he was mortally wounded by an Improvised Explosive Device on August 27, 2010. During his tour in Afghanistan, he demonstrated incredible courage in disposing of more than 25 improvised explosive devices. His actions saved the lives of countless fellow service members and Afghan civilians. At only 34 years of age, Master Sgt. Fedder had dedicated nearly half of his life to military service, during which time he was cited for his professionalism and strong leadership. His life serves as a towering example of the courage, valor and dedication of our servicemen and women. H.R. 3220 is an important step to honor the memory of Master Sgt. Fedder's sacrifice.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the temporary payroll tax cut is putting money into the economy and the pockets of 160 million Americans. And now my Republican colleagues are demanding harmful cuts to working families and seniors to offset these middle class tax cuts. A better idea is to cut from the $1 trillion in special interest tax earmarks identified by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Let's cut the $2 million earmark for wooden arrow manufacturers. Let's cut the $40 million earmark for the owners of NASCAR racetracks. And let's cut $235 million in earmarks for rum producers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The earmarks are unfair and unaffordable. To the 99 percent of Americans who don't have a lobbyist, sorry, you missed out on the special interest bonanza. Congress needs to protect working families. Let's pass President Obama's middle class payroll tax cut and help our families and our economy now.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2012 (H.R. 2112). This legislation combines three fiscal year 2012 appropriations measures: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. H.R. 2112 also includes a short-term continuing resolution that will fund the remainder of the federal government through December 16. H.R. 2112 represents the final House-Senate conference agreement on three of this year's twelve appropriations bills. While I strongly oppose many of the cuts to critical priorities included in H.R. 2112, the final package is--on the whole--far better than the proposals from Tea Party Republicans in the House. Fiscal year 2012 appropriations for the Agriculture, Rural Development and Food and Drug Administration are significantly improved from the House-passed bill. The Women, Infants and Children program receives $6.6 billion, an increase of $570 million over the House bill and $36 million above the Senate. As a result, 700,000 low-income children and pregnant women in America will not lose the basic nutrition they desperately need and deserve. The conference agreement provides $1 billion for food safety inspections, which will protect America's food supply by preventing the elimination of USDA meat inspectors. Food safety in our country is further strengthened by the $2.5 billion included for the Food and Drug Administration. This $334 million increase over the House level will allow the FDA to continue implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act. Funding was also restored for international food aid programs that fulfill America's moral obligation to assist millions of men, women and children around the world who are struggling with famine. However, I am deeply disappointed that a handful of special interest groups succeeded in blocking important improvements to school nutrition standards that were recommended by the USDA. As a result, it will be harder for school districts to increase the use of whole grains, reduce the sodium content of school lunches and end the ridiculous practice of categorizing pizza as a vegetable. Every student in every American school knows pizza is not a vegetable. With this bill, Congress is failing our students and parents by allowing corporate interests to trump common sense. With this bill, weare missing an opportunity to substantially improve the health of America's children. This is a wrong that must be made right. My Republican colleagues also won a victory for Wall Street criminals by demanding cuts to the entity responsible for enforcing financial laws. H.R. 2112 includes $100 million less for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) than requested by President Obama to carry out the financial reforms passed by Congress. Reckless behavior in America's financial sector has destroyed millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in education and retirement savings. It is unconscionable that House Republicans would undermine the ability of federal regulators to protect American families from a repeat of the 2008 crisis that nearly triggered a second Great Depression. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans refused to yield. The result is a bill that leaves our country exposed to a repeat of this crisis. Fiscal year 2012 Appropriations for Commerce-Science-Justice will enhance U.S. global competitiveness by making critical investments in science and technology. Overall, H.R. 2112 includes $490 million more for these priorities than the bill proposed by the House Republicans. As a result, the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration receive funding to conduct research that spurs innovation and drives future economic growth. In addition, the legislation provides $128 million for the Manufacturing Extension and Partnership Program, which helps American companies maintain good paying American jobs and compete with manufacturers in China, India, and other leading economies. And H.R. 2112 reverses the House Republican's massive cuts to firefighters, state and local law enforcement agencies, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For example, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill passed by House Republicans eliminated funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program that helps Minnesota keep police officers on our streets. This bill provides $198.5 million for COPS. Fiscal year 2012 appropriations for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development fall short of what is needed to strengthen America's economy and stabilize our communities. Yet, the conference agreement does succeed in maintaining current levels of investment in most areas. For example, H.R. 2112 includes $39.8 billion for the federal-aid highway program, $12.1 billion more than the House draft bill and a level consistent with the annual funding assumed in the surface transportation extension act. The agreement also includes $10.5 billion for transit programs, $2.5 billion more than the House draft bill. This translates into $93.1 million for construction of the Central Corridor Light Rail line. While replacing the massive cuts to transit proposed by House Republicans is an achievement, the final agreement falls $5 million short of the federal commitment to the Central Corridor project. This shortfall is a major concern and something that must be addressed in the upcoming fiscal year 2013 process. Another concern is the complete elimination of funding for highspeed rail. Ideological opposition to rail investments from House Republicans will slow work on the planned Chicago-to-Twin Cities high-speed-rail route that will depart from St. Paul's Union Depot. However, the conference agreement did include $1.4 billion for Amtrak capital and operating grants and removed onerous House language that would have eliminated Amtrak service on 26 short-distance routes, affecting 15 states and more than 9 million passengers. Regarding federal housing programs, House Republicans proposed devastating cuts that would have done serious harm to low-income families in Minnesota. Fortunately, this conference agreement rejected the most damaging Republican cuts. Section 8 tenant-based vouchers receive $18.9 billion, above the original level included in either the House or Senate bills. H.R. 2112 also maintains funding for homeless veterans, the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance grant program and housing counseling services. Still, the legislation fails to meet the growing needs for safe, affordable shelter in our communities. For example, cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program will undermine the efforts of Minnesota cities to respond to the effects of high unemployment and the collapse in the real estate market. H.R. 2112 is the result of extended negotiations and represents a genuine compromise between competing priorities. I believe that many of the provisions in this legislation should be revisited and many of funding levels should be restored in the next appropriations cycle. Still, I plan to support this legislation today with my vote to ensure the critical resources in H.R. 2112 reach Minnesota communities without further delay.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act'' (H.R. 3094). The changes to union election procedures promoted in this bill are the exact opposite of the kind of fair and democratic policies that our working families need. Instead of focusing on job creation and the revitalization of our middle class, the Republicans in this chamber are once again promoting legislation that undermines the rights of American workers. This proposed legislation would limit the ability of the National Labor Relations Board to interpret our nation's labor laws and to protect worker's right to unionize. For over 75 years, the National Labor Relations Act has guaranteed the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively, or to refrain from such activity if they choose. During the New Deal, our predecessors in this body created the National Labor Relations Board as an independent agency charged with the oversight and enforcement of these rights. H.R. 3094, which overturns the rulings of the NLRB, undermines its charge to maintain fair and democratic relationships between unions and employers. This legislation allows the problem of prolonged delays in union elections to continue unchecked by adding mandatory and arbitrary waiting periods. It seizes from workers the right to determine their own representative membership groups, which would allow unscrupulous businesses to suppress election drives and vote down union representation. It would also make it possible for irresponsible and frivolous litigation to endlessly delay the election process, effectively barring workers from their fundamental right to collective bargaining representation in the workplace. Supporting and protecting America's workers is an essential part of rebuilding our economy and ensuring that all families and communities share in our nation's prosperity. Our middle class was built on the rights and safeguards that labor unions fought to obtain. From the 40 hour workweek to ending child labor, union representation has helped to guarantee rights that many of us take for granted today. Unions negotiate for safe working conditions, living wages, and basic benefits that impact all workers. Efforts to decrease the power of collective bargaining in this country in recent decades have been accompanied by an erosion of workers' benefits and greater income inequality. This year in Wisconsin and Ohio, we have seen voters reject recent attempts to strip away the rights of government workers, and we should likewise reject this attempt to limit access to these rights for those in the private workforce. This bill does nothing to protect and support working families, and I urge my colleagues to stand up for workers rights and oppose this bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, legislation that would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, national security and the well-being of millions of Minnesota families and businesses. A constitutional amendment that requires Congress to balance the federal budget every year--regardless of economic conditions--would severely damage the U.S. economy. Such a requirement would force Congress to cut spending, raise taxes or both, even when the economy is in recession. That is the exact opposite of what economists recommend in order to escape recession and stabilize a weak economy. According to new analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers--one of the nation's preeminent private economic forecasting firms--a balanced budget amendment would destroy millions of American jobs. Had a balanced budget amendment been in effect today, their analysis concluded that ``the effect on the economy would be catastrophic.'' Assuming the Republicans used spending cuts instead of tax increases to balance the budget this year, the cuts would have totaled approximately $1.5 trillion. Macroeconomic Advisors determined cuts of this magnitude would throw 15 million more Americans out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent. What House Republicans are not telling the American people is that Congress has the opportunity to propose and pass a balanced budget each year. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan could have proposed a balanced budget this year--fiscal year 2012--but he did not. The budget proposed by House Republicans delivers another tax cut windfall for America's wealthiest individuals by making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent. To make matters worse, their budget preserves expensive tax breaks to oil companies and corporations shipping jobs overseas. Instead of proposing a fiscal year 2012 budget that puts us on a more sustainable fiscal path, House Republicans chose to continue the same reckless tax policies that have added trillions to our national debt. In times of recession and weak economic growth, Congress needs the ability to assist struggling families with unemployment insurance and to promote economic recovery by sustaining demand through investments in areas such as transportation infrastructure. In a strong U.S. economy, Congress has the responsibility to reduce expenditures and balance the budget as was done in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 under President Clinton. Instead of spending two days debating this purely political measure, the House should be focused on debating and passing legislation to create American jobs--including President Obama's American Jobs Act. I urge my colleagues to join me--and 270 national organizations including AARP, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Easter Seals, AFL-CIO, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare--in strongly opposing H.J. Res. 2.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was meeting with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior. Due to time constraints, I was unable to make it to the House floor to vote for Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 822 offered by Rep. McCarthy of New York. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 822 because it threatens to undermine our states' ability to enforce their own gun laws and endangers the safety of our citizens, especially those that serve in law enforcement. If this legislation passes, it would mean that the Republican- controlled Congress will automatically give anyone the right to carry a concealed, loaded weapon into Minnesota's neighborhoods. This reckless bill is opposed by mayors, governors, domestic violence prevention advocates, and major law enforcement organizations, including the Minnesota Chief of Police Association. As members of our law enforcement community will attest, the best way to prevent gun violence is to keep guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals. Gun traffickers routinely take advantage of gun show loopholes and negligent background checks to divert guns from the legal market into the criminal market. This legislation makes it even more difficult to trace illegal guns and keep them out of the hands of those that could inflict harm on our Minnesota law enforcement officers, families, and friends. H.R. 822 takes away Minnesota's right to police its own communities and enforce its own stringent gun laws. As with every state and municipality across the country, Minnesota has developed its laws to adequately meet the needs of its residents. This legislation unfairly forces states with strict gun laws to recognize conceal-and-carry permits issued by any other state, even if those states' permit requirements are lax in comparison. This is unjust and ultimately dangerous, especially for communities faced with high crime rates. The sobering statistics from the U.S. Census report speak volumes: of the 129,741 murders that were reported between 2000 and 2008, nearly two-thirds of the victims were killed by a firearm. Equally frightening is the deadly role firearms play in domestic violence incidents. According to the American Journal of Public Health, abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm. Research also shows that between 1990 and 2005, firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims. These numbers are tragic. Instead of empowering our local law enforcement officers to prevent such heinous acts, H.R. 822 ties their hands by making it harder to determine whether someone carrying a gun is doing so illegally. I oppose this legislation in order to preserve the safety of our communities and prevent the gun violence that has claimed hundreds of innocent lives.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. This bill represents yet another attempt by Republicans to put the interests of polluters ahead of public health and the well-being of our communities. Despite the catastrophe of the Tennessee Valley coal ash spill in 2008, Republicans refuse to allow any meaningful oversight of coal companies. The Tennessee Valley disaster released more than one billion gallons of toxic sludge, flooding hundreds of acres of land and destroying numerous homes and farms. EPA needs the authority to require coal companies to have preventative measures that ensure we do not bury entire communities under toxic sludge. H.R. 2273 would prevent EPA from coming up with even minimal nationwide standards for toxic coal ash. Minnesota has historically been highly dependent on coal. Thanks to one of the most stringent renewable energy standards in the country that requires 25% of our energy comes from renewable resources by 2025, we are beginning to transition to a clean energy economy. But we are still dealing with the legacy of coal ash. Statewide, Minnesota has 15 coal ash ponds over 30 years old. One plant in St. Paul, the High Bridge Generating Plant, burned coal since 1923 before converting to natural gas in 2007. The ponds can contain high concentrations of arsenic, mercury, lead and other toxic chemicals. It is unimaginable that Republicans now want coal ash to have less stringent regulations than those required for our household disposable trash. EPA has spent three years looking at how best to regulate coal ash working with citizens, local community officials and industry. EPA needs to now be allowed to do its job in determining how best to protect the public health. This bill is an unnecessary and harmful intrusion into that process. I urge my colleagues to learn from the Tennessee Valley tragedy and oppose this bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Hubert H. Humphrey Jobs Corps Center in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and to honor the students, staff and volunteers who make the Center a success. Job Corps provides hope and the opportunity to create a better life for thousands of young Americans every year, through career technical and academic training. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey was one of the early architects of Job Corps, and it is a fitting tribute to his leadership that Minnesota's Job Corps Center continues to proudly bear his name 30 years after the first students walked through the doors on July 15th, 1981. The Humphrey Job Corps Center gets results. By 1985, the Center's job-placement rate reached 90%, and in 1986 the Center became one of the first Job Corps Centers in the nation to be accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Humphrey Job Corps continues to grow and innovate. Today it serves between three-hundred to four-hundred students each year, offering training in subjects ranging from business technology to medical office support, to drivers education. Recently, the Center has embraced innovations in the Green Sector. All students entering advanced manufacturing, automotive, and construction fields receive training in renewable and sustainable practices. Earlier this year, it was an honor to participate in the ribbon cutting of the official opening of the new Technology Trades Building and the Single Mothers' Dorm. Not only does Humphrey Job Corps give students the practical skills they need to succeed professionally, it has helped build and connect communities. Humphrey Job Corps students regularly volunteer their time and energy to serve their neighbors in crisis nurseries; and organizations such as Toys for Tots; the Special Olympics; and the Veterans Rest Camp in Hugo, Minnesota. Students' services are not limited to their neighborhood, or even their state. Humphrey Job Corps students have partnered with communities across the upper Midwest to assist in times of need. They have traveled to Grand Forks, North Dakota; Rushford, Minnesota; Saint Peter; Minnesota; and Fargo, North Dakota to help communities heal after recent natural disasters. Today, Humphrey Job Corps students give more than 5,000 volunteer hours each year. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit this statement for the Congressional Record in honor of the 30th anniversary of the Hubert Horatio Humphrey Job Corps Center and all the students, staff and volunteers.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Comunidades Latinas Unidas En Servicio (CLUES) on its 30th anniversary celebration. For three decades, this vibrant non-profit community organization has been a life-line support for the Latino community in Minnesota. Since its inception in 1981, CLUES has been charged with a noble mission to promote equality for all, seek to improve the health of individuals and families, and to transform the lives of all families in Minnesota, this organization has made a positive impact on the lives of so many individuals and families. The support services provided by CLUES that help individuals and families recover from chemical dependency, help people become self-sufficient through employment and educational opportunity, and offer a comfort zone for senior citizens to maintain their well-being are commendable. As the representative in Congress for Saint Paul, Minnesota and the east metropolitan area, I have had the opportunity to work with CLUES executive director, Jesse Bethke Gomez and the staff and board to address the needs and challenges facing Latinos and our entire community in Minnesota. CLUES would not be successful without the caring and dedicated staff, volunteers and supporters who serve the public each day. They deserve congratulations for reaching this milestone, and gratitude for all that they do to make our community and our state a caring place that helps families and individuals realize their dreams for the future. I wish them the very best, and I look forward to celebrating their continued success.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2250, the so- called EPA Regulatory Relief Act. This legislation is a special interest giveaway to a few big industrial polluters that won't create jobs but will expose American families to unnecessary and unacceptable health risks. Despite the urgent need to create jobs and grow the economy, the House Republican majority is refusing to bring the American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote and instead, continues to bring up special interest bill after special interest bill for polluters who want to keep dumping toxic pollution into our air and water without consequence. We have already seen Republicans grant power and cement plants the license to continue emitting mercury, lead, arsenic and other pollutants. With this bill, Republicans are now seeking to delay and indefinitely block the ability of the EPA to regulate mercury emissions from industrial boilers and incinerators. These rules were called for 21 years ago under the 1990 Clean Air Act and were to have been completed by 2000. According to EPA's analysis, delaying the current deadlines for cleaning up toxic pollution from the nation's largest industrial boilers and incinerators by three years, as called for by H.R. 2250, will result in 22,750 more premature deaths, 143,000 asthma attacks and over one million sick days. For the thousands of families living in the shadow of these boilers and incinerators, this bill will mean more neurological disorders, birth defects, learning disabilities, cancer and cardiovascular problems. Pregnant women and their developing fetuses and infants are particularly vulnerable to the deadly effects of mercury. The Great Lakes Commission just issued a report finding that mercury levels have dropped by 20 percent thanks to the efforts of local and state governments working with power plants and incinerators to clean up their emissions. However, the report also notes that mercury levels still remain too dangerously high in most of the Great Lakes. All of Minnesota's lakes and streams have fish advisory warnings. This not only has real impacts for human health, but on jobs and our economy. The recreational fishing industry on the Minnesota waters of Lake Superior contributes more than $10 million to our local economy. 1.4 million Minnesotans fish, generating more than 43,000 jobs and $4.7 billion for our state economy. H.R. 2250 is certainly a job-killer for Minnesota. The EPA estimates the cost of compliance for the boiler rule to be around $3 billion annually while providing between $17 billion to $41 billion in benefits to the economy starting in 2014. Bruce Bartlett, former economic advisor to President Reagan, has noted that regulations were responsible for a miniscule 0.2 percent of layoffs in 2010. Despite the evidence, Republicans continue to claim the economic necessity of discarding the health of our children and communities in order to protect a few bad polluters. For over forty years, America has made tremendous bipartisan progress in cleaning up our environment while maintaining robust economic growth. We need to return to this tradition and refocus our attention on legislation that will actually address our pressing jobs crisis. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2250 and stand-up for the health of American families.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 358 and the on-going Republican war against women's health in America. This bill continues Congressional Republicans' extreme social agenda that jeopardizes women's health care. This Congress has already debated similar legislation to prevent women from accessing their legal health care. H.R. 358 does nothing to create jobs, reduce our federal deficits, or make America safer. Instead, this legislation furthers a divisive agenda to impose unprecedented restrictions on a woman's ability to access and purchase health care for a legal medical procedure. Contrary to what my colleagues have said today, H.R. 358 is not needed to ensure federal funding does not pay for abortions. Current federal law, including provisions included in the Affordable Care Act, already prohibits federal money from being used to pay for abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Instead this bill is another attempt by the Republican majority to legislatively intimidate women with respect to their constitutional right to abortion services. The unprecedented restrictions included in this bill would effectively end coverage of abortion-related services. Beginning in 2014, women and their families receiving federal subsidies would be prohibited from purchasing a health plan that includes abortion coverage within the Health Exchanges. This provision would leave millions of women without affordable health care options that meet all their health care needs. Even more concerning is that this bill could jeopardize a woman's ability to receive emergency medical care as required under Emergency Medicare Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA; P.L. 99-272). This bill could allow a hospital to deny a woman abortion-care even when this legal medical procedure would save her life. H.R. 358 does not protect life; rather it endangers the lives of American women. Instead of this radical agenda, we should be focusing on policies that will improve the lives of women and girls, put Americans back to work, and advance our nation's economy. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill and keep safe, comprehensive reproductive care accessible to all Americans.