Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the three trade agreements this House is considering with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, respectively. At a time when our national unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent, with 14 million Americans looking for work, we cannot afford to pass trade agreements that cost jobs here in the United States. Instead, I urge my colleagues to bring a real jobs bill--one that will create jobs for American workers--to the floor of the House immediately. America depends on trade with countries around the world to expand export markets for our products and create good-paying jobs in the U.S. To achieve fair trade, agreements must not export U.S. jobs or economically harm communities. We must insist that all trade agreements promote environmental sustainability, workers' rights, and improved living standards for people throughout the world. The negotiated trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea do not meet the standard of fair trade agreements and will leave Americans worse off. I do not support their passage. In Colombia, the intimidation and murder of trade unionists and human rights workers is widespread. According to Human Rights Watch, over 50 trade unionists were murdered last year. The Colombian government's human rights record may be improving but it is still very poor. This is not the time to reward Colombia's poor record with a preferential trade arrangement. This agreement does not advance fair trade, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. The proposed free trade agreement with Panama fails to create any American jobs. Widely known as a tax haven for multinational corporations, Panama has not shown the inclination or ability to change its status as an off-shore tax shelter. This practice rewards U.S. companies that ship jobs overseas to avoid taxation here. This agreement does not advance fair trade, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. In South Korea, between 2001 and 2009, the U.S. ran a trade deficit in goods of approximately $125 billion. The Economic Policy Institute found that implementation of the Korea trade deal would increase U.S. trade deficit by $16.7 billion and result in 159,000 American jobs lost over the next seven years. According to Public Citizen, almost 8,000 good-paying jobs would be lost in the 4th Congressional District of Minnesota. This agreement does not advance fair trade, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. As we've seen with free trade agreements with China, NAFTA, and CAFTA, unfair trade deals cost American jobs. This is why Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, exists--to provide training to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. Considering TAA while we consider these three agreements is evidence that these deals result in the loss of jobs here in the U.S. I support the passage of the needed TM extension, H.R. 2832, in order to provide some protections for American workers. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose these unfair trade deals and support the badly-needed extensions of TAA.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I want to clearly state my opposition to H.R. 2681, the so-called Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act. This legislation is a special interest giveaway that will fail to create jobs and will expose American families to unnecessary and unacceptable health risks. Last month, President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act to address the Nation's unemployment crisis. Economist Mark Zandi of Moody Analytics--a former McCain Presidential advisor--said the American Jobs Act would add 1.9 million jobs. Dozens of other independent economists agree this legislation would create jobs, boost economic growth and protect the country from slipping back into recession. 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. Instead of passing the American Jobs Act, the majority is advancing a series of ideological bills that will cripple clean air and clean water protections. H.R. 2681 is the latest of these Republican assaults on public health. H.R. 2681 would delay the implementation of science- based rules to significantly reduce toxic emissions from cement plants. The 1990 Clean Air Act required the cement industry to reduce mercury and other pollutants. Today, cement plants are the third largest source of mercury pollution in the United States. Thousands of families living in the shadow of these plants are now suffering from increased rates of neurological disorders, birth defects, learning disabilities, cancer and cardiovascular problems. Developing fetuses, infants and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the deadly effects of mercury. After 11 years of consultation with the cement industry and other stakeholders, the Environmental Protection Agency has finalized a proposal to close this dangerous loophole. For every $1 spent on complying with the EPA's proposed rules, the U.S. economy is projected to reap $7-19 dollars in benefits from lower health care costs and higher productivity. This incredible return on investment shows that smart regulation can produce cleaner air, better health and a stronger economy. Instead of offering a competing economic analysis, House Republicans are using anecdotal evidence to argue these new rules will harm employment in the cement industry. Contrary to what supporters of H.R. 2681 argue, employment in the cement industry has decreased due to efficiency gains in production and consolidation in the sector, not federal regulation. Even Republican economists are pushing back on the argument that federal regulation has a significant impact on job creation and retention. Bruce Bartlett, former economic advisor to President Reagan, is refuting these claims with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that businesses do not cite regulation as a leading cause of layoffs. According to this data, regulations were responsible for a minuscule 0.2 percent of layoffs in 2010. Despite the evidence, Republicans continue to cling to their anti-regulatory red herrings. While H.R. 2681 may provide good partisan talking points for cable television and talk-radio, this legislation threatens real harm to families in Minnesota, and across the country. According to EPA's analysis, delaying the clean-up of toxic pollution from the cement industry for four years as called for in H.R. 2681 would result in devastating health effects, including up to: 10,000 premature deaths; 68,000 asthma attacks; 6,000 non-fatal heart attacks; and 520,000 days when people miss work because of illness. For over forty years, the country 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 America's pressing jobs crisis. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation, end the political games, and stand up for the health of American families.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of ``Domestic Violence Awareness Month.'' The month of October is designated as a time to honor the unknown number of lives lost to domestic violence, recognize the survivors, and applaud the work of dedicated advocates, social workers, and counselors. By bringing awareness to this issue we can help to erase the stigma for survivors of domestic violence. Domestic violence happens in every community. Domestic abuse takes the form of physical violence, sexual assaults, economic abuse, verbal manipulation, stalking, or psychological intimidation. It affects children, women, and men regardless of where they live, how much they earn, the color of their skin, or the level of education they have attained. One in four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. An estimated 1.3 million women will be physically assaulted this year. And in Minnesota, at least 15 women, 7 children, and 2 men died from domestic violence in 2010. Yet despite all of this, domestic violence remains a ``hidden crime'' with most incidents going unreported. While progress has been made to raise awareness of domestic violence and provide needed services to survivors, much more must be done to break the culture of silence surrounding this public health epidemic. Law enforcement, health providers, community leaders, social workers, teachers, and concerned citizens must work together to hold perpetrators accountable and ensure survivors have the support and resources they need. Communities need to promote a culture of safety and support. Individuals have to stand up and declare with our words and actions that domestic violence is unacceptable. For those committed to ending domestic violence, and in honor of survivors of domestic abuse, I stand today in support of ``Domestic Violence Awareness Month''.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 764, I incorrectly voted in favor of passage of H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act. I am strongly opposed to this destructive bill and strongly support the Environment Protection Agency's mandate to uphold our nation's Clean Air Act laws.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today, the Natural Resources Committee is marking up H.R. 850 which grants an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in order to allow construction of a $700 million mega-bridge connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin across the St. Croix River. This bridge would be located less than six miles from the eight lane Interstate 94 crossing of the St. Croix. At a time of extremely scarce transportation dollars and tremendous need (Minnesota and Wisconsin have more than 2,000 structurally deficient bridges in need of repairs) building a single mega-bridge with a cost of $700 million is fiscally irresponsible and terrible public policy. I strongly oppose H.R. 850 and I am not alone. The conservative watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense sent a letter today to members of the Natural Resources Committee opposing H.R. 850 and states, ``accepting a project that is too big and too expensive for the sake of speeding project delivery would be irresponsible at any time, and even more so while we are doing everything possible to find our way out of a budgetary mess.'' A St. Croix River crossing that is affordable, meets transportation and safety needs, and responsibly scaled should be built, but H.R. 850 and its companion in the U.S. Senate, S. 1134, are bills that should be rejected. I appreciate that the willingness of Taxpayers for Common Sense for voicing their concerns about this mega-bridge exemption and I have enclosed their letter to the House Natural Resources Committee for printing in the Congressional Record. Taxpayers for common Sense, October 4, 2011. Oppose H.R. 850: It's Time To Rethink the Stillwater Bridge Dear Natural Resources Committee Member: Taxpayers for Common Sense Action urges you to oppose H.R. 850 (``To facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River'') when it comes before the Natural Resources Committee for your consideration. Proponents argue that this bill will not cost any taxpayer dollars, but granting the proposed bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin over the St. Croix River an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is one of the final few steps before taxpayers are asked to pay many millions on a bridge that is far too large in scope and far too expensive. A bridge in this location is warranted to replace an outdated lift bridge, but needs to be done at a far lower cost. The project as proposed should be rejected. The current fight over spending cuts and the debt ceiling highlights the immense budget challenges our nation faces, including a trillion-dollar-plus deficit and more than $14 trillion in debt. The state of our transportation program is little better, as the highway trust fund collects inadequate funds to meet the nation's transportation challenges. As a result, doing more with less is essential, and the same holds true for the proposed St. Croix River crossing. We are deeply concerned about the scale and cost of this project for a number of reasons: Driven by a desire to create a ``signature'' bridge for the region, stakeholders chose the most expensive alternative. This would be by far the most expensive bridge ever constructed in Minnesota, and would be more expensive than the cost of two other Minnesota bridges--the I-35W and Lafayette bridges--combined, yet will carry less than 10% as much traffic. When every dollar is scarce, it is simply irresponsible to build signature bridges that place form before function, and asking taxpayers to fund such an expensive project to carry the 18,000 vehicles the current bridge accommodates is simply outrageous. According to Minnesota Department of Transportation documents, the so-called ``extradosed'' bridge proposed for this project, comes with ``relatively high cost risk.'' An extradosed bridge--a combination of a box girder bridge and a cable-stayed bridge--is under construction in Connecticut, and that is the only other example of its kind in the U.S. MnDOT lists its own lack of internal expertise regarding such a bridge as a project risk. Though some of the extra risk has been built into the project's cost estimate, there still remains an increased chance of cost overruns. Building this bridge would limit the funds available for the other priorities in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Combined, the two states have more than 2,000 deficient bridges and nearly 6 million trips are made across them every day. In addition, nearly half the roads in Minnesota and Wisconsin need additional maintenance to get them back to ``good'' condition. Building such an expensive bridge across the St. Croix, with the chance of significant cost overruns, would seriously hamper each state's ability to perform these vital maintenance efforts in as timely a manner as possible, to say nothing of new facilities that may be required to relieve congestion, improve safety, facilitate commerce, and keep the transportation system moving efficiently. There is little question that a new bridge is required at this location to replace the outdated lift bridge that currently carries traffic over the St. Croix, but only if it can be done at a far lower cost than is currently envisioned. The proposed bridge is a relic from a different time: before our nation finally committed to taking care of its budget mess, before the end of the housing boom that dramatically changed the landscape in western Wisconsin, and before the realization that the current state of our transportation program may lead to a cut as deep as 30% from current funding levels in future years. At the very least, it is worth taking a hard look at additional alternatives to determine whether we can accommodate the region's transportation needs at a far lower cost to taxpayers, and possibly without an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We understand that there is an urgency to move forward with a new bridge, but accepting a project that is too big and too expensive for the sake of speeding project delivery would be irresponsible at any time, and even more so while we are doing everything possible to find our way out of a budgetary mess. If you would like additional information, please contact Erich Zimmermann in my office at (202) 546-8500 x132. Sincerely, Ryan Alexander, President.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the life and memory of Ms. Judy McLaughlin, a civic and political leader in St. Paul, Minnesota who passed away on September 5, 2011 at the age of sixty-six. Throughout her adult life Judy was an active and influential leader in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) and a force in the civic life of St. Paul. She and her late husband, Mike McLaughlin, were the owners of Summit Manor on Summit Avenue in St. Paul. Their commitment to St. Paul helped transform Ramsey Hill from a historic neighborhood plagued with crime and at risk of decay into a national model for historic preservation. Along with Mike, Judy was active in Fourth Congressional District and St. Paul DFL politics throughout her life. She knew all the players, all the issues, and had an informed opinion about where her city, state and Nation should be going. She was known to every DFL political leader for four decades, and Summit Manor was a well known venue for political gatherings. When I got started in politics I knew Mike McLaughlin as a powerful political leader and Judy was most definitely his equal. She worked in the Minnesota State Legislature for the DFL Speaker of the House. She helped work on and guide campaigns for city council, mayor, the state legislature, Congress, and the U.S. Senate. On a gray, rainy day in October 2002 Minnesota suffered the heartbreaking deaths of Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife, Sheila, along with their daughter and five campaign aides. Judy's son, Will, was one of those staff members who died that tragic morning. While all of Minnesota felt a loss, including many of us who lost dear friends that day, Judy's loss was profound. Yet, the following day Judy attended a rally for peace on the steps of the Cathedral of St. Paul which was supposed to be attended by Senator Wellstone and her son, who traveled everywhere with the senator. Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul described the events of that day as he eulogized Judy saying, ``She knew that no cause worth fighting for could die with the death of a few. She had to be there in spite of the immense agony she felt.'' I knew Judy as a DFL leader, a local businesswoman, and as a neighbor who I would run into at the local coffee shop or out on a morning walk. She was an anchor in the community and a respected voice. Her passing is a loss for St. Paul and for all the friends and loved ones whom she shared her very full life with. It was an honor to know Judy. I wish to extend my condolences to her four daughters and two sons. Judy McLaughlin gave so much of herself to family, community, and country. She was true to her beliefs and for that she will always be remembered with fondness, respect and deep appreciation.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, this amendment does not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If this amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately be voted on for final passage. This amendment is about protecting the Great Lakes, one of America's greatest treasures and important natural resources. For those of us who represent these States adjacent to the Great Lakes, we know and understand that any harm done to our lakes threatens the economy and the health of our citizens. Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario make up the largest freshwater system in the entire world. Our Great Lakes hold 95 percent of America's freshwater and 20 percent of the freshwater on the planet. Over 30 million people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water. There is an estimated 1.5 million jobs that are directly connected to the Great Lakes, and these jobs generate $62 billion in wages. Over 40 years ago, this critical ecosystem and economic engine was on the verge of collapse. Time magazine reported in August 1969: ``Lake Erie is in danger of dying by suffocation.'' The days when polluters dumped toxic chemicals into the air and water without consequence are over. Because of the responsible cleanup policies like the Clean Air Act, the health of the Great Lakes has improved, but threats to the Great Lakes have not disappeared. Air pollutants like mercury are emitted from power plants and continue to fall on the ground, wash into the water, and build up in quantities that threaten the brain development of young children and place limits on the amount of fish that we can consume. Rising mercury levels is one of the mounting threats that motivated an unprecedented coalition into action. Governors of the eight Great Lakes States, Republicans and Democrats, along with local officials and leaders from tribal nations, nonprofits and the private sector came together to save the Great Lakes. Early last decade, they created a plan for environmental restoration and economic recovery of the Great Lakes. In 2004, President Bush responded to this bipartisan effort by issuing an executive order that called the Great Lakes ``a national treasure,'' and he directed his Cabinet to establish an interagency task force to report these State and local efforts. Now, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota never agree about politics, and they certainly don't agree on football, but as members of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, they agree on the need to reduce air and water pollution in the Great Lakes. Years of planning and partnership in the Great Lakes region and in Washington are now making a difference on the ground through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The initiative is protecting drinking water, it's restoring fish and wildlife habitat, and it's supporting the growth of small businesses that depend on healthy waters. The work under way is 300 projects across this region. Now, my role as a legislator from the Great Lakes region is to do no harm to this effort. The TRAIN Act will make the enforcement of many of the environmental protections uncertain, and it will create confusion in the EPA about which public health efforts they can pursue. And my amendment does not give the EPA any new authority. Instead, it directs the EPA to use its existing authority to do what Republican and Democratic Governors, mayors, State legislators and other elected officials in the Great Lakes have agreed upon must be done: protect drinking water and protect public health. Our job in Congress is to protect the Great Lakes, not to undo the hard work of all these Governors and, yes, industry leaders. My amendment makes it clear that the TRAIN Act will not prohibit this work from moving forward. Let me be clear, my amendment does not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If this amendment is adopted, it will immediately be voted on on final passage. Regardless of your position on the TRAIN Act, this amendment makes the bill stronger. Regardless of how you feel about the TRAIN Act, I'm sure you agree Congress should protect the safety of drinking water and continue to ensure the viability of the economic interests of the Great Lakes. Again, let me be clear. This amendment does not kill the bill. It does not send it back to committee. If this amendment is adopted, it will immediately be voted on for final passage. Colleagues, let us work together, let us pass this amendment, and let us restore the Great Lakes. Let us protect America's public health.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to HR. 2608, the short-term continuing appropriations measure on the floor today to fund government operations through November 18, 2011. Hundreds of American communities have been devastated this year by hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires and tornadoes. Dozens of Governors--both Republicans and Democrats--have requested federal assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to meet the needs of their states' residents. These federal funds are used by state and local response teams to house displaced families, provide crisis counseling to disaster victims, remove debris, and repair or replace critical bridges, roads and utilities. With more than three months remaining, 2011 has already seen more billion dollar disasters than any year on record. Early cost estimates of this year's weather-related disasters are well above $20 billion. As a result, FEMA can no longer afford to help all those who need assistance. The Associated Press reported that FEMA's disaster funding is now so low that planned repairs to bridges, roads and schools in tornado-ravaged Joplin, Missouri have been stopped and the funds redirected to help the victims of Hurricane Irene. Caring for Americans devastated by natural disasters has always been a basic American value. Unfortunately, House Republicans are turning disaster relief into a partisan political battle by under-funding these urgent needs and demanding that emergency funds be offset with cuts to a critical job-creating initiative. The House legislation under debate today includes $3.65 billion in emergency aid--$1.8 billion less than what the Obama administration told Congress is needed. Even worse, H.R. 2608 cuts $1 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM). This public- private partnership helps U.S. auto makers and parts suppliers build next generation vehicles with technologies made in America, rather than imported from China and other foreign countries. The ATVM is a major success. It has already saved or created 41,000 American jobs and will save or create at least 35,000 additional jobs anticipated by the end of this year. The cuts demanded by House Republicans to this program threaten to destroy thousands of American jobs and undermine the global competitiveness of U.S. auto makers. During the past decade, House Republicans voted time and time again for so-called emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without offsetting the costs. The hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending Republicans supported on these wars helped create the crippling debt our country now faces. And now, my House Republican colleagues are pretending to take a stand against deficits by threatening to shut down the U.S. government and deny assistance to American families who have had their lives destroyed by natural disaster. I call on reasonable Republicans in the House to join with Democrats to reject this hypocritical and callous bill, and instead commit the necessary funding to rescue America's devastated communities.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, once again this Tea Party Republican majority is determined to ignore the jobs crisis in this country and instead focus the energy and efforts of Congress on busting unions and attacking the federally protected rights of workers to organize. This legislation is a direct assault on workers' rights in order to protect the profits of one corporation--Boeing. This legislation essentially tells 14 million unemployed Americans that their needs are irrelevant as long as there is a CEO in America who wants to crush a union. The National Labor Relations Act, a Federal law, prohibits a company from taking actions, such as firing an employee or relocating a factory, against workers for exercising federally protected rights that include forming a union or striking. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against Boeing in April 2011, accusing the airline manufacturer of building a plant in South Carolina as retaliation against union employees in Washington State who have engaged in strikes. The Seattle Times quoted one Boeing executive as saying that the main factor for putting the new plant in Charleston, SC was ``. . . that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.'' The legislation on the floor of the U.S. House today, H.R. 2587, is the Tea Party Republican attempt to reward a corporation that breaks the law in order to bust union workers. Rather than negotiate with union workers to reach contract agreements, Boeing built a new $750 million facility in South Carolina. This legislation in essence sanctions any company in America to move their operations to any low- wage location where workers' rights are ignored, whether inside or outside the U.S. Tea Party Republicans have titled this bill the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, but it really should be called the Busting Unions and Outsourcing Jobs to Protect Corporate Profits Act. It is remarkable that Members of Congress can vote to sanction the export of U.S. jobs to other countries just to ensure corporate friends can squeeze every dollar of profit available out of their low-wage workers. This legislation is truly a betrayal of the American people, but it fits into the alarming trend advocated by Tea Party Republican legislators at the State and Federal level to eliminate worker rights and protections. If their goal is to return to the days of sweatshops and the abuse of workers they are certainly moving in that direction. I truly hope that every Minnesotan who is a member of a union, retired from a union, or has a loved-one in a union is paying attention to what is happening in America. The corporate elites and the legislators their secret money have paid to elect are destroying workers rights. This U.S. House of Representatives, once known as the People's House, now appears to be owned by corporations. Our democracy is at risk along with the rights of workers and the wages of every middle class American. This legislation is a harbinger of the battle working people, regular Americans, face as corporations dictate to elected leaders. I oppose H.R. 2587 and I oppose the union busting, anti-working American agenda it represents.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on the morning of September 11, 2001 is still vivid in my mind--it was the start of a beautiful day in Washington. The shock and horror that ensued that morning in New York City, in a Pennsylvania field, and at the Pentagon is embedded in me. It is a permanent element of the American psyche, and it fills us all with emotions, especially fear, anger, grief, and sadness. Nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11 were lost that day. The loved ones they left behind have spent ten years adapting to lives without husbands, mothers, brothers, and daughters. Even after ten years the loss must still be painful and difficult. As a nation, we still feel the loss, the very sad sense of tragedy and hurt that touched us all. For all of us, September 11, 2001 remains a day that changed us and changed our country's future. Our nation is strong. We as a people are far more powerful, resilient, and righteous than the perpetrators of the attack. The lessons of 9/11 continue to be studied, debated, interpreted, and acted on--to our collective benefit and, in some cases, to our detriment. But after ten long, difficult years since that beautiful morning, the most important lesson I can draw upon is the profound blessing I feel to be an American and to share this country, our values, and our freedoms with my fellow citizens. We are one nation, one people and the painful, horrific tragedy of 9/ 11 shall always be a reminder of what it means to be an American standing together, united with my fellow citizens. On this tenth anniversary, my thoughts, prayers, and profound sense of gratitude are with the victims of this attack, the men and women who have sacrificed their lives and bodies to keep our nation safe, and the family members who grieve for loved ones lost on September 11th and the many days since in which our fellow citizens have sacrificed for our nation.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the special occasion of the centennial celebration of St. John's Hospital. For 100 years, this community hospital has provided quality health care to residents in the Saint Paul--Minneapolis Metropolitan Area. In 1911, when it first opened its doors in Saint Paul's Dayton's Bluff neighborhood, St. John's German Lutheran Hospital was a 25-bed facility. A new 65-bed fireproof hospital was built in 1914 on the site of the current Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul. During the influenza epidemic of 1918, St. John's Hospital was turned over to the City of Saint Paul to care for charity patients. In just one month, St. John's Hospital treated nearly 400 flu patients. In a turn of events, in 1933, due to a low patient load, the hospital was forced to close some floors and hospital staff took vacations without pay and a 10 percent salary reduction. After weathering difficult times, in the 1950s St. John's Hospital underwent an expansion to 165 beds, becoming one of the first hospitals in the nation to create an Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and was recognized for its ``Progressive Patient Care.'' St. John's Hospital constructed a second facility in 1985 in Maplewood at its current location. St. John's Hospital joined the newly-created HealthEast Care System in 1986, along with Bethesda and St. Joseph's Hospitals. After 75 years, in 1987, St. John's Hospital closed its hospital on Saint Paul's East Side. St. John's Hospital has implemented many innovations during the past decade. In 2005, St. John's Hospital was the first community hospital in the Twin Cities to offer the daVinci Surgical System--a robotic surgical system used to treat prostate cancer. In addition, St. John's Hospital was the first hospital in Minnesota to utilize digital mammography and one of the first hospitals in the state to provide cutting-edge artificial disc surgery for patients experiencing lower back pain. Today St. John's is an award-winning hospital and with more than 1500 employees, one of the largest job providers in the East Metro Area. On an annual basis, it treats more than 41,000 patients in the emergency department, delivers more than 3,000 babies and performs more than 6,000 surgeries. U.S. News & World Report named St. John's Hospital one of 2011-2012 ``Top Metro Best Hospitals in the Twin Cities'' and identified St. John's as one of the top hospitals in the country for Urology. This year, the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal named HealthEast Hospitals, including St. John's, one of the ``Best Places to Work'' in Minnesota for the sixth time. Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive and state-of-the-art health care services provided by St. John's Hospital are commendable and deserve to be celebrated.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and courage of U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Chad D. Frokjer of Maplewood, Minnesota. Sergeant Frokjer was a member of a dismounted patrol conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan when an improvised explosive device detonated, killing him on June 30, 2011. The convoy commander of a mobile assault team for the Battalion's Alpha Company, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Pendleton, California. A graduate of North High School in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, Sergeant Frokjer, 27, joined the Marine Corps in 2003. He served two tours in Iraq before being deployed most recently to Afghanistan on March 27, and was scheduled to leave the military in October, 2012. Sergeant Frokjer's father, Brian, recalls that his son enlisted in the Marines after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. His love for the United States is what inspired him to ``make sure nothing like that ever happened again.'' Every wall in his childhood bedroom is covered with photos and documents highlighting his eight years as a Marine, from the photo of him with his friend and fellow Marine sergeant, Eric Oden, to his top citation for excellence in navigation curriculum which he received during his time at Camp Pendleton. The photos depict just a handful of the many that knew and loved him. He is remembered for his passionate commitment to working with his fellow servicemen to serve the citizens of the United States, as represented by the trophy he won for his outstanding performance during an infantry squad leader course. Sergeant Frokjer married Leslie, the love of his life, last fall. In January of this year, the couple was elated to learn that they were expecting a baby, due September 28. Their unborn son, Eli James Frokjer, will never know his father, but he will know that his father died while valiantly defending this country and the freedoms which he loved dearly. Eli James will know that his country is safer because of his father's courageous and honorable sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Sgt. Chad D. Frokjer for his brave and honorable service to the United States and his commitment to protecting our freedom. I extend my deepest sympathies to Sergeant Frokjer's widow, Leslie, his parents, Arlene and Brian, and his sister, Nikki, for their profound loss.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Control Act Agreement (S. 365) is a terrible bill that I strongly oppose. This legislation is the product of the most disturbing political process I have witnessed during my time in Congress. For the first time ever, one of America's political parties showed themselves willing to throw the nation into default on our debt obligations for the sake of politics. By holding an increase in the debt ceiling hostage as a negotiating strategy, the Tea Party Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives imperiled millions of jobs, businesses, and the economic well-being of every American. A nonpartisan publication, the National Journal, declared that America has ``entered a new era of government at gunpoint.'' I find myself agreeing with Wall Street Journal editors who criticized the House majority's conduct during this process by saying, ``Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.'' The legislation that House Republicans are forcing on the country will slash trillions of dollars of investments at exactly the moment when more investment is needed to prevent our economy from sliding back into recession. Education, infrastructure, health research, public safety, clean energy and every other middle class priority will see cuts as a result of this bill. An editorial in today's New York Times argues this deal will ``hinder an economic recovery.'' At a time when 14 million Americans are unemployed and economic growth has slowed to a crawl, why is Congress passing legislation that will ``hinder an economic recovery?'' Tying massive cuts to a debt ceiling increase is completely unnecessary, totally counterproductive, and it will make America's job crisis even worse. And, with this bill, the Republicans are tossing the heavy burden of deficit reduction onto America's middle class without asking even one penny from the nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations. While I cannot support this agreement, President Obama and Democratic leaders deserve tremendous credit for their perseverance and determination in solving this manufactured debt crisis. Their efforts succeeded in protecting the economy from the unthinkable consequences of default and shielded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from Republican cuts. President Obama was forced to negotiate this agreement with radical Republicans who proved all to willing to send the economy into default. He was in a nearly impossible position. One would expect irrational, dangerous, and irresponsible negotiating tactics from North Korea's Kim Jong-il, but not from the Republican congressional leaders. President Obama did what the nation required in order to avert economic disaster. Still, I cannot support this legislation. This is a bad bill on many levels, most of all because it forces a broken bargain that avoids economic collapse at the cost of an even slower and more painful economic recovery. It may even return the nation to recession. This is bill is bad for America and I strongly oppose it.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for sharing that. I know how to remove leeches, deer ticks, fish hooks. Yes, I've been out there. But I really do think the Members should reject this amendment and leave the dollars where they are. We need to work harder to put more dollars into our environment, not only for its natural beauty and to leave a valued treasure to our children, but also because it has a direct impact on the economy of many of our States. [From the StarTribune, July 13, 2011] More Deer Ticks, Fewer Loons: Climate Change on the Great Lakes Isle Royale in Lake Superior used to be too cold for deer ticks. But not anymore. The ticks, which carry Lyme disease, have been found for the first time on the island off the coast of northern Minnesota. And by the end of the century, nesting loons may disappear altogether from most of the Great Lakes. Those are some of the findings of a report on the effects of climate change on the Great Lakes' five largest national parks. It was the latest in a series of studies they have conducted on the current and future effects of a warming global climate on national parks from California to Virginia. The report, the authors said, provides an early look at what's to come if the Republican-led Congress continues to thwart federal efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans this week tried and failed to repeal new standards for more energy efficient lightbulbs, and are resisting the new federal rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions expected later this summer. They say the rules are unnecessary intrusions on freedom, and job-killers. ``We have an increasing partisan divide on this,'' said Stephen Saunders, president of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and a former national parks official with the Department of the Interior. ``If people pay attention to how the places they know and love respond to climate change, I hope that makes people aware of what we should be doing differently.'' The authors analyzed a century's worth of temperature trends for the Great Lakes area drawn from two weather stations on Lake Michigan, and found that both show more rapid change than the global averages. The one near the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, near Chicago, showed that in the last decade average temperatures have increased by 1.6 degrees, and the one near Picture Rocks National Lakeshore in Michigan showed an average increase of 2.7 degrees. Lee Frelich, a University of Minnesota researcher who studies the effects of climate change in the Upper Midwest, said the analysis used widely accepted climate models and data, and the findings are right on the mark. ``Climate changes are more extreme in the mid continents,'' said Frelich, who was not involved in the report. ``If you are fairly far north you will see bigger magnitudes of climate change than other places.'' Water temperatures in Lake Superior have increased 4.5 degrees between 1979 and 2006, twice the rate of land temperatures, the report found. Between the 1970s and 2009, winter ice cover over the lakes shrunk 15 percent. The report also documented a 31 percent increase in rain falling during big storms, and a 12 percent increase in wind speeds. Combined with less ice during the winter, those changes lead to faster erosion along the shores, putting fragile landscapes like the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes in Michigan at risk. Frelich said that he's already seen the effect on his family's cabin in Door County, Wis., where winter storms have taken out trees on the edge of his property. The report found that temperature changes are having a sometimes dramatic effect on wildlife. A growing number of botulism outbreaks, linked to higher water temperatures, have killed hundreds to thousands of birds in recent years in the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes. Meanwhile, Isle Royale used to be free of deer ticks, which can only survive in average winter temperatures of 19 degrees or higher. But a park service employee this year reported finding a deer tick on his body after he'd been there for a month, meaning he had picked it up while on the island. The report projects that average temperatures at Isle Royale and the Apostle Islands would increase by an average of 3.6 and 4.6 degrees by 2040 to 2069, depending on the rate of future air emissions--warm enough to squeeze nesting loons into the northwest corner of Lake Superior. Mark Seeley, Minnesota state climatologist, said it's difficult to make projections about Lake Superior using data from two weather stations in Lake Michigan. But he said the report accurately documented the extreme upward shift in minimum temperatures in the winter. ``The winter season is showing more dramatic increase in temperatures than summer,'' he said. The authors said that the five parks in the study draw 3.7 million visitors per year, generate $200 million in spending and support close to 3,000 jobs. ``We face the financial reality that climate change may bring tremendous economic challenge,'' said Larry McDonald, the mayor of Bayfield, Wis., a tourist town on the edge of the Apostle Islands. He joined the authors of the report in a telephone news conference. ``We need to respect and protect Lake Superior,'' he said.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I also oppose the gentleman's amendment. Let me just give you a little more background on what the Council on Environmental Quality does. Its focus is to make government more efficient and more effective, and it does this by interagency working groups and coordination with EEOP and CEQ. And it balances the competing positions, sometimes, even within government coordination. In other words, it makes everybody come around the table and figure out how do we do this the most effectively for the American people. It brings, as Ranking Member Moran pointed out, Federal agencies, State and local governments to the table too to say how can we be most effective collaboratively in making our environment work better for America. Let me give you an example of one of the projects that they're working on, and it's solar energy. Solar energy is booming here in the United States; and if we get solar energy technology right, we will be the leaders for the next generation in how we can have energy efficiency, energy independence through renewable energy. The Solar Energy Industries Association works with this council. And in the first quarter, the solar industry installed 252 megawatts of new solar electric capacity, 66 percent growth from the same timeframe from 2010. That's 3,000 megawatts of solar electric installed in the United States. That's enough to power 600,000 homes. They worked with the manufacturing sector, the solar power sector. They worked together, and they caused this 33 percent jump in panel production. With the growth of solar energy, thousands of jobs have been created. In fact, solar energy creates more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source. And according to the Solar Foundation's National Solar Job Census, 93,000 Americans were employed in the U.S. solar industry. The reason why I bring this up is that not only are they helping to bring everybody around the table to figure out how to move America forward with this; the next thing they do is they work, as I said, with inter-government agencies. So they worked with the Department of Energy to issue loan guarantees for solar projects and manufacturing facilities. That's going to create 26,000 jobs. They worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs to announce that they will be installing solar panels in their systems in five VA Medical Centers, one in Oklahoma; Temple, Texas; Amarillo, Texas; and in California. Prior to this announcement, the VA had also been awarded dollars for other solar panels in their facilities, and they're seeing that they are being able to control costs and do good things for the environment. The Department of the Interior has approved solar permits for solar- powered products on public lands that will provide enough energy for 730,000 homes. The Department of Agriculture actively promotes the deployment of solar energy on farms and ranches working with people and folks out in the private sector. So the list goes on and on. Coordination is often the key to efficiency. And so I just really think that the Council on Environmental Quality provides America a way forward in making sure that our agencies are talking and being effective with one another when it comes to collaboration on environmental issues. It also reaches out to the local governments, but more importantly, it works in the private sector to create opportunities for jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman. The point is is that we are creating jobs using less energy, and when we do that, we save energy. But these jobs that are being created are improving our economy, our ability to compete internationally. And these jobs use less energy. So we're not investing in nuclear power plants and we're not investing in coal burning, which leads to--I kind of figured you would want your time back.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak against the amendment.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work on the Great Lakes. I represent a Great Lakes region in Minnesota. As the chairman pointed out, the climate change has been cut, Great Lakes have been cut, and I'm here to tell the gentleman from Ohio, I think we can have a win-win even without supporting your amendment. The reason being is, by leaving the dollars where they are in the climate change, I think we can count on and, through our work, make sure that what is happening to the Great Lakes is documented and proven so that the facts are out there about what we need to do about climate change, and I'm going to refer to two examples. One is from a local paper of mine, the Star Tribune, from July 13: It talks about how, with climate change, that they're seeing that Isle Royale in Lake Superior used to be too cold for deer ticks, but not anymore. Scientists are watching the effects of climate change and what is happening to the Great Lakes region. The ticks that carry Lyme disease have been found for the first time on the island off the coast of northern Minnesota. At the end of the century, nesting loons may disappear altogether from most of the Great Lakes. These are findings from a report on the effects of climate change on the Great Lakes. It talks about, also, its effect on five of the largest national parks and public waters that we share in our region. The series of studies has concluded that the current and future effects of warming, global climate change on national parks from California to Virginia and the consequences of it. But if people think that that is not hard enough to really kind of get, to make sure that we do climate change, that we look at what is going on in the Great Lakes, let me speak from another report that dealt with shipping on the Great Lakes. I will enter for the Record which reports I use, but let me quote from this. It says: ``The expected higher temperatures of climate change are predicted to increase evaporation, lower runoff, reduce ice formation, and raise surface water temperatures in the Great Lakes, resulting in a fall in lake levels. The increased precipitation will not be sufficient to completely offset the reduction in lake levels. ``For international commercial navigation in the Great Lakes, the impact of lower lake levels will be restrictions in vessel draughts and tonnage carriage, thus increasing the number of trips and the total costs to move a given tonnage of cargo.'' In other words, climate change on the Great Lakes has an effect on the economy. I know that the chairman did not have, in my opinion, sufficient allocations to address many issues I care passionately about, like climate change, including the economic consequences of climate change, as well as do some of the funding that the gentleman from Ohio and I both sought for the Great Lakes. But I think the gentleman from Ohio could actually see benefit to the Great Lakes in research by not having his amendment move forward and keeping the dollars that we do have for science and climate change.

Ms. McCOLLUM. As the chairman says, with great risk, I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in Minnesota we understand that the arts are an essential part of our economy and the number of jobs it creates. The arts are so vital to our economy and our development and civic life that in 2008, Minnesotans voted to amend our State constitution to raise money, yes, to tax themselves and dedicate part of the revenue to the arts. Minnesota is the only State in the country where there's a dedicated public funding source for the arts. In our Constitution, Mr. Chair, we passed a legacy amendment. Hunters, anglers, conservationists, parents, seniors, all came together to say the arts, along with preserving our environment, is integral to our legacy, to our way of life in Minnesota. In my district alone, the arts employ over 8,000 people. And the arts and the culture industry contributes over $830 million to Minnesota's economy. Investing in the arts makes economic sense, and it's good public policy. As has been pointed out, for every dollar that is spent by the NEA, $9 in economic activity is generated. We must make tough choices, given this fiscal crisis, and I believe the NEA's budget has been targeted and it has been shrunk enough. The NEA's budget has been cut 20 percent since 2010. Our artists, poets, writers, musicians, producers, sculptors, singers, dancers, photographers, and actors contribute millions of dollars to our local economy and create a vibrant social space for us to come together. And we hear time and time again from the major corporations and from the start-up companies, from computer companies to health care companies to our universities that it is American creativity and space for the arts that allows America to move forward. So I strongly oppose this cut, and I reject any further attacks on the NEA's budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.