Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Interior Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, I have great respect for Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and the staffers on both sides of the aisle. One important aspect of this bill is Chairman Simpson and Representative Cole have worked together with Democrats to protect critical education and health care investments in Indian Country as part of our trust relationship with the 565 tribes in this country. Native American children, families and elders will all benefit as a result of our efforts. However, on virtually every other aspect of this bill, particularly on the environment, this appropriations bill is a radical attempt to take America backwards from 40 years of bipartisan progress in protecting human health and our environment. There are nearly 40 special interest policy riders in this bill. It is outrageous that these riders protect corporate polluters while attacking clean water, clean air, our public lands, and wildlife conservation. Representatives Waxman, Markey and Rush, as ranking members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Natural Resources Committee have sent letters expressing their grave concern about these extreme, destructive policy riders that have no business being on an appropriations spending bill. This abuse of the legislative process to further Republicans' radical agenda on behalf of polluters and special interests should not be tolerated. These policy riders put the public health of Americans at risk and will imperil America's natural heritage for future generations. In particular, Republicans have chosen to mount an unprecedented assault on the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency created by President Richard Nixon. Clearly, Republicans have now come full circle and this bill makes House Republicans the most polluter-friendly Congress in nearly two generations. In addition to gutting EPA's budget, Republicans have added 10 policy riders that will make the air we breathe dirtier and eight policy riders that will make the water we drink more polluted and toxic. The Republican riders halt the EPA's work under the Clean Air Act to protect the public health from impacts of carbon dioxide pollution, mercury emissions, sulfur dioxide, soot and smog. This will jeopardize the health of millions of children suffering from asthma and put more Americans at risk for strokes, heart disease, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In 2010, the EPA found the Clean Air Act saved 160,000 lives nationwide. That's equivalent to the entire population of Tempe, Arizona. By 2020, that number is expected to grow to 230,000 lives saved, leading to $2 trillion in economic benefits. Republican riders also stop EPA's work under the Clean Water Act to clean our rivers, streams, lakes, and to protect our drinking water from the impacts of coal mining, storm water discharge, and toxic nutrient pollution and pesticides. Essentially, House Republicans are telling the American people that protecting public health and the environment from corporate polluters is no longer important. And despite the Tea Party Republicans' supposed ban on earmarks, this bill is loaded with earmarks for a few privileged polluters and special interests. Here are just four out of a dozen Republican earmarks contained in this bill: An earmark for foreign companies to allow for uranium mining adjacent to the Grand Canyon, one of America's most treasured places; An earmark for Shell Oil to ignore environmental regulations to drill offshore in the Arctic Ocean; An earmark for a few sheep farmers subsidized by U.S. taxpayers on U.S. land so they can evade environmental laws that protect bighorn sheep; A special earmark for the State of Texas to continue its illegal air permitting program in violation of the Clean Air Act. These dirty, toxic, and dangerous earmarks to a few special interests come at the expense of cleaner water, healthier air, our cherished national parks, and endangered wildlife. Minnesotans are deeply troubled by this reckless bill that endangers the health of our communities while destroying our natural resources that are our children's inheritance. This is one of the most extreme pieces of anti- environmental legislation to ever come to the floor of the House. As far as the American people are concerned, H.R. 2584 should be declared a toxic Superfund site that is so dangerous to human health and the environment that it needs to be remediated rather than passed into law. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and its abandonment of 40 years of progress we have made in protecting the American people's health and the American national heritage.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to also support the Moran amendment for providing more access to clean drinking water. And to Chairman Simpson's point, we did do a good job working together to significantly improve the quality of life in Indian country, and we did that working together. But one area in which some of us felt we could have done a little better is in the area of Indian sanitation. We're seeking to put the funding level back to where this Chamber had it in FY 2011, not a cut. And the way that we're asking to do that--and I will speak to the issue of grazing because I offered the amendment in the full Appropriations Committee--is to ask cattle ranchers to pay a fair fee to graze their cattle. A fee of $1.35, as Mr. Moran pointed out, is less than what most States are charging for the use of their public lands. And it is significantly less, as I found in some information gathering that I did, than the private sector charges for the use of their lands. When we have our lands at $1.35, not only is it not of benefit to the taxpayers, but it leads to overgrazing of our lands, which does nothing to help improve the quality of public lands for future generations of cattle ranchers. Fifteen million dollars to grazers in this bill, $4 million to oil and gas. And the numbers again: 230,000 Native American homes without sanitation facilities; 34,000 homes without clean, safe drinking water. No infant and no child in this country or in Indian country should be at risk of gastrointestinal disease rates that are found in Third World countries. Let us provide the same level of funding that we had in the FY 2011 bill for Indian sanitation. Let us support clean drinking water for our children. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1315, which would fundamentally-weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and leave consumers unprotected from the predatory lending practices that helped cause the Great Recession. This week marks one year since President Obama signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) into law and provided long-overdue protection for consumers. Instead of building on the reforms and making them stronger, House Republicans are delaying and defunding parts of the Wall Street Reform law that will protect consumers the most. H.R. 1315 is just the latest example of House Republicans siding with Wall Street lobbyists over the best interests of their constituents. This misguided bill would further delay the core functions of the CFPB and undermine its structure by replacing its director with a five- member commission. H.R. 1315 also threatens the independence of the CFPB by making it easier for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to override the CFPB's regulations. This is the wrong approach. In order to effectively oversee the $3 trillion consumer finance industry, the CFPB must be able to operate independently from other regulatory agencies. H.R. 1315 would do nothing but prevent the CFPB from carrying out its duties of curbing abuses by big banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and pensions because of the recklessness of some on Wall Street. Now is the time to strengthen consumer protection laws, not weaken them. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1315.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the so-called Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act. It would be far more accurate to title this legislation the ``Dirty Water Act'' due to the damage it would inflict on our nation's waters. This legislation severely weakens the Clean Water Act by prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from challenging state water quality standards in cases when those standards threaten the quality of the nation's waters. Further, the bill removes the EPA's authority to protect water bodies and waterways from pollution resulting from mining, development and water resource projects. This unprecedented unraveling of federal authority would have very real and negative consequences for the country, especially my state of Minnesota. Minnesota is known as the land of 10,000 lakes. It is the headwaters of the mighty Mississippi River and the longest shoreline of Lake Superior--the largest of the Great Lakes. Our quality of life is inexorably linked with the quality of our state's rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. Minnesota's economy depends on clean water to support its multibillion dollar tourism and outdoor recreation industry, which sustains tens of thousands of jobs. In addition to the economy, responsible EPA regulation helps to protect the health of millions of Minnesotans who rely on the Mississippi River and other surface waters for their drinking water. Minnesotan's strong commitment to clean water is best evidenced by passage of a state constitutional amendment in 2008 dedicating funding to protect and restore the states' waters--the first of its kind in the nation. H.R. 2018 undermines the ability of Minnesota or any other state to protect the quality of its waters. This legislation eliminates Clean Water Act protections that prevent states from setting lax environmental laws and weak enforcement policies that send pollution flowing over its borders into neighboring states. Minnesota's public health, economic vitality and quality of life should not be at the mercy of other states. H.R. 2018 is a serious threat to states' rights and demands a full and public debate. Unfortunately, House Republicans are rushing this highly controversial bill to the floor without holding even a single Committee hearing. The Clean Water Act is one of our country's most successful environmental laws. For over forty years, Democrats, Independents and Republicans have worked together to protect and restore America's waters using the authorities in this law. Members of Congress today have a responsibility to protect this important legacy. H.R. 2018 is an unprecedented attempt to dismantle the Clean Water Act and return to the days when waterways in America were so polluted they caught fire. H.R. 2018 is the latest in a series of Republican proposals that benefit polluters, not American families, communities or the vast majority of American businesses that follow the law. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and put an end to the Republicans' dangerous policy of regulatory retreat.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the bill on the floor right now is a political gimmick. It is a stunt. It is not a serious effort. But this bill does reflect Republican values. This Republican bill protects the wealthiest Americans. This Republican bill pummels seniors and the middle class. And, no surprise, this bill panders, even grovels to the Tea Party extremists. This bill will end the Medicare guarantees. This bill will kill jobs. And, thank goodness, this bill will never pass the United States Senate. This bill will never become law. The Republican majority is wasting precious time as the clock ticks and ticks closer to default and economic disaster. The Republican majority is choosing to bring America to the brink of default for reasons that have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with reasonable governing. The American people reject the Tea Party's dangerous brand of Armageddon economics. It is time to take responsibility for paying America's bills and raise the debt ceiling without Tea Party gimmicks and games. This Congress needs to take a serious stand and get busy creating jobs and putting people back to work and getting this economy growing. Let's end the debate on this radical legislation right now. Let's get to the real work of cutting deficits, creating jobs, and growing the economy.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, since the start of the new Congress in January, the Tea Party Republican majority has been telling the American people our country is ``broke.'' During debate over the Federal budget, the majority has argued the unprecedented fiscal crisis facing Congress demands huge spending cuts to programs our constituents need and to investments that make our communities and country strong. Then, starting with H.R. 1, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for massive cuts to food safety, public safety, schools, life-saving health research, roads and bridges, clean energy alternatives, and nutrition for hungry children and nursing mothers. Cut $650 million from emergency nutrition assistance for hungry infants and mothers? Republicans said yes. Cut $35 million from food safety and food inspectors that keep families healthy and safe? Republicans said yes. Cut $1.3 billion from community health centers for the poor? Republicans said yes. But now that the $649 billion Pentagon funding bill for Fiscal Year 2012 (H.R. 2219) has reached the House floor, Republicans' dire fiscal warnings and collective eagerness to cut government spending are going out the window, and the spending spigot is being turned on full blast. The numbers tell the story. The Republican majority is proposing a $17 billion increase to the defense budget while slashing funding in every other appropriations bill. At $649 billion, the Pentagon's budget amounts to more government spending than all other Federal agencies combined and accounts for over 50 percent of all discretionary spending in the Federal budget. The party that lectures endlessly about deficit reduction, cutting government spending and shrinking the size of government is increasing the Federal Government's largest spending category. Republicans claim these increases in defense spending are essential for national security. But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen doesn't agree. In fact, Admiral Mullen is making the opposite argument, saying the Pentagon has not been forced to cut unnecessary or ineffective spending. In an April 28, 2011 speech in Washington, he said: ``with the increasing defense budget, which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn't forced us to prioritize. It hasn't forced us to do the analysis. And it hasn't forced us to limit ourselves . . .'' Since 2001, the Pentagon's budget has increased by seventy percent. The enormous size and rapid growth of the defense budget means that any Member of Congress who is not working to cut the defense budget is not serious about deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I am serious about confronting the fiscal crisis facing America. And, as an appropriator, I take seriously my job of eliminating unnecessary spending and ineffective programs in every appropriations bill and every Federal agency--including the Department of Defense. That is why I reviewed the 2012 defense budget to identify spending cuts that would promote fiscal responsibility without compromising national security. During debate on H.R. 2219, I offered three amendments to accomplish this goal. The first of these amendments cuts $124.8 million from the Pentagon's $324.8 million budget for military bands. The second cuts $150 million for the military's Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan which supports business development, not a core function of the Defense Department, including such initiatives as sourcing cashmere for New York fashion designer Kate Spade. Finally, my third amendment limits taxpayer dollars being spent by the military to sponsor NASCAR, the National Hot Rod Association, and other motorsports racing teams to $20 million, down from an estimated $63 million. Military music. Mission creep. Corporate handouts. That is what my amendments target for cuts. The dollar savings from my amendments are modest by Pentagon standards. Still, in the midst of a fiscal crisis, I feel a responsibility to cut spending that is not central to the military's core mission of protecting the American people. Based on all the anti-spending rhetoric from House Republicans, the American people may expect strong bipartisan support for these ideas. Instead, with America watching, Republicans fiercely opposed my common-sense spending reductions. My Republican colleagues argued that limiting spending on military bands to $200 million next year would be ``highly detrimental to our armed forces.'' Republican Members claimed my amendment to limit taxpayer subsidies for NASCAR to $20 million ``may result in thousands of young Americans missing out on the chance to serve our nation in uniform, earn G.I. Bill benefits and ultimately attain a college degree.'' These wildly inflated claims have no relationship with reality or national security. Most disappointing, some House Republicans dismissed my amendments as insignificant reductions in the context of the overall budget. But that is not the ``every dollar counts'' approach they took when slashing funding for domestic agencies. Republicans justified their $35 million cut to food safety by arguing it was imperative for deficit reduction. My $124.8 million savings in the military band budget is much larger-- and it won't put America's children at increased risk of food-borne illness. Representative Barney Frank offered House Republicans the opportunity to vote for the significant budget savings they claimed to seek. The Frank amendment cut the proposed increase in the Pentagon budget by half. I strongly supported this amendment to save taxpayers approximately $8 billion and force the Pentagon to do what Admiral Mullen has not yet been asked to do: analyze, prioritize and make tough choices in a time of fiscal crisis. But Republicans overwhelmingly voted to defeat the Frank amendment when it failed 181-244. The debate on the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2219) should be a wake up call for America about Republican hypocrisy. The Republicans' fight to protect wasteful subsidies in defense while cutting programs that protect American families from deadly outbreaks reveals they are not opposed to government spending--only the spending they don't like. The opposition to deficit reducing amendments that I and other Democrats offered shows House Republicans aren't opposed to growing the size of government--as long as that growth occurs at the Pentagon, in the tax code, and other areas they support. Seventy-three amendments were offered to H.R. 2219. Only one amendment to reduce spending in this $649 billion bill was approved by the House--my amendment to cut $124.8 million from the military band budget. Some of my colleagues called it a symbolic victory. I see it as a symbol of a much bigger problem. Staring in 2001, wasteful tax cuts and two wars gave America the fiscal crisis we face today. Admiral Mullen has testified to Congress the nation's dire financial outlook is ``our biggest national security threat.'' America finds itself confronting a strange reality of needing to cut the Pentagon to secure the country. Without Republican support for cuts to defense spending, it will be almost impossible to put the country back on a sustainable fiscal course. But if my Republican colleagues will fight to protect $324.8 million for military bands it is unlikely Congress will have the votes to make much harder choices on Pentagon reforms that produce significant deficit reduction, such as repositioning our forces in Europe, cutting failed weapons programs, or updating our nuclear weapons strategy. And if the Tea Party-controlled House rejects my attempt to limit taxpayer spending on racecar decals and drivers to $20 million, Americans should question the Republican majority's commitment to deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2219.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. This important bill reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) through Fiscal Year 2016 and secures the program's near-term fiscal health. Minnesota has experienced its fair share of flooding this year. This bill is vitally needed to help communities in my state and states across the country recover from natural disasters. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by Congress under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance in exchange for state and community flood protections. The National Flood Insurance Program is the primary source of reliable, affordable flood insurance coverage for about 5.6 million homes and businesses. H.R. 1309 takes the necessary steps to ensure the NFIP's long term viability by encouraging broader participation in the program, eliminating wasteful subsidies, and updating the program to meet needs of the 21st century. Lastly, this bill delays the mandatory requirement for homeowners in newly classified ``Special Flood Hazard Areas'' to purchase flood insurance. The three year delay ensures affected homeowners are not suddenly burdened with new insurance costs and allows them adequate time to challenge new flood zone designations. I urge my colleagues to support the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, as someone who cares deeply about the State of Israel and the rights of the Palestinian people, I have serious concerns with H. Res. 268. This resolution does not advance U.S. interests, fails to contribute constructively to reviving the dormant peace process, and ignores the courageous efforts of Israelis and Palestinians willing to take the very difficult steps needed to achieve peace. Therefore, I cannot endorse a congressional statement that does not further the cause of peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. Last month, I visited Israel and the West Bank as a member of a fact finding mission sponsored by the J Street Education Fund. In every meeting I had with Israelis and Palestinians they shared their hopes for the future. They expressed their desires for peace. They want to live with security. They want the opportunity to make their own futures. Everyone I met with, from Israeli government officials to regular citizens, from President Abbas to Palestinian civil society leaders, said the status quo is unacceptable and a ``two-state solution'' is the only outcome that will ensure security and a lasting peace. Yet, is a ``two-state solution'' achievable? This is increasingly unclear as Israel and Palestinians continue to take unilateral steps that weaken the prospect for negotiations leading to a comprehensive and final peace agreement. This is both disappointing and detrimental to the ultimate goal both sides claim they seek. For example, the Palestinian Authority's diplomatic quest to seek recognition from the United Nations for an independent ``State of Palestine'' is a mistake, despite the legitimate and deeply felt desires of the Palestinians to live in their own free, independent and sovereign state. I told senior Palestinian officials directly when I was in the West Bank that such a move is not helpful to their goal or U.S. efforts to advance the peace process. Regardless of the outcome of any actions taken at the United Nations in September, the only path to a legitimate, lasting Palestinian state will be the result of a negotiated agreement with Israel. This is the path that both sides must continue to pursue. With regard to the unity government between Fatah and Hamas, it will likely be impossible for a legitimate peace process and final negotiated agreement to take place with the Palestinian people governed by two distinct political entities. Hamas and Israel are at war, thus the term: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace process that allows the Palestinians to be fragmented and factionalized will not yield peace or security, only lasting conflict--Palestinian against Palestinian, as well as Palestinian against Israeli. Hamas must agree to the Quartets conditions, but then again there is no possibility that Israel would ever negotiate a final agreement without such conditions. If in-fact Fatah and Hamas (with the on-going help of Egypt) can work together to achieve legitimacy within the international community by renouncing terrorism and recognizing the State of Israel then there is a real opportunity for a path to peace. If this is not possible then I am doubtful the peace process will advance to the point where a Palestinian state can be created. H. Res. 268 highlights that the U.S. has ``provided more than $3.5 billion cumulatively in direct bilateral assistance to the Palestinians'' and calls for an end of U.S. assistance if the unity government does not embrace the Quartets principles. The foreign assistance the U.S. provides the Palestinian Authority contributes to economic stability, security training, infrastructure development, and the building of democratic institutions--the foundation of a future Palestinian state. This aid not only benefits the Palestinian people and their nascent institutions, but Israel as well. Israel cannot negotiate a peace agreement and end the occupation of Palestinian lands if a future a Palestinian state is not viable. Cutting off aid would harm both Palestinian and Israeli interests. If Congress actually were to cut off aid it would also send a signal to the entire Arab world that the U.S. has abandoned the Palestinian people. The damage to the U.S. status in the Arab and entire Muslim world would be incalculable. Based on the text of H. Res. 268 it would appear that it is only the actions of Palestinians that undermine the possibility of a negotiated peace. There is no mention in the resolution of, for example, illegal Israeli settlement expansion into Palestinian lands. Obviously illegal Israeli settlements and outposts are a contentious and serious obstacle to peace. Israeli settlements and their continued expansion have been universally condemned by the world community because they make a contiguous Palestinian state increasingly impossible to achieve. If a ``two-state solution'' is ever to be achieved the settlement issue must be confronted, not ignored as Congress has chosen to do in this resolution. The policy realities that must be confronted and resolved to achieve a ``two-state solution'' are complex, sometimes painful, and often fraught with traps. Yet, for many in Congress, ``two-state solution'' has become a phrase that has many different definitions, most of which could never result in a peace agreement or the creation of a Palestinian state. Member of Congress can utter the phrase ``two-state solution'' and then act to make such a solution less possible. This resolution is an example of such a proclivity. In my estimation achieving a ``two-state solution'' will require the U.S. to maintain its traditional role as honest-broker in this decades long conflict. During my visit to the region I was constantly surprised by both Israelis and Palestinians who innocently and insistently called upon the U.S. to resolve the conflict, create the environment for negotiations, and achieve the goal of a two-state solution. I reminded everyone I encountered that the responsibility and burden of making the difficult political choices for peace were theirs and not something the U.S. can dictate. There is no doubt that the U.S. must maintain and strengthen the special relationship we have with the State of Israel. Israel is a trusted ally and will remain so long into the future. At the same time the U.S. has the opportunity to play a historical role in the creation of a new Palestinian state, allowing for the self-determination of the Palestinian people and greater security for Israel. These relationships provide the U.S. with the opportunity and obligation to remain faithful to facilitating negotiations and putting the difficult, uncomfortable issues to be resolved on the table with the goal of achieving a final peace agreement. President Obama deserves credit for holding both sides accountable and for making both sides feel uncomfortable. If the U.S. abandons our traditional honest-broker role to become an advocate for Israel or Palestinians then this conflict will never be resolved, it will likely simmer and boil over into a future of violence that we should all fear. Israelis and Palestinians--and the Americans who care deeply about the future of Israel as well as a future Palestinian state--deserve much more than this resolution offers. They deserve an honest, open, and constructive debate that advances U.S. interests for peace, security, democracy, dignity, freedom, and self-determination throughout the Middle East. The future of Israel is at stake. The future is at stake for millions of Palestinians seeking a national identity and the freedom to make their own state. The American people deserve more than what H. Res. 268 offers. On H. Res. 268 I will vote present. This resolution is another example of U.S. domestic political interests trumping the best interests of U.S. foreign policy. If a ``two-state solution'' is to be a reality this resolution does not get Israelis or Palestinians one inch closer to negotiations. Congress should be investing it time and energy as an honest-broker encouraging both sides to end the posturing and cease the obstructions to negotiations. Time is running out and we should be encouraging a revival of the peace process and focused negotiations--before it is too late.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, Section 9012 of this Defense appropriations bill contains language authorizing the Pentagon, under the direction and control of the Secretary of Defense, to operate a task force for business and stability operations in Afghanistan. The bill provides $150 million to the Secretary of Defense to operate this business task force. Our brave military men and women have been in Afghanistan for 10 long years confronting the Taliban, killing terrorists, and helping secure a better future for the Afghan people. When in the course of this long war did it become the Department of Defense's role to facilitate business opportunities for Afghan and foreign companies? Is it really within the Pentagon's expertise or mission to excel at business development, farming, or mineral exploration? This bill gives the Department of Defense authorization to carry out ``projects that include private investment, industrial development, banking and financial system development, agricultural diversification and revitalization, energy development in and with respect to Afghanistan.'' Afghanistan is an active war zone. American servicemembers are under attack and our Department of Defense should be solely focused on their security. The Pentagon's focus should not be on starting up businesses or facilitating business development tours for corporate CEOs. Economic development is an important part of America's overall strategy in Afghanistan, but that is the role of civilian agencies like USAID, the Department of State, or the Department of Commerce. Congress needs to invest in America's civilian capacity to carry out this function. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this House does not believe international development activities are a component of national security. If they did, they would not cut vital foreign assistance capacity and programs. Every House Member needs to ask why the Pentagon is supporting the development of the Afghan carpet industry while U.S. soldiers are under attack. Afghan carpets should not be a strategic priority for the Department of Defense. Every House Member needs to ask why the Department of Defense is helping Kate Spade, an exclusive New York handbag designer, to source raw materials in Afghanistan? Since when did the Pentagon invest taxpayer dollars in promoting women's fashion? The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense described his role in heading up the task force in The Washington Post: ``We do capitalism. We're about helping companies make money.'' Colleagues, helping companies make money is not the role of the Department of Defense. This is the worst example of mission creep. It is up to Congress to perform its oversight duty and rein in the Pentagon. Getting people to work in Afghanistan is important. Afghans who are working on farms, in factories, in functioning government ministries, and in the police and military are likely not shooting at our troops. But this report that accompanied the Defense authorization bill that passed in May said it best, and I quote from the Defense authorization bill: ``The function of private sector business development falls outside of the core competency of the Department of Defense.'' The House Armed Services Committee's report went on to further state: ``The mission of TFBSO should eventually fall under the jurisdiction of a different agency, likely USAID or possibly the Department of Commerce.'' The Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan and its $150 million budget should not be funded and not authorized in the Defense authorizations bill. This function and this money belongs in the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. This task force is another example of the militarization of foreign assistance that diverts the Pentagon from its core mission of security and war fighting. It also dangerously blurs the line between military- affiliated personnel in a war zone and civilian personnel carrying out development activities. America needs the Department of Defense to take care of its top priority: ensuring the national security of our country. We all know there will be fewer and fewer military personnel in Afghanistan in the coming months. Troops stationed in Afghanistan will be in increasing danger. We must allow those troops to focus on their security mission. If the Secretary of Defense truly believes business development and the work of the task force is vital to national security, then the Pentagon can contract with professionals at USAID to carry out this function. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and get the business development and cooperative investment support out of the Pentagon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Department of Defense to limit what they spend on motorsports sponsorships for NASCAR, the National Hot Rod Association, the Indy Car Series, or AMA Super Bike Racing to no more than $20 million in fiscal year 2012. With our Nation in a fiscal crisis, I can't imagine anyone wanting to spend more than $20 million for taxpayer-funded racing teams. As Members of Congress, we must make choices with what to do with America's taxpayer money. Congress needs to set priorities that will reduce the deficit and grow our economy. This year, the Department of Defense will spend at least $63 million in taxpayer funds to sponsor motorsports for so-called recruitment purposes. In the last decade, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to sponsor motorsports racing. And what do the American people get for their investment? Those millions of tax dollars buy decals--big stickers--on race cars. They pay for multimillion dollar race contracts for millionaire race car drivers and racing team owners. For example, the National Guard is currently spending $20 million in taxpayers' funds to sponsor one race car driver, $20 million, one race car driver. At a time when our Nation is fighting two wars and facing a fiscal crisis, why are we borrowing money from China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to pay for sponsorships and millionaire car drivers? How does that advance national security? Now, many of my colleagues insist that these sponsorships are critical to the survival of an all-volunteer military. I disagree. But I respect their passion despite the fact there is no evidence to demonstrate that this motorsports program is effective in recruiting. And that is why my amendment maintains a significant and sufficient investment in motorsports sponsorships, $20 million, to allow the Pentagon to demonstrate to us and to the taxpayers it does work. Now as Members of Congress, we must do a better job of exercising our oversight over the Pentagon's recruiting budget. Right now, 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 years old are not qualified--let me repeat-- 75 percent of young Americans ages 17-24 years old are not qualified to serve in the Armed Forces. Motorsports sponsorships are not the answer to making America's youth more physically fit or more academically prepared to serve. And according to a 2010 report by a retired military leader entitled ``Too Fat to Fight,'' the U.S. military faces serious long-term recruiting challenges. Let me quote the report directly. When weight problems are combined with educational deficits, criminal records, and other disqualifiers such as asthma or drug abuse, 75 percent of Americans 17-24 years old are unable to join the military for one or more of those reasons. The military will have to have more fit young men and women if they are going to find enough recruits with the excellent qualifications needed for a modern military. But we're not talking about $63 million to sponsor academic decathlons, soccer leagues, or baseball teams. With these alarming trends facing America's young people, the Pentagon needs to be leading a national effort to ensure young people around this country from coast to coast are educationally prepared, physically fit, morally sound, and dedicated to serving our country. Those young men and women aren't just found at racetracks. Yet that is where our branches of military are spending disproportionate amounts of recruiting budgets on an increasingly small number of recruiting targets. Here is an example of a motorsport's recruiting power. In 2010, the National Guard spent $645,000 to sponsor one single NASCAR race, the Air Guard 400. According to the Air National Guard, that $650,000 sponsorship generated 439 recruits. Only six of those leads were qualified leads or recruited eligible. How many enlistments for $650,000? Zero. Zero enlistments, zero contracts signed. Other branches of the Armed Forces have found these sponsorships to be a waste. The Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Navy have all canceled their motorsports sponsorships years ago, shifting their valuable recruitment dollars to more effective programs. I respect the patriotism and passion of motorsports fans. I do. And I encourage the U.S. military to continue its longstanding relationship with motorsports like NASCAR. This amendment does nothing to the additional $8 million the Army spends on outreach to NASCAR racing events or the millions spent on military recruitment at races. But we are wasting taxpayers' dollars on race cars and millionaire drivers with little or nothing to show from it. I've heard from supporters of racing sponsorships talk about the passion points and media impressions these sponsorship dollars produce among television viewers. Really? Americans don't know that there is an Army or an Air Force, or the American people don't know that we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan? They don't need a racing car to tell them that we have a volunteer military and our country is at war. Already this year, the Republican Congress has voted to cut nutrition programs for poor, hungry women and infants. And this majority is cutting investments in energy efficiency at a time of high gas prices. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to limit the sponsorship of motor racing to $20 million.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments left, and this one will deal with the subject of NASCAR.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. McCOLLUM. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It cuts $124.8 million from the overall bill. For my colleagues who say they are committed to deficit reduction, this is your chance to prove it. This amendment reduces government spending while protecting the Pentagon's national security mission by reducing the funding for military bands to the authorized level. Currently this bill and the Pentagon's budget includes a total of $324.8 million for 154 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time professional military musicians. This amendment would reduce the total funding for military bands to $200 million. The limit set for spending on military bands included a voice vote in the 2012 defense authorization bill, H.R. 1540. Let me be clear: This amendment brings the defense appropriations bill in line with the spending on military bands established in the defense authorization bill. Again, the House is already on record voting to limit spending on military bands to $200 million. Earlier, in debate on this bill, Representative Carter of Texas had an amendment that struck the language that I had inserted in the defense appropriations bill that would limit the military bands to $200 million. This amendment was agreed to on voice vote. I do not believe that the majority of Republicans and Democrats in this House want to be on record adding, adding over $124 million in spending for military bands. This amendment gives all of my colleagues the opportunity to reduce the cost to government by cutting $124 million from this bill, while allowing the Pentagon to continue to spend $200 million for choirs, jazz bands, ensembles, and other musical missions. There is no doubt that bands are important. We all enjoy listening to military bands and cherish the traditions of military music. But at a time of fiscal crisis, $200 million must be enough for ceremonial music, concerts, choir performance, and country music jam sessions. Maybe you believe that spending $325 million in 2012 is in our national security interests, a national priority that cannot even be cut or reduced. Well, I couldn't disagree more. There are really Members in this House who in good conscience vote to cut nutrition for programs for poor, hungry women and infants, but vote to protect a military bands budgets? Is this House really capable of gutting investments on women's health care, but allow $5 million increases in funding for military bands? Republicans are forcing cuts in law enforcement, firefighters, homeless veterans, but they take a stand opposing limiting funding for military bands to $200 million as a national security priority. Is this Congress really going to raise the debt ceiling so it can pay $325 million for military bands next year with money borrowed from China? These are truly misplaced priorities. Mr. Chairman, this Congress faces record deficits, and it's time for both smart investments and tough choices. In this $650 billion defense appropriations bill, this amendment proposes an extremely modest test of this House's willingness to cut spending for nonessential military functions. Last year the Army Materiel commander had a $4.4 million state of the art building especially constructed for the Army Materiel Command Band. While schools, health care centers and food banks are getting cut, $4.4 million is an example that seems to indicate to me that no one told the Pentagon that this is a fiscal crisis. The Pentagon does not need any more band aid. Mr. Carter argued against reducing spending on military bands, saying the language didn't save 1 cent, and he was correct. This amendment saves U.S. taxpayers $124.8 million, and that makes a lot of sense to the Minnesotans I represent. And it should make a lot of sense to my tea party Republican colleagues who march to their own drummers. This amendment gives all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, a chance to show our constituents a deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support this reduction to unnecessary defense spending. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Fellow Members, this amendment was adopted by voice in committee, and this amendment was not one that I lightly came up with. At a time when we are cutting back on WIC, which is supplements for children, at a time when we are cutting back on education and health care expenses, I kind of felt I had a duty as an appropriator to look at opportunities in which we could cut back on spending. And so I have come up with a few ideas, and I know that they, at times, haven't been the most popular. But one of them was cutting back on the amount of money we spend on military bands. And I enjoy military bands. I have listened to a lot of them since birth. But the Army alone has over 100 bands, employing 4,600 professional musicians and support staff. The Air Force and Navy and Marines and the National Guard have dozens of bands with professional musicians we all take great pride in. Congress needs to conduct oversight on this portion of the budget. It has grown substantially over the years. And I think we need to figure out what is the right note to have with military bands. So that's why this amendment that I offer that was adopted in full committee did cut, but it also continued to provide $200 million for the Pentagon to continue this fine tradition. As families and communities across this country see critical services being reduced or eliminated, including music in public education schools all across this country, I think it is time that we ask the Pentagon to make a small sacrifice in its musical budget. And so I would ask the committee to support the original language of the bill and to reject the Carter amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this week in Minnesota our State government is shut down due to a budget crisis. I want to applaud Governor Mark Dayton for negotiating in good faith, making productive compromises, and for never forgetting the needs of Minnesotans, especially our most vulnerable citizens. The Republicans controlling the Minnesota Legislature issue ultimatums, and they want to mortgage our State's future by cutting health, education, and law enforcement. In Congress and in Minnesota, Republicans use the same playbook: First, create a crisis, put jobs at risk and the economy in peril; then ignore the needs of middle class families, and then fight to protect the interests of millionaires and billionaires. What we are seeing in Washington and St. Paul is the radical tea party Republican extremism threatening jobs and the economy with destruction in the name of political advantage. This is a dangerous political strategy, and it needs to end now. Democrats and Republicans need to work together to solve our Nation's problems. The American people and Minnesotans expect that of their elected leaders.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the capable and courageous men and women of the Minnesota Air National Guard on the 90th anniversary of its founding. The Minnesota Air National Guard holds the distinction of being the first in our nation Air Unit of the National Guard recognized by the United States government. The Minnesota Air National Guard took flight with humble, but honorable beginnings. On September 26, 1920 Captain Ray S. Miller and two other Minnesotans rented a Curtiss Oriole biplane to launch an 8- day flight to Washington, DC. Their mission was to be the first federally recognized National Guard flying squadron. Subsequently the 109th Observation Squadron, the predecessor to today's Minnesota Air National Guard, passed muster inspection on January 17th, 1921. The creation of the 109th Minnesota Observation Squadron created the flight path for Minnesotans to continue making history while serving our state and our nation. The 133rd Airlift Wing (133rd AW) of the Minnesota Air National Guard Wing is headquartered at the Minneapolis- Saint Paul International Airport, and provides the U.S. Air Force with tactical airlift of troops, cargo, and medical patients anywhere in the world utilizing the C-130 Hercules. The 148th Fighter Wing (148th FW), headquartered in Duluth, provides the United States Air Force with combat Air Sovereignty and Air Defense. Additionally, both Wings are continually prepared to support the State of Minnesota with assistance in the event of disaster declaration. During WWII the 109th Observation Squadron was deployed to Europe, initially flying the Supermarine Spitfire Mk V and later reconnaissance missions with the North American F-6 Mustang. During the Korean War, Minnesota's Air Guard was again activated, contributing pilots to active wings throughout the Korean theater. Throughout the Cold War of the 1950s and early 1960s, both units of the 179th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Duluth and 109th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in St. Paul provided active air defense commitments with 24-hour alert status. Threats by the Soviet Union to oust Western troops from West Berlin in 1961 prompted the Berlin Crisis and a call-up of selected National Guard forces throughout the United States. Included in this mobilization were members of the 133rd Air Transport Wing, who served in federal active service for eleven months while operating out of their home station at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport. While the Minnesota Air Guard was never officially mobilized during the Vietnam War, the organization flew hundreds of supply and transport missions to Southeast Asia. Today, the Minnesota Air National Guard continues to serve with valor and with honor. We all recall the critical moments following the attack on our nation on September 11th, 2001. Immediately, F-16s from the 148th Fighter Wing were called into action for combat air patrols over critical areas. Since then, the Air Guard has provided support for our nation's efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation New Dawn as well as other operations worldwide. Brave men and women today from 133rd Airlift Wing and the 148th Fighter Wing continue to serve our nation with distinction in overseas operations today. Mr. Speaker, please join me in rising to honor the commitment and dedication of the 2,000 airmen and women serving in the Minnesota Air National Guard as we commemorate the 90th Anniversary of this pioneering unit.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture-FDA Appropriations bill. This legislation continues the Republican majority's destructive pattern of underfunding community needs and undermining the country's fragile economic recovery. Total funding in H.R. 2112 is $3 billion less than last year's funding level for Agriculture appropriations. As a result, there are far fewer resources to meet the growing needs of the American people. This legislation cuts critical nutrition programs for vulnerable women, children and elderly. It puts every family at greater risk of food- borne illness by slashing funding for food safety. And it gives Wall Street speculators more freedom to inflate gas prices by cutting funding to police oil speculation. The House Republican majority is forcing these dangerous cuts on our communities and arguing that sacrifice is needed to reduce federal deficits. Unfortunately, these are disingenuous arguments that hide the Republican's true budget priorities. While making drastic cuts to successful community programs in this and other appropriations bills, the Republican majority is protecting hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in their 2012 budget, including nearly $4 billion in special tax subsidies for the largest oil companies. Republicans have failed to justify their choice to spend precious federal resources on tax giveaways for Americans who have the most while handing deep cuts to those who have the least. The following provisions of H.R. 2112 are the most troubling: Women, Infants and Children, WIC: Though House Democrats were able to restore $147 million in funding, the WIC program will still be slashed by over $500 million from last year's level. Over 9 million women and young children benefit from this vital program that offers nutrition and health care assistance to some of our most vulnerable populations. H.R. 2112 will deny over 350,000 low-income women and infants access to the program. Commodity Supplemental Food Program, Emergency Food Assistance Program, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: House Republicans chose to cut by over $100 million these vital safety net programs that keep millions of Americans from going hungry at night. H.R. 2112 also cuts $2 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program) reserve fund. This funding is set aside in the event that participation is greater than expected. Food banks, emergency shelters, Americans who rely on food stamps, and seniors living at or below the poverty level will suffer from these cuts. With American families struggling to find jobs in this slow economic recovery, Congress should be strengthening the nutrition safety net, not weakening it. Minnesota has seen a 19 percent increase in food stamp usage over the past year while our food banks are under enormous strain to deal with the surging demand for their services. Food and Drug Administration, FDA: Recent deadly E. coli outbreaks across Europe are only the latest evidence of why it is reckless for House Republicans to underfund the President's request for the FDA by 21 percent. Congress passed landmark food safety reforms last year to protect public health. Yet, without adequate resources to implement these new protections, Americans will be exposed to unnecessary risks every time they visit the grocery store. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC: Wall Street speculators are contributing to skyrocketing gas prices by inflating the price of oil. As families in Minnesota and across the country struggle to pay these costs, House Republicans are choosing to cut the federal entity charged with policing speculation. In H.R. 2112, the CFTC receives 44 percent less funding than requested by President Obama. International Food Aid: The United States has a critical national security interest in helping to alleviate hunger in around the world, particularly in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. House Republicans cut the budget for the P.L. 480 Title II program that provides emergency food aid assistance by 38 percent. The successful McGovern-Dole International Food for Education program is also cut by 10 percent. Stopping Clean Water Act Enforcement: House Republicans inserted a legislative provision in H.R. 2112 to stop the Army Corps of Engineers from meeting its legal responsibilities under the Clean Water Act to protect our Nation's wetlands and tributaries. Conservation Programs: Rural conservation programs received an unprecedented $1 billion cut from mandatory spending levels in H.R. 2112. This decision is deeply unfortunate, considering conservation programs such as the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program have benefited farmers while improving water quality and wildlife habitat. H.R. 2112 does reflect a bipartisan agreement to continue the ban on horse slaughter inspection. The bill also stops funding for USDA's Livestock Protection Program that has been found to use lethal methods to address wildlife conflict. Taxpayer money can be better spent on predator control methods that do not involve the use of toxic poisons, steel-jawed traps and aerial gunning. Overall, H.R. 2112 is a deeply flawed bill. If enacted into law, it will inflict great and unnecessary pain on America's urban and rural communities with no significant or lasting reduction in the federal deficit. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise to strongly object to the Republican majority's mean-spirited $650 million cut to vulnerable women, infants and children. The Republican's Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations legislation, H.R. 2112, chooses to make this drastic reduction to the Women, Infants and Children, WIC, program at a time of economic crisis for millions of American families. WIC is a proven strategy to guarantee that lower-income expectant and breastfeeding mothers and their children up to 5 years of age receive nutritious food. In Minnesota alone, 137,000 children rely on WIC benefits to keep them healthy and help them grow strong. The federal budget is in crisis and Congress must take serious and immediate steps to tackle rising federal deficits. Members of Congress have a choice about how to reduce the deficit and a choice about who in our society will be asked to make the sacrifices. In Fiscal Year 2012, the Republicans are proposing uneven sacrifices. The Republican majority is choosing to cut $650 million from the women, infants and children in our communities who most need assistance while choosing to protect nearly $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies for Exxon and other large oil companies at a time of record-high gas prices. Up to 350,000 eligible women and children across the country will be denied access to basic nutrition under H.R. 2112. I urge my colleagues to reject the cuts to WIC in H.R. 2112.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R. 2017 brought to the House floor by the Republican majority. The problems with H.R. 2017 began even before the legislation was considered by the House. The rule to allow debate on H.R. 2017 enacts the House Republican's highly controversial budget plan to end Medicare as we know it. I voted with every Democratic Member of the House to oppose this rule--H. Res. 287--and to protect tomorrow's seniors from being forced to pay an average of $6,000 in additional health care costs every year. My Republican colleagues should be admonished for their decision to begin debate on a bill intended to safeguard American citizens with a rule that undermines the health and economic security of every American senior. The Fiscal Year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations measure fails to meet the public safety needs of communities in Minnesota and across the country. H.R. 2017 undermines support for our local law enforcement partners by slashing funding for firefighter assistance grants and State Homeland Security Grants, which are used primarily for training and equipping first responders. The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) said of the legislation: ``At a time when state and local public safety budgets are shrinking, it is unconscionable to implement cuts of this magnitude.'' The National Association of Counties is opposing H.R. 2017, arguing that reductions in critical grant programs cripple the ability of communities of all sizes to prepare for a range of threats, including potential nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks. Moreover, H.R. 2017 does not include sufficient funding for transit agencies to hire additional law enforcement officers, acquire bomb sniffing dogs, or install explosive screening devices. Funding to states and localities to secure sensitive tunnels and bridges and install surveillance systems in other high-risk areas is significantly reduced. This bill does not provide sufficient funds to protect harbors from terrorist threats or train maritime law enforcement personnel to safeguard U.S. ports. Even, however, with cuts this extreme, the Republicans fund discredited projects. The notorious ``287(g)'' program founded by the Bush administration, and abused by such anti-immigrant zealots as Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had its funding increased by millions of dollars. Sheriff Arapaio is under investigation for discrimination and illegal searches and seizures during his so-called ``immigration sweeps'' using the 287(g) program. This bill undercuts federal partnerships with local law enforcement and reduces America's capacity to respond to natural disasters, criminal actions and potential terrorist attacks. And the rule for this bill forces enactment of a reckless Republican budget that breaks faith with America's seniors and forces unnecessary cuts to education, innovation and infrastructure to pay for another tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I will vote no on H.R. 2017 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe the United States can secure our communities without sacrificing the rights and liberties that generations of Americans have fought so hard to protect. The PATRIOT Act fails this common sense test, which is why I have consistently opposed it and will vote against the extension of its provisions again today. The reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act under consideration by the House today extends provisions that give the Federal Government sweeping authority to spy on United States citizens. One such provision allows the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' in its anti- terrorism investigation--including library or bookstore records-- regardless of its relevance to the case. Another provision allows Federal law enforcement to obtain wiretaps without being required to identify the person, building, or business being spied upon to a secret court. During the Bush Administration, the Justice Department used this authority to illegally wiretap American citizens. Evidence of past abuses demand that the Patriot Act be reformed with stricter oversight and better safeguards to ensure security does not come at the cost of our Constitutional freedoms. Regretfully, the legislation on the floor today does not fix these problem provisions. The threat of terrorism is real and persistent. My first priority as a Member of Congress is to keep America safe. Be assured I will continue working with President Obama and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that all levels of law enforcement have the tools and flexibility they require.