Betty McCollum

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the highly capable and courageous men and women of the Minnesota Army National Guard's 34th Infantry Division, known as the Red Bulls, as they prepare for their third deployment overseas, and to commemorate the 150th anniversary of their predecessor, the First Minnesota Infantry. This May, the Red Bulls will begin their deployment to Iraq in support of Operation New Dawn, the drawdown phase of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Since September 11, 2001, the Red Bulls have been called to duty three times to join U.S. military forces in Iraq. During their current mission, their responsibilities will include providing convoy security, route protection and base defense as other troops leave the war zone in Iraq. The Red Bulls have made tremendous contributions to our nation with their honorable military service. The men and women of the Red Bulls comprise a highly skilled force which routinely accomplishes critical missions both on a federal and state level. During deployment from March 2006 to July 2007, they served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Minnesota Army National Guard's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division holds the record for the longest serving unit in Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the spring of 2009, more than one thousand Red Bulls were again tapped for deployment to Iraq. On this mission, the Division and their leaders were in charge of 16,000 multinational forces. The Division's leadership abilities were proven as they commanded all the coalition military operations in nine of Iraq's 18 provinces and had a direct partnership with more than 40,000 Iraqi Security Forces. They continue to display their excellence with their readiness and preparation for new missions. Each deployment of the 34th Infantry Division has provided an opportunity for the men and women to share their knowledge and leadership to other troops and help lead operational trainings. The Red Bulls have proven themselves again and again to be an essential part of the Total U.S. Army. Their dedication to United States is always evident through their selfless service and courage in undertaking each mission. It is a fitting historical coincidence that the current deployment coincides with the 150th anniversary of their predecessors, the First Minnesota Infantry, which heroically supported the Union Army at the battle of Gettysburg. The First Minnesota's great contributions and sacrifices during the Civil War were exemplary. They have helped to shape the men and women from our state and throughout the United States who choose to serve our great nation in the U.S. Armed Forces. The Red Bulls continue to carry on this sterling example of leadership and commitment to our nation. Mr. Speaker, please join me in rising to honor the commitment and dedication of the men and women of the 34th Infantry Division, the Red Bulls, as they prepare for their next deployment.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the current campaign of extra-judicial killing eing waged by the government of Rwanda. Political assassination has no role to play in the twenty first century. It must be condemned and it must cease. The government of Rwanda should understand that the large amounts of aid that Rwanda receives through America's generosity can not and will not be given to a state that kills its own citizens overseas and at home for political ends. The government of Rwanda is conducting a campaign of terror and murder against those it sees as enemies. On May 19, 2011 the New York Times reported that Rwandan dissidents in London had been warned by Scotland Yard that the Rwandan government ``was plotting to kill them.'' The BBC reported on May 21st that British police had told the men that ``The Rwandan government poses an immediate threat to your life.'' These are not just empty threats. The British police prevented a Rwandan assassin from entering the UK. In June 2010, former Rwandan Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, survived a botched assassination attempt in South Africa. Later that same month, Rwandan journalist, Jean-Leonard Rugambage, working on a story on the attack on Mr. Nyamwasa, was himself shot dead in Kigali. The Government of Rwanda is using every means at its disposal to harass those it sees as enemies but whom are merely exercising their democratic rights. In January 2011, four former top officials-- including Gen Nyamwasa--who have fallen out with President Kagame and gone into exile were sentenced in absentia to long terms in prison for threatening state security and promoting ethnic divisions. My own constituent, American citizen and distinguished human rights lawyer and campaigner, Paul Erlinder, was detained on bogus charges for several weeks in Kigali. Rwanda's recent history has been tragic, but a stable and prosperous country has been born from the ashes of the 1994 genocide. However, this tragic history does not give the current government the right to commit murder. The United States currently gives Rwanda over $200 million per year in aid. This generosity must surely be reexamined if the government continues to attack and kill those it disagrees with. [From the BBC News, Africa] Rwandan Exiles in London ``Threatened by Hitman'' Two Rwandan exiles living in London were warned last week by UK police that they faced the threat of assassination. It has emerged that the men were visited by officers who told them they were in danger of being killed by a hitman sent by the Rwandan government. Shortly before the warning was issued, a Rwandan man suspected of involvement was prevented from entering the UK. The Rwandan High Commission in London has denied involvement in any alleged plot to kill the two exiles. ``The government of Rwanda does not threaten the lives of its citizens wherever they live,'' High Commissioner Ernest Rwamucyo said. The government later said that the Metropolitan police had not approached it with evidence of the allegations. ``We are ready as always to work with them to ensure that nobody, be they Rwandan or not, is the victim of violence on British soil,'' a statement said, quoted by the New Times website in Kigali. ``Scared'' The two men--Rene Mugenzi and Jonathan Musonera--have both been involved in political groups opposed to the ruling party of Rwanda's President Paul Kagame. A week ago, UK police officers knocked on their doors and told them that they could not guarantee their safety. They advised them to increase the security around their homes or move away. The police gave them written statements saying: ``The Rwandan government poses an immediate threat to your life. The threat could come in any form.'' It is understood that shortly before visiting the two men, counter-terrorism officers had stopped a Rwandan man as he tried to enter the country at Folkestone. They questioned the unidentified man and turned him away. Mr. Musonera said he and his family were very scared. ``I was not surprised, because this is not the first time they've tried to disturb the opposition,'' he told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme after learning about the death threat. ``I take this problem very seriously. I used to drive my car. Right now I stopped because the police told me to use limited movement or go out with friends. ``My wife, she is scared. We have cut off the home phone. The children now they stay at home, they can't go out. They can't go out with friends. I stopped visitors coming to our home.'' Opposition meeting BBC Africa analyst Martin Plaut says it is not the first time there have been reports of threats to Rwandan exiles living in the UK. The UK's Security Service (MI5) has apparently been attempting to prevent an assassination campaign for some time, he adds. In April, it was reported that MI5 had warned Mr Rwamucyo to halt an alleged campaign of harassment against critics of his country's government. The police's warning was issued just prior to a meeting in London of exiles last weekend that brought together Tutsi and Hutu opposition politicians. The meeting heard from a former Rwandan chief of staff, Lt Gen Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, who addressed the gathering by videolink from South Africa, where he survived an assassination attempt in June 2010. The Rwanda government has denied any links to the shooting of Gen Nyamwasa, who was a close ally of Mr Kagame before fleeing to South Africa last year. The party representing the imprisoned Hutu politician, Victoire Ingabire, was also at the meeting. The possibility that Hutu and Tutsi political parties could begin working together would be worrying for the Rwandan government, our correspondent says. In January, four former top officials--including Gen Nyamwasa--who have fallen out with Mr Kagame and gone into exile were sentenced in absentia to long terms in prison for threatening state security and promoting ethnic divisions. President Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front came to power in 1994, ending the genocide in which some 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. He was re-elected last year with 93% of the vote, amid opposition claims of harassment.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and career of former Minnesota Twins player and member of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame, Harmon Killebrew. Harmon Killebrew played for twenty-two years, fourteen as a member of the Minnesota Twins. He was an extraordinary player, hitting 573 home runs, earning a place in thirteen all-star games, and winning the American League's Most Valuable Player award in 1969. I remember watching Hammerin' Harmon slug the Twins to victory on many occasions at Minnesota's Metropolitan Stadium and on television. His heroics on the baseball field and his kind and warm personality with both teammates and fans alike made him a beloved figure in the community. Mr. Killebrew's legacy extends long past his playing years on the baseball diamond. He will also be remembered for his devotion to charity and his tireless work on behalf of leukemia research. Mr. Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Killebrew's family.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was giving the keynote address at the second annual Native American Health Conference. Due to transportation constraints, I was unable to make it back to the Capitol to vote for H.R. 1383, H.R. 1627, and H.R. 1657. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all of these important bills.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and public service of all the brave men and women who gave their life in the line of duty. As we celebrate National Police Week 2011, let us take time to recognize that our law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to protect our families and keep us safe. Every peace officer serving in Minnesota or any community across this country knows that wearing a uniform carries a special responsibility and exceptional risk. Today marks nearly one year since Maplewood Police Officer Joseph Bergeron was killed in the line of duty after responding to reports of a suspected carjacking. This was a time of great pain and loss for the State of Minnesota. In the year since, the law enforcement community continues to heal from this loss and will ultimately do so because of their strength and resilience. The residents of the City of Maplewood will continue to have my full support during this time. We must never forget the heroic sacrifice of our fallen peace officers. The valiant bravery of these brave men and women helps ensure the safety of our families and communities. This National Police Week, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the courage and sacrifice of all law enforcement officers who gave their life in the line of duty.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3 and the ongoing Republican war against women's health care in America. H.R. 3 continues the Tea Party Republican's extreme social agenda to pursue unprecedented attacks on women's health and economic security. The Republican majority passed H.R. 1 and slashed billions of dollars from programs that allow women to provide and care for their families such as Head Start, Women, infants and children (WIC), Community Service Block Grants (CSBG), and the Maternal and Child Block Grant. Clearly their efforts targeted vulnerable women and their children-- people who do not have high-paid, high-powered lobbyists, as the victims of budget cuts. Their bill H.R. 2 repealed the Affordable Care Act, which ensures women have greater access to affordable health coverage and recommended preventative care. The Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act would strip 32 million Americans of health insurance coverage, again making families vulnerable. Now, H.R. 3 seeks to place unprecedented restrictions on a woman's ability to receive and pay for a legal medical procedure. This Republican bill places the federal government directly between a woman and her doctor. H.R. 3 is not about ``codifying the Hyde Amendment'' as my colleagues have stated. Federal law already prohibits even a single federal dollar from being used to pay for abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Instead, this legislation furthers a radical agenda that seeks to limit a woman's right to access comprehensive reproductive medical care. Exploiting the federal tax code for ideological purposes, this bill enacts new restrictions on a woman's ability to pay for legal medical services with private insurance, a health savings account, or private funds. A responsible small business owner that includes comprehensive reproductive care in their company's insurance policy will be denied their federal health care tax credit. A survivor of rape or incest may have to prove to an IRS agent with a detailed account of her brutalization in order to use her health savings account to pay for the procedure or qualify for an itemized medical deduction on her taxes. These restrictions allow politicians and IRS bureaucrats to influence medical decisions that should be made by a woman, her physician, family, and often with support and guidance from a spiritual leader. I strongly oppose any effort in Congress that creates government interference with private decisions that should be made between a doctor and a patient. I strongly oppose this war on women in America that threatens our freedoms and our rights. Instead of focusing on this divisive agenda, we should be focusing on policies that will improve the lives of America's women and girls such as addressing the quality of women's health care, fighting gender discrimination, increasing economic opportunities, and providing them with the education and support to succeed. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill and fight to keep safe, comprehensive reproductive and family planning services accessible to all Americans.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the special occasion of the centennial celebration of the Jewish Family Service in my hometown of Saint Paul. For 100 years, Jewish Family Service has served individuals, families and new Americans from all walks of life, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Founded in 1911, the organization was originally called Jewish Charities of St. Paul. By 1913, the Jewish Charities of St. Paul was renamed Jewish Welfare Association for the next 31 years. In 1946, the organization's name was changed to Jewish Family Service, the name that remains today. Jewish Family Service epitomizes the best in a community coming together. It has been a lifeline for many new immigrants and refugee groups, providing human services, employment counseling, mental health services, and translation services for the elderly. While programming may have changed along with demographics during the past century, the noble mission of Jewish Family Service has not changed. Today Jewish Family Service continues to serve all members of our community, including our newest Americans, including Somali, Latinos, Hmong and Russians, who are making their homes in the East Metro Twin Cities area. Our community's diversity is a strength. By assisting individuals and families as well as our new immigrants become productive and successful citizens in our community, Jewish Family Service is worthy of commendation and celebration. I offer my sincere congratulations to the staff and supporters of Jewish Family Service. In honor of the 100th Anniversary of the Jewish Family Service, I am pleased to submit this statement for the Congressional Record.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Republicans have said on the floor, the Republican budget will impose new cuts on today's seniors. The Republican plan repeals the Affordable Care Act, which strengthens Medicare and reduces costs. For seniors on Medicare today, the Republican plan brings back the doughnut hole, forcing seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs. It repeals seniors' free annual checkups and gets rid of reforms to better manage their chronic conditions. The Republican plan eliminates Medicare altogether and, instead, hands seniors vouchers and kicks them into the black hole of health insurance. All Americans, pay attention. If you're 54 and younger, you've been put on notice. Start saving now. In addition to saving for your retirement, you'll need to save for the new out-of-pocket expenses your health care will incur. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates seniors will be forced to pay an additional $6,000 a year on health care--that's $12,000 for a couple--which is the best case scenario seniors can expect. The plan in front of us tonight begins to double out-of-pocket spending for seniors, and it's only going to increase from there. When you dig a little deeper, you realize that more than half of the Medicare beneficiaries today have five or more chronic conditions. What awful choices will seniors be forced to make when their health care costs are greater than their vouchers? Will they be able to afford their diabetes care? Will they be able to afford to go to their doctors for colonoscopies or mammographies? It seems to me that the only seniors who will benefit from the Republican proposal will be senior insurance executives. Vote ``no'' on the Republican plan. Vote ``no'' in order to protect and save Medicare.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, despite reservations about certain aspects of this appropriations bill, I will vote in favor of funding the federal government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. The process over the past year, that has led us to this vote, has been filled with missed opportunities, disappointments, and extreme political posturing. This compromise agreement is a success for President Obama who prevented a government shutdown and defended America's seniors, students, working families, and the fragile economic recovery. Federal funding for Planned Parenthood and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, both under constant attack from Republicans, were prevented from being eliminated to the benefit of Americans in need of access to health care. The Republican Tea Party crusade to eliminate $100 billion in 2011 from domestic discretionary spending and their threats to shutdown the federal government failed. At the end of the day, this compromise cuts $38.5 billion from the budget. Yet, will yield only $352 million in reduced federal outlays in 2011, according to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. This is because much of the funding eliminated in H.R. 1473 was excess program funds that were never going to be spent anyway. H.R. 1473 is a compromise between Democrats and Republicans. Many onerous, destructive cuts proposed by the Tea Party Republican House majority in H.R. 1 were eliminated from this compromise. Investments in job creation, health care reform implementation, voluntary family planning services, public broadcasting, international development assistance, and services for homeless veterans are all included in this bill. Despite Republican efforts to gut services for the unemployed, the sick, women, and the poorest of the poor around the world, many harmful cuts were avoided in this final bill. Still, there are budget cuts and policy riders in this bill, which I strongly disagree with and have a long record of opposing. The cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, of $1.6 billion or 16 percent will diminish the ability of this agency to protect human health, pursue polluters, and address the grave challenges presented by global climate change. These cuts to EPA are wrongheaded and reflect a perspective that corporate profits are more important than regulating pollution and protecting human health. I find this objectionable, and I will work to continue to fund EPA's vital regulatory role in the 2012 Fiscal Year. Deep cuts to community health centers are of great concern to me. The $503 million cut to the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, program-- which provides nutritional assistance to young children and pregnant, postpartum and breast-feeding women--is a direct Republican attack on our society's most vulnerable. These are two examples of senseless, mean-spirited cuts that target low-income Americans. Funding school vouchers in the District of Columbia is a policy I strongly oppose because it undermines public schools and diverts scarce resources away from public 4, education. Another rider which I strongly opposed prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own local tax revenue to provide legal health care services to women. This intrusion into the affairs of local government is an example of Republican hypocrisy as they impose their ideological agenda on struggling citizens. There is no doubt that the federal government is facing a fiscal threat that must be addressed. Deficit reduction is a priority for the American people, for the financial markets, and for Congress. The House Republicans' hard line on spending masks their policies of increasing the deficit by hundreds of billions by cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires, protecting the defense contractors from cuts to eliminate waste and abuse, and heaping generous tax breaks on oil companies and other special interests. By focusing all spending cuts on domestic discretionary programs which makes up only 12 percent of the federal budget the Republicans advance an ideological agenda, but do nothing to repair our nation's fiscal situation or strengthen the economy. I will not celebrate the passage of this bill, but the process that lead us to this point should be instructive to the many sectors of our community that depend on the federal government as an equal partner. The consequence of last November's election victory by the Tea Party means every federal investment in education, health care access, services to the poor, the disabled, and the homeless is at risk of being eliminated. Federal support for job creating investments in community development, the arts, green technology, workforce training, and life-saving medical research are all at risk by this Tea Party majority that is determined to slash federal programs. Since January the American people have witnessed the Tea Party Republican majority in Congress and the accompanying agenda. The passage of H.R. 1 should be indicative of how destructive their agenda would be to America if it were not for a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and the leadership of President Obama in the White House. Between now and November 2012 the American people need to decide what role they want the federal government to play in their lives. The future of America is being debated now, but it will be decided in the next election. I strongly urge my fellow citizens--especially those who believe government plays a valuable role in our society--to become fully engaged in the policy and political process. The outcome of this year's appropriations process, H.R. 1473, is a compromise agreement. I support this agreement, but compromise does not mean I cede my values or priorities. In this political environment, I believe this compromise is the best deal possible to keep the federal government working, and I will not vote to shutdown the government. Congress needs to pass H.R. 1473, fund the federal government for the remainder of 2011, and get serious about meeting the priorities of the American people, like creating jobs, preventing a fiscal crisis, and making America competitive in this global economy.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 910, the so- called Energy Tax Prevention Act. H.R. 910 would permanently ban the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, from protecting human health and the environment by enforcing the Clean Air Act and confronting the threat of climate change. This radical, anti-environmental legislation is a distraction from the number one issue facing Congress: promoting job creation and economic growth. Instead of focusing on the economy, the House Republican majority is trying to legislate science by overriding the established scientific consensus on climate change and the threat posed by greenhouse gases. H.R. 910 endangers public health and will cost American jobs by slowing our economy's transition to cleaner, more secure energy sources. A recent EPA report revealed that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will prevent the early deaths of 230,000 Americans in 2020 and produce $2 trillion in economic benefits by that same year. I published an editorial with climate science expert John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 910. I ask that a copy of this editorial be included in the Congressional Record. [Published in The Hill blog on Apr. 6, 2011] Congress on Wrong Side of History in Denying Climate Change (By Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) and John Abraham) Right now in our hometown of St. Paul, Minnesota, we are preparing for what might possibly be record-breaking floods due to winter's heavy snowfall and the threat of heavier spring downpours. Minnesota has already experienced two 100- year floods in the Red River Valley within the past 13 years. Local doctors report an increase in cases of children with asthma and other respiratory conditions. Lake Superior has seen record low water levels in recent years, threatening not only drinking water supplies but the Duluth-Superior port that receives more than 1,200 ships and 48 million tons of cargo. All of these public health, economic, and environmental trends have been strongly linked to climate change. Multiple studies have shown that 97 percent of the most qualified climate scientists are in agreement that humans are causing the planet to warm. If this was an illness, and 97 percent of doctors recommended a certain treatment, we would take appropriate action. Instead, the majority party in the House of Representatives is choosing to willfully defy the diagnosis and overturn established science by voting on a bill (H.R. 910) that will gut the Clean Air Act and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from ever protecting the American people from the disastrous impacts of climate change. During the committee markup of H.R. 910, not a single Republican voted to even acknowledge the validity of EPA's scientific finding that ``warming of the climate system is unequivocal,'' caused by human activities, and a threat to public health. The rejection of those amendments is shocking to scientists who understand the serious risks Americans face from global climate change. This places the climate deniers on the same side as those fringe extremists who denied the harmful impacts of cigarette smoking and DDT, and the causes of acid rain and ozone depletion. Proponents of H.R. 910 are denying science and dangerously on the wrong side of history. We believe now is the time to confront climate change. If we act wisely, we can simultaneously protect the environment, create jobs, diversify our energy supplies, and improve national security. A recent report by Pew Environment Group shows the U.S. has now fallen to number three behind China and Germany for clean energy private investment. Passage of H.R. 910 will guarantee America loses out on the jobs of the future by obstructing efforts to build the new clean energy economy. It will deepen America's dependence on dirty coal and imported oil instead of creating American jobs through investments in renewable resources and energy efficiency. Our country must turn the problems presented by climate change into an opportunity. Instead of devoting its time to discrediting scientists and undermining the EPA, Congress should put more faith in the genius of the American spirit to protect our environment and human health while creating economic growth. With the right clean energy incentives and framework, we believe America can out-innovate and out-build anyone in the world. The proponents of H.R. 910 not only deny climate change, they undermine America's ability to fmd solutions that benefit consumers, workers and the environment. Every single member of Congress has a choice: deny the science of climate change or take real steps to confront a changing climate. Congress must accept scientific reality and act on climate change.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 37--legislation introduced by the House majority that would bar the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from enforcing the new rules on net neutrality that protect consumer freedom on the Internet. Last year, the FCC produced a commonsense set of rules that would bar Internet service providers from slowing or blocking consumer access to the Internet. The rules strike a sensible balance between ensuring consumer access to the Internet and the need for Internet service providers to pursue innovative and equitable business models. Today, the House Republican majority brought H.J. Res. 37 to the floor. This reckless legislation would strip away the FCC's ability to ensure a fair online marketplace and protect consumers. Moreover, it is being introduced at a time when large corporations are already restricting Americans' Internet freedom. Under H.J. Res. 37, consumers would not have a right to know if their Internet connection is as fast as advertised, or how their Internet provider is charging them for certain services. This legislation is a threat to the open Internet: without proper enforcement of net neutrality rules, competition would be limited, innovation would be hindered, and open access to information would be restricted. As individuals and businesses increasingly rely on access to high speed Internet, they also rely on federal authorities to develop and enforce essential consumer protections. This radical proposal by House Republicans would demolish the Federal government's ability to carry out these protections and ensure a free and open Internet for our constituents. If the Republican majority gets their way and this bill becomes the law of the land, consumer choice would be sacrificed in favor of even more power for a handful of corporations. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, reauthorization and reform of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is long overdue, and critical to our nation's future. Between 2007 and 2010, the Democratic House majority repeatedly passed FAA reauthorization legislation--with my strong support--to modernize America's outdated air traffic control system, improve airline safety for the traveling public, and create jobs by improving our nation's infrastructure. After years of negotiation, the Senate passed a bipartisan reauthorization bill in February 2011 that meets these criteria. Unfortunately, the House Republican majority chose not to bring the bipartisan Senate legislation to a vote today. Instead, House Republicans introduced H.R. 658, a different version of the FAA authorization that slashes $4 billion from needed aviation infrastructure investments. The $4 billion cut to aviation infrastructure funding would wreak havoc on our nation's aviation industry, which accounts for nearly 11 million jobs and $1.2 trillion in annual economic activity. Economist Mark Zandi--Senator McCain's economic advisor during the 2008 Presidential campaign--estimates that the cuts made in H.R. 658 to aviation infrastructure will result in the loss of 700,000 American jobs. In addition to the threat of massive job losses, H.R. 658 includes provisions that roll back worker rights and undermine airline safety. One of these provisions would change existing union election laws for aviation and rail workers so that employees who choose not to vote are counted as ``no'' votes. Needless to say, if these rules were applied to congressional elections, not a single sitting Member of the House or Senate would have won election. Some House Republicans have joined Democrats in rejecting this anti-democratic policy. Republican Congressman Steve LaTourette offered a bipartisan amendment with Democratic Representative Jerry Costello to maintain union election rules within the National Mediation Board that uphold a very basic democratic principle: the majority of those who vote will determine the outcome of an election. I voted for this amendment and was extremely disappointed it failed due to strong opposition from the Republican caucus. Another amendment, offered by Representative Bill Shuster, eliminates the commonsense proposal by the FAA to set a single standard for the aviation industry regulating how many hours pilots can fly before they are required to rest. This standard is the result of extensive scientific testing. Rep. Shuster's amendment would abandon the scientific basis for pilot rest requirements and instead create different levels of safety depending on the segment of the aviation industry. Fatigue affects pilots the same, regardless of the plane they fly or the cargo they carry. I opposed the Shuster amendment but unfortunately it passed despite unanimous opposition from Democratic Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, Congress must pass a long-term authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration that will improve safety for passengers and pilots, make critical infrastructure upgrades, and modernize this essential sector of our nation's economy. I am disappointed that the House will not vote on such a bill today. Once again, Republican leaders in the House have decided that scoring political points and protecting special interests is more important than our nation's future. President Obama has said he will veto any bill that does not protect railroad and airline workers' right to a fair election or one that erodes the safety and efficiency of our air traffic. Unfortunately, this bill fails on both counts, and I cannot support it.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 471, the private school voucher program for the District of Columbia. This bill would revive the ineffective and inefficient D.C. voucher program. The bill authorizes $100 million over the next five years for only 1.3 percent of students to receive vouchers in D.C.--with no offset for the funding. I do not support any attempt to resume funding the D.C. voucher system using taxpayer dollars intended for public schools. We should be investing public dollars in public schools, not diverting critically needed resources to private institutions. Private schools are not held to the same standards as our public schools--including civil rights laws and accountability measures--and are not required to provide the same services, such as educating individuals with disabilities. Vouchers take scarce resources away from our children and provide no accountability for our tax dollars. While the D.C. voucher program was in effect, multiple studies found that the students in the program were not performing better academically compared to other students in the District. In fact, the program was so poorly run that some students were allowed to use vouchers to attend unaccredited schools. The Republican House majority made the largest cut to education in our history in their continuing resolution for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 1) that passed the House. In the same bill, they proposed to fund the D.C. voucher system at $15.5 million. Again, my Republican colleagues cut public education in all 50 states while reviving millions of dollars for vouchers for one percent of students in the District of Columbia. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 471 and any funding efforts for this failed program.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit a letter from Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. This letter was written in response to remarks made by one of my Republican colleagues on the House floor on February 17, 2011. During debate on an amendment to H.R. 1, this Member grossly mischaracterized comments that Ms. Stoesz made in the Wall Street Journal regarding Planned Parenthood's new express clinics model. This Member's comments constituted a personal attack against Ms. Stoesz. Such an attack on a citizen-leader is inconsistent with the best traditions of the House. I believe every Member of Congress has the responsibility to speak thoughtfully, respectfully and accurately on the House floor--that standard should apply during debate with our House colleagues and certainly to references to private American citizens. Planned Parenthood's 26 Minnesota clinics provide essential reproductive health services to over 60,000 women and men each year. The express model increases access to a broad range of health services provided by Planned Parenthood. These services which include cancer screenings, affordable family services, testing for sexually transmitted infections, HIV testing and counseling and routine physicals enable Planned Parenthood clients to live healthier lives and raise healthy families. Planned Parenthood, Minneapolis, MN, Mar. 21, 2011. Hon. Betty McCollum, Fourth District, Minnesota, Longworth Building, Washington,

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. Today, Congress could have had a legitimate and necessary debate about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Does FIFRA do an adequate job of regulating pesticides or should the Clean Water Act supplement these efforts to address water quality issues? But that is not the debate we are having today. Instead, the Republican majority is forcing a vote to ban the EPA from ever applying the Clean Water Act to pesticides discharges into our Nation's waters. H.R. 872 removes a critical tool the EPA may need to protect public health and it weakens America's most important clean water legislation. This is a deceptive piece of legislation. Proponents claim H.R. 872 merely eliminates a duplicative bureaucratic process for pesticide application. In fact, if passed, H.R. 872 could permanently stop our ability to control and manage pesticide pollution found in America's rivers, lakes and streams. H.R. 872 would reverse a 2009 court decision. That decision found that the use of some pesticides and herbicides at times is a form of water pollution requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Across the country, over a thousand waterways are known to be ``impaired'' or polluted because of pesticides. Many more waters may be polluted but have not even been tested. In my home State of Minnesota--land of 10,000 lakes--a past U.S. Geological Survey study concluded that pesticides in rivers and streams in central Minnesota were ``ubiquitous.'' Endocrine disruptors possibly linked to the use of pesticides have led to the rise of mutating fish in the Mississippi River and 11 Minnesota lakes. Pesticide pollution in American waters is a problem that requires close review. I believe EPA is doing its job, as determined by the courts, to investigate and attempt to reduce harmful pesticide discharges into water bodies. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has told my office that they are working diligently to implement the federal court decision and the EPA's permitting efforts. I am concerned that H.R. 872 would stop state pollution control agencies across the country from their important work of regulating pesticide chemicals in our water. Moreover, H.R. 872 is being rushed to passage with little debate. It is being considered under suspension of the rules, a procedure usually reserved for non-controversial bills. Opposing witnesses were not allowed to testify during committee hearings and the Republican majority broke its promises to work with members who had offered and then withdrawn amendments in committee. This is no way to consider a bill that has serious consequences for human health, wildlife and the environment. Instead of tying EPA's hands, Congress should be encouraging, even pressing, the EPA to address water pollution that is threatening the health of our families and ecosystems. I oppose H.R. 872 and the overreaching effort to rush this bill through the legislative process.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise in tribute to a leader, a parliamentary expert, a mentor and a friend to many, Mr. Edward Burdick, former Chief Clerk of the Minnesota House of Representatives. On March 9, 2011 he died at the age of 89 years old, and he is remembered fondly by his family and many friends and colleagues. In 1941 at the age of 19, Ed as he was known, began a job in the Minnesota House of Representatives as a Page, earning $5 a day. He held many jobs in the Legislature and other public service jobs, including U.S. Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Department of Military Affairs. He also proudly served our Nation in the U.S. Army. In 1967, Ed was elected Chief Clerk of the Minnesota House of Representatives, a job he maintained until his retirement 38 years later. In all, Ed provided 62 years of public service to the people of Minnesota and our Nation. Ed was not only Chief Clerk but also House Parliamentarian, understanding every little twist of parliamentary procedure. His mastery of legislative process made him a nationally renowned expert in the field. Within the House Chamber, his booming and authoritative voice was a familiar presence as he kept decorum in a legislative body not always known for that quality. During the decades that Ed served as Chief Clerk, he mentored a dozen Speakers of the House and many others in leadership, including myself. He took his role teaching the House rules and parliamentary procedure very seriously. In November of 1992, I was elected to the Minnesota State House of Representatives. Prior to my swearing-in he informed me that he would meet with each new representative and explain the workings of the House and his office, ending with ``if there is anything you need or anything I can do for you, do not hesitate to ask me or my office''--and he truly meant it. That was who Ed Burdick was. A gentleman, a kind and thoughtful person, a hard worker, a person willing to serve everyone who needed assistance of any kind. Ed will be missed by many, many Legislators and State Government officials for his guidance, dignity and hard work. I know that I am not alone in saying, that I will miss Ed's kindness, his genuine nature, his loyalty to Minnesota and his absolute and total fairness to all. Ed Burdick will always serve a Minnesotan icon to public service. May you rest in peace, my friend.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Saint Paul Branch of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. For the past century, the St. Paul Branch of the AAUW has fulfilled a noble mission to advance equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, philanthropy and research. As a non-profit education advocacy organization, one of its major successes has been the creation of a trust providing college scholarships to young women. Each year, the trust awards approximately $60,000 in scholarships to deserving high school graduates, and one- time scholarship funds to women returning to college to complete a degree. Scholarship recipients reflect the growing ethnic, religious and racial diversity of our community. Through its Scholarship Trust and nationwide network affiliation with the AAUW, the St. Paul Branch has made a positive impact for many young women and girls by advancing social, economic and education equity. More women and girls are being empowered to seize opportunities that otherwise would have been impossible. The work of AAWU St. Paul Branch is commendable and it deserves to be celebrated. In honor of its 100th Anniversary and its mission to provide education opportunity for young women and girls, I am pleased to submit this statement for the Congressional Record.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. The legislation on the floor today, a bill to defund National Public Radio, is another example of a Republican-Tea Party agenda which kills jobs and imposes an extremist right-wing ideological agenda on the American people. This bill and debate is about titillating right wing passions and silencing public broadcasting-- nothing more. It is time for listeners of public radio, viewers of public television, and all citizens who value non-commercial broadcasting to make their voices heard or some valuable radio stations and important programming will disappear. In my state, Minnesota Public Radio is a treasured source of information and an important employer. The effects of this legislation would hurt National Public Radio, hurt Minnesota Public Radio, and Minnesotans who value this critical public media resource. Currently, public broadcasting in Minnesota receives over $4.2 million in federal grants, and that funding is at risk as a result of this bill. This ill-conceived and mean-spirited attack on an important non- profit employer would mean hundreds of lost jobs in Minnesota and the silencing of important public broadcasting content currently heard by tens of millions of Americans every week. Again, this is not surprising coming from a Republican-Tea Party majority that has already passed legislation that would eliminate nearly a million American jobs. While Democrats are fighting to strengthen the economy and create jobs, the Republican-Tea Party is pursuing an agenda that kills jobs, busts unions, and rewards big corporations with taxpayer handouts. This extreme agenda is an affront to the American people and seriously diminishes the ability for bipartisan solutions to our nation's most serious challenges. The bill is on the floor today in large part because of the exploits of a Republican operative who doubles as a muckraking dirty trickster. This faux-journalist lied to a National Public Radio executive to secure a meeting and then pieced together a deceptively-edited video of a secretly taped meeting. One media expert called the media sabotage of NPR by James O'Keefe, ``. . . unethical. It's pretty scummy.'' Mr. James O'Keefe, the Republican operative who deceived NPR, is most famous for being arrested and convicted of attempting to infiltrate the office of a Democratic U.S. Senator while impersonating a telephone repairman in an attempt to eavesdrop on calls between constituents and congressional staff. Now Mr. O'Keefe's criminal and unethical behavior is being used by the Republican-Tea Party majority in the U.S. House to pass a law to defund NPR. I guess today's legislation could be called an example of yellow policy-making based upon yellow journalism--except for the fact that any reference to journalism even in its most pejorative form in association with Mr. O'Keefe is a discredit to journalism. Mr. O'Keefe is in better company with Republicans such as former President Richard Nixon and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in their efforts to embrace criminal behavior in the pursuit of political advantage. The millions and millions of Americans who seek unbiased news, information, educational, and cultural programming should not be surprised that the Republican-Tea Party Congress and their corporate sponsors want to eliminate funding for National Public Radio. This legislation is not about deficit reduction because this bill fails to reduce the federal budget deficit by even $1 according to the Congressional Budget Office, but it is about advancing a right-wing political agenda at NPR's expense. This week, the Republican-Tea Party held an emergency meeting about so-called urgently needed legislation. What was the emergency? Were we finally going to consider a jobs bill? No. The ``emergency'' declared was to prohibit federal funding to go to NPR. This bill will prevent all public radio stations from using federal funds to purchase any programming from any source. The Republican-Tea Party majority wants to take control away from our local stations, like Minnesota Public Radio. It means that local stations, across the country, will not be able to use these funds to get programming from two of the largest public radio organizations in the country--American Public Media and Public Radio International--both located in Minnesota. That means stations could not use the funds to purchase programs like the beloved ``A Prairie Home Companion'' and ``This American Life''. Why have the Republicans brought this bill to the floor without as much as a single minute of consideration in a hearing or in committee? This NPR ``emergency'' is not to help struggling families and debate a badly-needed jobs bill right before we leave on a week-long recess. It is to consider legislation that will weaken our community. That will cost jobs in Minnesota. And all the Republican-Tea Partiers will vote for it based on the antics of a Republican operative who makes a living from lying. I would urge Members of the U.S. House and all Americans who value journalistic integrity and valuable public media outlets, like Minnesota Public Radio, to fight against a very bad bill and the harm it would cause to our communities.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, hundreds of Minnesotans, as well as citizens from across the country, have contacted my office about the military's multi-million dollar taxpayer sponsorship of NASCAR race cars. Frankly, many of my constituents and citizens of all political persuasions--Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Party activists--are dumbfounded when race car drivers receive millions of dollars from the Department of Defense while the Speaker of the House of Representatives tells the American people our country is ``broke.'' Last month the House of Representatives voted to eliminate funding for homeless veterans, slash community health centers serving low income families, and pass a fiscal year 2011 budget that would force 800,000 Americans to lose their jobs. Yet, taxpayer funded sponsorship of NASCAR racing teams was protected. I find this absurd. One of my constituents, a twelve-year-old young man named Nickolas of South Saint Paul, Minnesota, provided an eloquent rebuttal to these appalling priorities. Nickolas wrote my office saying: Congresswomen Betty McCollum, My name is Nickolas, and I am a Boy Scout working on my Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge. I read online that you wrote a bill to stop the Pentagon from sponsoring NASCAR race teams as a way to advertise. I agree that it is absurd that the Pentagon is funding NASCAR. We should put the money into NASA and jobs for people. NASA is more important than NASCAR. If the government is going to pay to support a race, how about a race to Mars? America has already sent people to the moon, why not Mars? Instead of paying for people to go in circles, why not pay for people to go for Mars? Humans are explorers. We should go to answer questions about the Red Planet and the Solar System. In addition, the studies done to get to Mars will give us better technology here on earth. Nickolas understands that scarce taxpayer dollars need to be invested in innovation, education, and exploration that will create new opportunities to expand our knowledge of space and our economy. I strongly encourage my colleagues to take Nickolas' advice and focus on cutting unnecessary government spending, like government sponsorship of NASCAR race cars while making sound investments in America's future.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in solidarity with the working men and women of America. There should be no doubt that there is a war going on right now against workers, unions, and middle class Americans who want more jobs. In Wisconsin, Ohio and here in Congress, workers' rights are under attack by union-busting politicians. It is time for Americans to stand up and fight for the rights of workers to organize and negotiate for safe working conditions, living wages, and basic benefits. It is time to stand up and fight against the attacks launched by union-busting Republican Governors and their corporate sponsors. The citizens and legislators of Wisconsin and Ohio who are standing up to the union-busters have the respect and appreciation of millions of Americans. Thank you for fighting for dignity, respect, freedom and the rights of American workers for today and tomorrow. And in Minnesota and across America, there are freedom-loving citizens who stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Wisconsin and Ohio.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1--legislation introduced by the House Republican majority that would cut over $60 billion in essential funding to America's communities without making a significant impact on this year's federal deficit. The number one priority for Congress is to keep America's economic recovery moving forward by creating jobs today and building a foundation for sustained, long-term growth. This will require strategic investments by the federal government in education, infrastructure, research and other areas that promote innovation and enable America to compete in the global economy. Tackling rising federal deficits are also part of the broader economic challenge. Federal deficits must be reduced with ``smart cuts'' to outdated or unnecessary federal programs including taxpayer-sponsorship of NASCAR, duplicative weapons programs at the Pentagon, and broadcasting to Cuba that never reaches its intended audience. I offered amendments to H.R. 1 to make some of these ``smart cuts.'' Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues voted to protect taxpayer subsidies for NASCAR and instead slashed funding to homeless veterans, heating assistance for the poor, neighborhood schools, road and bridge repair, and hundreds of other critical community investments. Because H.R. 1 undermines vital services and key long-term investments, professional economists believe the bill will put America's fragile economic recovery at risk. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that enactment of H.R. 1 would result in the destruction of 800,000 jobs nationwide. This week, Goldman Sachs economic forecaster Alec Phillips concluded that the Republicans' budget plan could slow economic growth by up to 2 percent. If my Republican colleagues were serious about deficit reduction they would support amendments like mine to reduce wasteful programs wherever they occur in the federal government--including the Pentagon. They would end their political fixation on ``earmarks'' in annual spending bills that totaled $16 billion last year and instead focus on special interest earmarks in the tax code that cost the government more than $1 trillion in revenue every year. And if Republicans in Congress really wanted to reduce federal deficits they would not have voted in December 2010 for a bloated $858 billion tax cut package that included $140 billion in tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans--every cent of this package was borrowed and added to federal deficits. I believe it is wrong to ask middle class families to sacrifice the quality of their schools, roads and health clinics so the richest Americans receive a tax cut they do not need. America's economy recovery and serious federal budget challenges require difficult choices in federal spending and taxation. But difficult choices can be made without threatening economic recovery or undermining the future competitiveness of our nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting H.R. 1 and instead, get to work on a budget that will create jobs and lead to renewed economic growth. I was unavailable to vote the following amendments to H.R. 1 because of a longstanding obligation with the Pentagon's National Defense University in the Middle East. Representative McCollum (MN) Amendment No. 50: Prohibits funds from being used for the Department of Defense to sponsor NASCAR race cars. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 50. Representative Nadler (NY)/Representative Lee (CA)/Representative Stark (CA) Amendment No. 232: Would limit funds for military operations in Afghanistan to $10 billion. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 232. Representative Kline (MN) Amendment No. 214: Prohibits funds from being used to implement regulations on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment--New Programs'' published by the Department of Education. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 214. Representative Pence (IN) Amendment No. 11: Prohibits any federal funds from being used by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Planned Parenthood is already prevented by federal law from using federal dollars for abortion services. This amendment takes away the money they use to provide for family planning, birth control, medical and preventive services. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 11. Representative Young (AK) Amendment No. 533: Would block the Environmental Appeals Board from reviewing air pollution permits related to drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 533. Representative Nadler (NY)/Representative Conyers (MI)/Representative Paul (TX)/Representative Jones (NC) Amendment No. 524: Prohibits funds to make a FISA application for an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 524. Representative Poe (TX) Amendment No. 466: Prohibits funds from being used by EPA to implement and enforce any requirements or issue permits for stationary source emissions of six pollutants that cause smog and global warming. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 466. Representative Rehberg (MT) Amendment No. 575: Prohibits any funds from being paid to any employee, officer, contractor, or grantee of any department or agency funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies to implement the Affordable Care Act. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 575. Representative King (IA) Amendment No. 267: Prohibits any funds from being used to implement any provision of the Affordable Care Act. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 267. Representative King (IA) Amendment No. 268: Prohibits any funds from being used to pay the salary of employees of any Federal department or agency with respect to implementing any provision of the Affordable Care Act. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 268. Representative Emerson (MO) Amendment No. 83: Prohibits funds from being used for enforcement of the individual mandate. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 83. Representative Kind (WI) Amendment No. 89: Prohibits a $147 million payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute for Brazilian farmers, part of an Administration-brokered settlement to avoid retaliation by Brazil pursuant to a WTO ruling in Brazil's favor. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 89. Representative Kind (WI) Amendment No. 88: Prohibits funds to be used to research, develop, test, evaluate, or procure the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle or the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to- Air Missile program. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 88. Representative Blackburn (TN)/Representative Jordan (OH) Amendment No. 104: Would cut an additional $22 billion on top of the $100 billion in cuts in the CR, reducing Legislative Branch appropriations by an additional 11%, and by reducing all other appropriations by 5.5%, exempting Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction- Veterans, and funding for Israel. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 104. Representative Bishop (NY) Amendment No. 414: Prohibits the use of funds for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 414. Representative Campbell (CA) Amendment No. 519: Reduces funds by 3.5% for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 519. Representative Broun (GA) Amendment No. 246: Prohibits funds from being used for beach replenishment projects by the Army Corps of Engineers. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 246. Representative Broun (GA) Amendment No. 263: Prohibits the use of funds to pay any dues to the United Nations. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 263. Representative Wu (OR) Amendment No. 526: Prohibits the use of funds by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from spending any money on oversight of all import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 526. Representative Markey (MA) Amendment No. 27: Requires oil companies that hold royalty-free leases allowing them to drill for free on the public's offshore lands to renegotiate those leases so that the public is paid the standard royalty charged for drilling. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 27. Representative Price (GA) Amendment No. 409: Prohibits funds from implementing or enforcing the Affordable Care Act. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 409. Representative McClintock (CA) Amendment No. 296: Would prevent the Department of the Interior from completing a science-based process on the Klamath River and deprive the public of information about whether dam removal is in the public interest. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 296. Representative McDermott (WA) Amendment No. 99: Prohibits the use of funds to be used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or approve the relocation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Operations Center-Pacific from Seattle, Washington, to Newport, Oregon. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on amendment No. 99. Representative Herger (CA) Amendment No. 177: Stops all funding to complete the USDA Forest Service from finishing a 6-year locally oriented planning process for designation of roads, trails and off-road use of National Forests. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 177. Representative Blumenauer (OR) Amendment No. 323: Prohibits funds from being used to make farm commodity payments to people or entities in excess of $250,000. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 323. Representative Boren (OK) Amendment No. 566: Prohibits reporting of multiple sales of rifles and shotguns. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 566. Representative Forbes (VA) Amendment No. 146: Prohibits the use of funds for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to be used for official representation purposes. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 146. Representative Kaptur (OH) Amendment No. 333: Reduces the amount made available in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program by 75%. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 104. Representative Polis (CO) Amendment No. 46: Limits the end strength level of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe to 35,000; limits the end strength level for active duty Army to 565,275; limits the end strength level for active duty Navy to 328,250; limits the end strength level for active duty Air Force to 329,275; and reduces the corresponding military personnel accounts by $292,451,213. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 46. Representative Johnson (OH) Amendment No. 498: Prohibits Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining from implementing regulations that protect streams from mining waste and other pollution. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 104. Representative Goodlatte (VA) Amendment No. 467: Prohibits the use of funds to develop, evaluate, or provide oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 467. Representative Gardner (CO) Amendment No. 79: Prohibits the use of funds for health insurance exchanges. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 79. Representative Neugebauer (TX) Amendment No. 151: Prohibits the use of funds for repair, alteration, or improvement of the Executive Residence at the White House. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 151. Representative Rooney (FL) Amendment No. 13: Prohibits the use of funds by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement or enforce water quality standards to protect the State of Florida's lakes and waters. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 13. Representative Stearns (FL) Amendment No. 8: Prohibits the use of funds for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 8. Representative Flake (AZ) Amendment No. 377: Prohibits the use of funds for the construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have ``yes'' voted on Amendment No. 377. Representative Guinta (NH) Amendment No. 166: Prohibits the use of funds for a government contract that requires a project labor agreement. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' Amendment No. 166. Representative Hall (TX) Amendment No. 495: Would block scientific research efforts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to understand the domestic and international impacts of climate change. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 495. Representative Lee (CA)/Representative Stark (CA) Amendment No. 141: Would reduce DoD funding to 2008 levels excluding funding for military personnel and the defense health program. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 141. Representative Griffith (VA) Amendment No. 109: Would seek to stop federal agencies from regulating mountain top removal mining. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 109. Representative Jones (NC) Amendment No. 548: Would prohibit the development of approval of fisheries catch shares programs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which are an important tool for rebuilding fish stocks, and aiding recovery and sustainability of ocean fisheries. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 548. Representative Luetkemeyer (MO) Amendment No. 47: Would bar funding for the study of the Missouri River Projects authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2009. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 47. Representative Luetkemeyer (MO) Amendment No. 149: Would block U.S. contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, limiting domestic and international scientific research efforts to understand the impacts of climate change. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 149. Representative Issa (CA) Amendment No. 569: Prohibits federal agencies from awarding pay raises to employees who move to a higher pay grade and assume greater responsibilities. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have ``no'' on Amendment No. 569. Representative Sullivan (OK) Amendment No. 94: No funds for implementation of decision by EPA administrator to increase ethanol content in gas to 15 percent. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' Amendment No. 94. Representative McKinley (WV) Amendment No. 216: Would bar EPA from exercising or implementing Sec. 404(c) of the Clean Water Act EPA under which the agency regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. wetlands and waters. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 216. Representative McKinley (WV) Amendment No. 217: Eliminates funding for regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 217. Representative Pompeo (KS) Amendment No. 545: Prohibits the use of federal funds for the public, searchable consumer product safety database the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act directs the CPSC to create. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 545. Representative Burgess (TX) Amendment No. 200: Prohibits funds from being used to pay the salary of any employee of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight in the Department of Health and Human Services. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 200. Representative Heller (NV) Amendment No. 482: Prohibits the use of funds for monument designations. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 482. Representative Noem (SD) Amendment No. 563: Prohibits the use of funds by EPA to issue air quality standards for soot (coarse particulate matter). Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 104. Representative Pitts (PA) Amendment No. 430: Prohibits the use of funds to be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, or the Department of the Treasury who takes any action to specify or define, through regulations, guidelines, or otherwise, essential benefits under section 1302 of the Affordable Care Act. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 430. Representative Carney (DE) Amendment No. 241: Prohibits funds for the oil and gas research and development program at the department of energy. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``yes'' on Amendment No. 241. Representative Mulvaney (SC) Amendment No. 164: Cuts all funds in the bill back to 2006 levels, except for the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 164. Representative King (IA) Amendment No. 273: Prohibits the use of funds to administer the wage-rate requirements (Davis-Bacon) of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, with respect to any project or program funded by this Act. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 273. Representative Burgess (TX) Amendment No. 154: Prohibits the Department of Education from using FY 2011 funds to execute a provision in the Education Jobs Fund which required the Governor of Texas to provide certain assurances of State effort to maintain elementary and secondary education funding. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on Amendment No. 154. Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 1. Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have ``yes'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit. Final Passage of H.R. 1--Fiscal Year Continuing Appropriations Act for FY 2011 (Representative Rogers (KY)--Appropriations). Had Representative McCollum been present to vote she would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 1.

Ms. McCOLLUM

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the official U.S. House calendar indicating that last votes for today would conclude at 3 p.m. I committed to travel to Sana'a, Yemen at the invitation of the National Defense University's Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies to address a conference of senior officials of the Government of Yemen on the subject of establishing a national security strategy. The Department of Defense is paying for my travel to this official event. I have attached the letter of invitation for inclusion in the Congressional Record. My absence means I will not be present to vote on H.R. 1, the continuing resolution that will fund the federal government through September 30, 2011. My opposition to H.R. 1 has been very public and it was my intention to vote against the harmful and ill advised bill that hurts communities, families, and puts America's most vulnerable at even greater risk. With regard to my amendment to H.R. 1 to prohibit Department of Defense sponsorship of NASCAR, I would have voted in favor. National Defense University, Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, Washington, DC, January 25, 2010. Hon. Betty McCollum, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman McCollum: Following up on our fruitful conversation the other day, I would like to invite you to participate as a speaker at a Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies sponsored National Security Seminar to be held in Sana'a, Yemen on Saturday February 19, 2011. The seminar will bring together up to 800 Yemeni officials, from ministries of the Yemeni government. In addition, members of the Yemeni parliament will attend and you will be introduced by a senior parliamentarian. Military students from the Military High Academy, a Yemeni version of our National Defense University will also attend. The purpose of the Seminar is to help build strategic capacity on a whole of government basis within the Yemeni government. As we discussed, I would ask that you participate in a session on bilateral Yemen-U.S. relations. This session will follow remarks by U.S. Ambassador Gerald Feierstein. The Yemeni Bi-Lateral speaker is Dr. Hussein Al-Amri who is a former Yemeni Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1994-2001), a current member of the Shura Council since 2001 and a Professor of modern and contemporary history at Sana'a University. You will have approximately 15 minutes for remarks. DoD regulation permits us to offer you coach fare air travel, per diem and lodging. The NESA Center contact for support is my Executive Assistant, Ms. Kelly Cure at (202) 685-4127 or curek@ndu.edu. Your knowledge and insights as a member of Congress and your interest in Yemen will add great value to this important event. I thank you for your willingness to participate. Sincerely, Ambassador James A. Larocco, Director, NESA Center.

Ms. McCOLLUM

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

Ms. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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