Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Virgin Islands Energy Crisis Relief Act of 2012. In January of this year, the HOVENSA Oil Refinery located on St. Croix in my Congressional district the U.S. Virgin Islands, announced that it would cease refinery operations because of the global economic slowdown, the addition of new refining capacity in emerging markets and the current low domestic price of natural gas. This announcement was an economic gut blow to the U.S. Virgin Islands not only because of its overall impact; a potential $580 million reduction in direct gross economic output and $92 million in overall government tax revenues beginning in FY 2012; and the direct termination of 2,471 employees and subcontractors which represents 12% of total employment and 27% of average gross pay of the private sector on St. Croix; but because of the crippling threat to energy affordability which inhibits economic growth and sustainability.

The HOVENSA refinery, which was one of the ten largest in the world, provided four percent of its refinery products in the form of gasoline, diesel, jet and propane fuel to the U.S. Virgin Islands. The HOVENSA refinery provided at least 90% of energy for the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority, which received fuel to power the utility at a reduced cost based on the average cost of crude delivered to the refinery or $2.00 less than the New York harbor landed fuel of the same type. The refinery also supplied most of the territory's gasoline service stations also at a reduced cost. According to VIWAPA, 76% of its costs are for the purchase of fuel. Even so, Virgin Islands residents and businesses pay electric power rates in the range of 44 to 48 cents per kilowatt hour, among the highest energy costs in the nation.

The greatest threat to the Virgin Islands economy and way of life posed by the closing of the HOVENSA refinery is energy affordability. While HOVENSA has agreed to supply fuel to the end of 2012, the Virgin Islands is in need of emergency relief in order to stabilize the cost of water and electricity to its business and residential consumers in the near future. In his 2012 State of the Territory address, Governor John deJongh said: ``Without reliable electricity and water there will be no new businesses. Without reliable electricity and water, we will have no economic development, fewer jobs and lower revenues, all contributing to a downward spiral.''

In light of the potential for economic catastrophe that currently exists, we are exploring an emergency appropriation for the purpose of stabilizing the economy of the Virgin Islands for a period of time, by subsidizing the cost of fuel, which the utility passes on to the consumer, both residential and business, through a funding mechanism called the Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause, known locally as the

Thank you, Congresswoman Norton, for holding this Special Order. And thank you, Congressman Sablan, for your steadfast leadership on this issue of significant importance to our constituents, but particularly to the military men, women, and families from the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories.

Last year, Congressman Sablan successfully worked to include his provision in the House National Defense Authorization Act, and it was opposed by the Senate due to cost. How much could six extra flags cost? It could not even be a fraction of a blip in the defense or the military budget. But I'm proud to stand here with my other distinguished and hardworking colleagues in strong support of our veterans, our active military, National Guard, and Reservists and to ask for respect for our flags.

We are here to call on our colleagues in the other body to follow the example of the House and include language requiring all branches of the Armed Forces to fly the flags of the District of Columbia and the five territories of the United States whenever the flags of the 50 States are displayed.

All national flags are potent patriotic symbols. As proud Americans who have sacrificed for our Nation in every conflict, it should naturally follow that wherever and whenever all flags from the 50 States are represented, we also see the flags of the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands right alongside--just as our men and women serve bravely alongside other Americans on the battlefield.

As we said earlier, the Senate reasoned that if flying the D.C. and the territories' flags at each military installation where there are now State flags were to be legislatively mandated, these bases would need to tap into their budgets to pay for those six flags. In my estimation, this is but a miniscule repayment of the debt we owe to the men and women of the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia--who serve in the military in higher per capita numbers than many States-- for their service and ultimate price that many have paid to protect our country.

A major goal of the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act is to rebuild our military after a decade of war. Part of that rebuilding process should be respecting all who have served and are serving and ensuring that they receive the recognition they deserve with their fellow Americans from the 50 States.

The U.S. territories and the District of Columbia have long and distinguished military histories. In our case, the Virgin Islanders have fought in every war and conflict, including the American Revolution. Not only did we serve, but the then-Danish West Indies played a role in keeping the Revolutionary Army supplied with gunpowder, and the story is told that our rum helped to keep Washington's troops warm in cold, wintery conditions.

Alexander Hamilton, who grew up on my home island of St. Croix, served in the Revolutionary War. At the start of the war, he organized an artillery company and was chosen as its captain. He later became senior aide-de-camp and confidant to General George Washington.

A Virgin Islander designed one of the first offerings for a flag for the 13 Colonies, and it's reported that we were the first to salute the Stars and the Stripes in one of our beautiful harbors.

As of last year, the U.S. Virgin Islands had a total of 1,807 men and women armed service personnel serving in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, U.S. Marine Corps, and Navy. We have 734 enlisted men and women and 108 offices proudly serving in our National Guard and Air Guard. And sadly, we too lost soldiers; we lost eight in the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Presently, as we've heard, the decision on which flags fly and are displayed on military installations rests with the individual base commander.

The display of flags of the territories and the District on U.S. military installations, both at home and abroad, varies. The Department of the Army is the only branch of the military that has taken steps to ensure a servicewide policy requiring display of all 56 flags.

I stand today with my five delegate colleagues to again call on the Senate to adopt the House bill that includes language requiring all branches of the Armed Forces to fly the flags of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands whenever the flags of the 50 States are displayed. We are tired of being overlooked in programs and initiatives, but today we draw the line at disrespecting our soldiers and, by extension, my constituents and those of my fellow delegates. We are part of the United States, and flying our flag with all of the others is the least that our military men, women, and their families deserve.

The following is my statement in its entirety:

Thank you, Congresswoman Norton for holding this Special Order and Congressman Sablan for your steadfast leadership on this issue of significant importance to our constituents, but particularly to the military men, women and families from the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. This is the second consecutive year in which Congressman Sablan has successfully worked to include this provision in the House National Defense Authorization Act. Last year, the measure was added to the FY 12 Act but was opposed by the Senate because of the ``cost.''

Cost??? How much could 6 extra flags cost? It would not even be a fraction of a blip in the defense or military budget.

It is a shame that we have to come to the floor on this issue, but here we are and I am proud to stand with my other distinguished and hard working colleagues in strong support of our veterans, active military, national guard and reservists and to demand respect for our flags. We are here to call on our colleagues in the other body to follow the example of the House and include language requiring all branches of the armed forces to fly the flags of the District of Columbia and the five territories of the United States whenever the flags of the 50 States are displayed.

All national flags are potent patriotic symbols. Like all 50 States, each U.S. territory has its own flag which we hold in high honor just as we do the stars and stripes of our Nation. As proud Americans who have sacrificed for our Nation in every conflict, it should naturally follow that wherever and whenever all flags from all 50 States are represented, we also see the flags of the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands right alongside--just as our men and women serve bravely alongside other Americans on the battlefield. If they are flown at non-military places--and they are--then surely we should see them at all military installations.

As we said earlier, the Senate reasoned that, if flying the DC and the territories' flags at each military installation where there are now State flags were to be legislatively mandated, these bases would need to tap into their budgets to pay for those six flags. In my estimation, this is but a minuscule repayment of the debt we owe to the men and women of the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia who serve in the military in higher per capita numbers than many States, for their service and the ultimate price many have paid to protect our country.

A major goal of the FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act is to rebuild our military after a decade of war. Part of that rebuilding process should be respecting ALL who have served and are serving and ensuring that they receive the recognition they deserve with their fellow Americans from the 50 States.

The U.S. territories and the District of Columbia have long and distinguished military histories.

In our case, Virgin Islanders have fought in every war and conflict including the American Revolution. Not only did we serve but the then Danish West Indies played a role in keeping the revolutionary army supplied with gunpowder and the story is told that our rum helped to keep Washington's troops warm in cold wintery conditions.

Alexander Hamilton, who grew up on my home island of St. Croix, served in the Revolutionary war. At the start of the war, he organized an artillery company and was chosen as its captain. He later became senior aid-de-camp and confidant to General George Washington.

Beyond his military service, one cannot overstate his contributions to our Nation as a Founding Father, economist, political philosopher and strategist, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury.

A Virgin Islander designed one of the first offerings for a flag for the 13 colonies and it is reported that we were the first to salute the stars and stripes in one of our beautiful harbors.

As of last year, the U.S. Virgin Islands had a total of 1,807 men and women Armed Service Personnel serving in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, U.S. Marine Corps and Navy. We have 734 enlisted men and women and 108 officers proudly serving in the National Guard and Air Guard. Sadly, we lost 8 soldiers in the Afghan-Iraq war.

Presently, the decision on which flags display and fly on military installations rests with the individual base commander. The display of the flags of the territories and the District on U.S. military installations, both at home and abroad, varies. The Department of the Army is the only branch of the military that has taken steps to ensure a service-wide policy requiring the display of all 56 flags. I stand today with my 5 Delegate colleagues to again call on the Senate to adopt the House bill that includes language requiring all branches of the armed forces to fly the flags of the District of Columbia, American Samoa, The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin islands whenever the flags of the 50 States are displayed.

We are tired of being overlooked in programs and initiatives, but we today draw the line at disrespecting our soldiers and by extension my constituents and those of my fellow Delegates.

We are a part of the United States and flying our flag with all of the others is the least that our military men, women and families deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the election is over. The people of this country have spoken and said loudly and clearly that they want us to work together to create jobs and fix our economy.

I agree with economists who say that the threat of a fiscal cliff, like the need to immediately reduce the deficit, is being overblown. And it is done like the debt ceiling debacle to create a do-or-die situation where it is hoped that Democrats would agree to cuts in programs that would lose jobs and lock more people into poverty. That is unacceptable in this, the greatest country in the world, and we cannot agree to it.

We are being asked to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. Through cuts and caps put in place already, over the next 10 years we are projected to cut that deficit by $1.7 trillion. That leaves $2.3 trillion. If we allow the growth in the economy to continue, even at its present slow pace, that can help to reduce the need for that level of cuts even more.

The poor and the middle class are already doing their part through the cuts that are already in place. Now it is time for everyone else to do theirs. The rest of the deficit reduction must come primarily from eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy who have continued to do very well during the recession while everyone else suffered.

This Congress can avoid taking us to yet another fiscal cliff and avoid sequestration by working together in the balanced way that the American people have asked us to.

Thank you, Congressman Scott, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6116, legislation I sponsored to provide for direct appeals of decisions of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I want to begin by thanking the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and their staff for working together in a bipartisan way to swiftly report H.R. 6116 and bring it to the House floor today. On behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands, I want to say thank you to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers, as well as to my colleagues, Congressman Coble and Congressman Scott, who are managing the bill on the floor today.

It was just 5 months ago that I had the pleasure of joining the elected leaders of the Virgin Islands at a ceremony to celebrate the Virgin Islands Supreme Court reaching a historic milestone. Specifically, the occasion was to receive the report from the judicial council of the third circuit regarding their review of the Virgin Island Supreme Court during its first 5 years, as required by law, which authorized the Virgin Islands to create a local appellate court.

The third circuit report concluded that the U.S. Virgin Islands Supreme Court developed sufficient institutional traditions to justify direct review of its final decisions by the United States Supreme Court and urged Congress to enact legislation providing that the Supreme Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands enjoy the same relationship with the U.S. Supreme Court as the highest court of any State.

Today, the House will take the first step in making the Virgin Islands Supreme Court just like every other high court in the States and territories. This is just one more step on the journey for further local self-governance, which was begun in 1984 when my predecessor, former Delegate to Congress, Ron de Lugo, amended the Virgin Islands 1954 Organic Act to allow for the creation of an appellate court chartered under local law, while it took another 20 years for Virgin Islands Act No. 6687 to be signed into law by then-Governor Charles W. Turnbull, and 2 more years for a chief justice and two associate justices to be nominated and confirmed and for the Supreme Court to formally accept appellate jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Hodge and Associate Justices Cabret and Swan are to be

commended for the work they did to earn the recommendation of the third circuit's judicial council for appeals of their decisions to go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In doing so, they are following our sister territory of Guam, which was the last Supreme Court to gain direct appeals of their decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over these past 5 years, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has issued opinions on such wide-ranging cases as whether and when a judge could be disciplined, to affirming in a landmark ruling that women are not property. By my staff's unofficial count, among the court's many accomplishments is the issuance of over 180 published opinions since 2007.

Other noteworthy accomplishments include making several structural reforms in the areas of attorney admissions to the Virgin Islands Bar, discipline procedures, and mandating new requirements for continuing legal education courses for all active members of the Virgin Islands Bar Association.

I had the pleasure of joining Chief Justice Hodge and Associate Justices Cabret and Swan at their official swearing-in ceremony in 2006. At that time I focused my remarks on the historic nature of the occasion as well as the personal relationships I share with each of the individual justices. With all that they have accomplished over the short time that this court has been in existence, all Virgin Islanders will look back on this time with great pride and gratitude for the way in which they laid the foundation for appellate jurisprudence in the territory that is second to none.

While it took more than 20 years after the law's authorizing us to establish a local appellate court, and while we are the last U.S. territory to do so, it is more than fitting that we are on the verge of accomplishing the final goal of making the U.S. Virgin Islands Supreme Court just like all other State supreme courts, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 6116.

Mr. Speaker, on Taiwan's National Day (October 10, 2012), I am pleased to take this opportunity to wish the leaders and people of Taiwan many happy returns. I look forward to continued bi- lateral relations between Taiwan and the United States of America.

Also, I would like to bid a personal farewell to Taiwan Ambassador, Mr. Jason Yuan. He has been reassigned as Taiwan's Secretary-General of the National Security Council. During his last four years in Washington, DC, Ambassador Yuan has been instrumental in fostering the strong relationship between the Taiwanese people and the Government of the United States. I wish Ambassador Yuan and his family best wishes and a smooth transition in his new position, and I thank him for his service.

Mr. Chair, here we go again! Republicans have spent 18 months and millions of taxpayer dollars looking into the Obama Administration's energy loan guarantee to Solyndra. The Oversight Subcommittee has held 7 hearings on Solyndra in

2011. And now they propose another Anti-Obama bill, based not on facts but on politics.

These are the facts:

The energy loan program was created under the Bush administration, and President Bush's Department of Energy invited Solyndra to fully apply for a loan guarantee.

Solyndra was praised as a successful, innovative company both before and after it received the loan guarantee.

Solyndra was just one of 30 companies in a portfolio that was expected to support more than 60,000 jobs.

After more than a year of costly investigations, House Republicans have ``turned up no evidence of wrong doing.''

President Obama's investment in clean energy is paying off, creating jobs around the country.

Despite these facts, the Republicans are determined to waste taxpayers' money on bad bills that will set bad precedents. No one has refuted that there are needed improvements to the program. Independent findings have stated that DOE is already implementing recommendations to improve the program. Introducing legislation like the ``No More Solyndra Act'' is unnecessary and it not only penalizes potentially good programs because of one bad incident, it can kill the kind of innovation in energy that we need. This is especially true for districts like mine with one of the highest if not the highest energy costs at 45 cents per kilowatt. We need the innovation that the DOE program provides and this bill would kill.

It is important that the federal government play a prominent role in promoting energy efficiency. This bill which restricts the ability of the Department of Energy to provide competitive loan guarantees to alternative energy businesses to support innovation is not a solution to challenges DOE has had with the energy loan guarantee but another attack on the administration. These loan guarantees are important to the development of a strong clean energy industry and jobs it would create.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 3706, legislation I introduced to provide for a Chief Financial Officer for the Government of the Virgin Islands. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey of the Natural Resources Committee for their support in making it possible for H.R. 3706 to be on the floor today. I also want to thank Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Chairman John Fleming and, of course, Ranking Member Kilili Sablan for their support, as well.

Mr. Speaker, today, as you heard, marks the fourth time in 9 years that this House will consider legislation that I have sponsored to provide for a CFO for my congressional district, the U.S. Virgin Islands. It has passed the previous three times.

While I have been severely criticized by some for its introduction, there are many who support it. But I continue to believe that having an independent professional third party being responsible for determining the amount of revenues that the local government has available to spend for an ensuing fiscal year would be a positive development for our government and is also generally supported by a broad cross-section of our electorate.

When I first sponsored the first CFO bill in 2003, the Territory was technically insolvent, and urgent action was necessary to avoid needing a Federal bailout and all that would entail. After studying the experience of the District of Columbia, which sought and obtained a Federal bailout and the accompanying loss of political autonomy through a financial control board, I concluded then that it would have been better if we avoided being taken over by a control board, and I crafted my original CFO bill to do that.

Unlike H.R. 3706, my first chief financial officer bill did involve a loss of authority for the Governor and legislature to accumulate public debt, but it was temporary and would have prevented a complete loss of political autonomy. Today, while the territory is experiencing very serious fiscal challenges, the government is not on the verge of imminent fiscal collapse and no longer has a structural deficit over $1 billion or annual deficits in excess of $100 million.

In view of this, one could reasonably ask, then, why the need for the current bill? First of all, H.R. 3706 seeks to end the acrimony and mistrust among the different branches of Virgin Islands Government and the public at large and provide for revenue projections from a highly qualified person. This individual would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature but does not serve at the pleasure of the Governor.

This is the process that is used by the District of Columbia currently through its CFO, and there have been no complaints from the chief executive of D.C., the mayor, about a loss of sovereignty or of a return to colonialism.

Since last year, when the Virgin Islands Governor John de Jongh, Jr., announced a pending $135 million deficit in his budget projections for fiscal year 2012, several members of the 29th legislature questioned the Governor's numbers and they have continued to do so, pointing to differences in figures between reports done by auditors and figures presented in budget documents.

Similarly, public sector union members who have been greatly impacted by various austerity measures also scoffed at the budget projections, saying:

there had not been enough transparency to truly demonstrate

that there really was a financial crisis and (that there was)

no other way to solve it but layoffs or pay cuts.

H.R. 3706 does not affect in any way the Governor or the legislature's ability to spend the territory's funds as they see fit. It simply attempts to end questions on what the exact revenue of the territory is so that we can move forward on a sound economic recovery.

I'm not under any allusion that my CFO bill will be a cure-all for all that ails the Virgin Islands. I am, however, proposing it as a 5- year pilot program for improving transparency and trust in our budgetary and fiscal practices. If Virgin Islanders approve of the process and system for determining our annual budget limits that the bill provides, they can vote to make it permanent through a referendum that is provided for after 4 years of the CFO's 5-year term.

Each time I have introduced this or one of the earlier versions of this bill, there have been concerns that the United States Congress is imposing itself into the governance of the territory. There are some that would wish that this were the case, but I am not one of them, and this bill would not do that.

Because we do not have a constitution, the people of the Virgin Islands have come to Congress on a number of occasions, for example, to attempt to abolish the Office of Lieutenant Governor; to expand borrowing authority, which we did; to limit the number of senators, and for other purposes. I don't really see this process as being any different coming as a representative of the people of the Virgin Islands and representing their interests.

Moreover, attempts by our local legislature to pass similar legislation have failed, and legislative proposals by nonpartisan organizations have never been considered. Therefore, as a representative of the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Congress, it fell to me, and I accept the responsibility. I just regret that our Governor and I could not see eye to eye on this.

The Federal Government has and will be providing significant funds to the U.S. Virgin Islands, especially in light of the economic disaster that currently exists. I am sure that having such an office as the one being proposed by H.R. 3706 will enhance our ability to successfully navigate through this very critical time because of the added accountability and transparency that it provides.

So I thank you for the time, and I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of H.R. 3706.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in very strong support of H.R. 1550, the Federal Law Enforcement Personnel and Resources Allocation Improvement Act of 2012, which would require the Attorney General, in the allocation of Federal law enforcement personnel and resources, to give priority to placing and retaining such personnel and resources in States and local jurisdictions that have a high incidence of homicide or other violent crime.

I commend my friend, the Congressman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) for its introduction, for his hard work, and for his leadership in getting it to the floor today.

If this bill were to become law, my district, along with Congressman Pierluisi's, will be one of the local jurisdictions that would qualify for having that high incidence of homicide and violent crime. This is not a fact that we're proud of, but it is a reality; and it's the by- product of the USVI and Puerto Rico being a trans-shipment point for illegal drugs traveling from Central and South America to mainland United States.

There are many other communities in our country that are facing the same or similar incidence of violence; and the blame, in most cases, can be traced to drug trafficking. In the case of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, it stems from the fact that we have become the route of choice for drug shipments to the east coast of the United States.

According to Department of Justice statistics, in 2011, 165,000 metric tons of illegal drugs were seized in the Caribbean, Bahamas and Gulf of Mexico, up 36 percent over 4 years. And up to 80 percent of cocaine trafficked through the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is directed to U.S. east coast cities.

Congressman Pierluisi and I were recently at the Coast Guard station in Puerto Rico, and we had the opportunity to meet with the commander of the ship that had recently captured 1.4 kilos of cocaine off of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. That was the port's largest capture in its history. These routes are also a threat to America's national security. In addition to the guns, assault weapons and drugs, the Caribbean region is susceptible to smuggling nuclear and all other kinds

of materials that could easily be used as staging areas for violence against our country.

The most tragic of all are the young people who had been killed or who are now in jail, many of whom I knew and took care of as a family physician. Unfortunately, we, too, have one of the highest murder rates per 100,000 in our country. Our community was shocked a few months ago when two of our young policemen, who were in a high crime area but who were on what seemed to be a routine patrol, were shot earlier this year. Both sustained injuries which go beyond the physical. One is paralyzed and will require lifelong care and support.

Our community, though, is fighting back. Our law enforcement has been meeting with those from across the Caribbean region. We are working with the Federal law enforcement that does exist in the Territory. Both of us, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are high-intensity drug trafficking areas. We have a well-integrated but still incomplete team led by Adjutant General Vicens from Puerto Rico and Executive Director Catherine Mills from the Virgin Islands, but we do need more Federal help in order to restore the safety of our communities and to protect the lives of our children. This is not only important to my constituents and me; it is critical to the well-being of the constituents of all of our colleagues but especially to those whose communities have high homicide and violent crime rates.

In this legislation, which I am pleased to cosponsor, we are pleading for this critically important help in order to bring the vital Federal resources to save our communities--to save all of our communities--and to protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1550.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is my pleasure to lead this Special Order this evening, and I thank again our Democratic leadership for giving us this time.

Before I yield to the minority whip, I want to also add my condolences to the families who lost loved ones in the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and to those who are recovering from their injuries, both physical and emotional. I want to add the condolences of the people of the Virgin Islands to all of them. They are all in our prayers. It happened that I had taken my granddaughter, Nia, to a preview of the movie the night before, and I really shudder to think of what everyone in that theater went through that night. It could have been us, and it still could be any one of us anywhere unless we do something to ban assault weapons and to turn back some of what the Republican Congresses have passed.

One of the weapons used by Holmes was an AR-15 rifle, which is a semiautomatic weapon. If the assault weapon ban of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 had not been allowed to expire, it might be that 12 people, including a little girl, might still be alive. Our colleague, Gabby Giffords, would not be home, making what is, thankfully, a remarkable recovery, but the six people who died that day might be alive. A young man in St. Croix, who lost his life yesterday--and many others in the U.S. Virgin Islands and across this country--might still be alive if that ban were in place.

So, again, on behalf of me and my family and of the people of the Virgin Islands, I offer condolences to the families of those who were lost and to the families of those who are recovering. They are in our prayers.

At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to our Democratic whip, a true leader for all Americans, leading us in many issues. Tonight, I believe, he is going to talk about voter protection, but he also has been working very hard to make sure that we Make It in America and that everyone is able to Make It in America.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

We thank you for joining us again, as you've done many times before, and for those strong words and for your strong leadership. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Whip, to make sure that voting rights are preserved for all Americans.

I would like to now yield such time as she might consume to the Congresswoman from Cleveland, Ohio, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.

I thank you for joining us and making it plain, Congresswoman Fudge: The time for making this right is now.

We are also joined again by our colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlelady from Texas. I yield her such time as she may consume.

I thank you, and I thank you again for joining us and offering your views and your vision for what we could be and what we should be, and for your strong words in defense of Americans' right to vote.

As I said this is the America that goes around the world to monitor and ensure that people in other countries exercise their right to vote. So we know that the right to vote is sacred. It is a sacred right. Many sacrificed and some died for that right. As our Democratic whip said, it is the most powerful guarantor of our liberty, and we must protect the right to vote, and we need to support the Voter Empowerment Act.

I want to go back to the issue of guns and violence. One might ask what do guns, what does the gun issue have to do with the right to vote. But, unfortunately, it has been used to deny voting rights in the District of Columbia, the place in which we meet. The District of Columbia has been the victim of the

gun lobby and overzealous gun support in the Senate. Instead of passing a bill to extend the voting rights that the residents of the District of Columbia deserve, the Senate attached amendments that would overturn some of the local laws that are meant to stem the tide of gun violence in the city, meant to restore peace and safety to its streets and neighborhoods.

So in addition to the violence that could follow from allowing concealed weapons, as their amendment would do in just about every venue, against the wishes and rights of the District of Columbia to decide, doing what they did would allow another sort of violence. It did untold violence to the District by holding its voting rights, the voting rights that it should have in this body hostage. That is unfair, and it is just plain wrong.

But in addition, it is some of the poorer neighborhoods in this country where poverty and other ills breed violence. It is in those neighborhoods that we see the voter restrictive policies are being placed. Their ability to vote for individuals who would help them to quell the violence in their neighborhoods and keep their families safe, it is their ability to vote that is being interfered with most by these laws that are being passed by Republican legislatures, and promoted and signed by Republican governors.

I hope that this Congress, and if not this one the next, will have the courage to pass strong and sensible gun control laws. Yes, we are very concerned, as has been said--and which is the subject of our Special Order this evening--about voter protection in the face of many States that are passing laws to restrict voting in ways that do particular harm to the rights of young people, seniors, people of color, and the poor to vote.

As we were reminded, it was made abundantly clear a few weeks ago by that Republican Pennsylvania legislator what the intent of these new restrictive voter so-called poll tax laws are all about: they are being passed to try to defeat President Obama. Well, I have news for them. Those very groups that they are trying to keep from voting, the good people of this country are not going to let that happen. That brings us right back to the need for gun control legislation. The communities that need it most are also the ones that most need us to protect their right to vote. Although everyone in this country must have their right to vote protected, these are the communities where there is violence, where there is poverty, that we must work very hard to protect their right to vote.

In too many communities, violent crime is rising. It is due to the flow of guns, the increase in assault weapons, and it has to be stopped. It is time for us to come together to save our young people, and really to save ourselves. Gabby's shooting shows that none of us are safe unless all of us are safe. My and many other communities are calling out for help. This is a crisis in many parts of our country, and we who are elected to provide for the welfare of our communities and our country have an obligation to do just that. So let's come together. Let's all support the legislation that is before us, the Voter Empowerment Act. Let's also pass gun control legislation. And in the end, though, it is in the voters' hands to decide in November whether we are going to have safe streets and neighborhoods, whether this assault on voting rights will stop. And if we just protect their right to vote, I know that they will do the right thing.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

With the International AIDS Conference less than a week away, I join my colleagues to celebrate the progress we've made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, to honor those who have lost their battle to this disease, and also to remind everyone that we still have much work to do in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Asia, but also the United States, where more than 1 million people--a disproportionate number of whom are people of color--are living with HIV and AIDS today. Blacks and Latinos together account for 64 percent of all new HIV infections, yet are only about 28 percent of the population. The AIDS case rate among African Americans is nearly 10 times higher than that of whites; and one recent study found that 2 percent of all blacks in the U.S., compared to only .2 percent of all whites, are HIV positive. In my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is predominantly black and Hispanic, we're extremely hard hit, with the third largest AIDS case rate in the Nation.

The conference offers all of us an opportunity to reinvigorate our commitment to battling this disease, to reinforce existing relationships and forge new ones with the leaders in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and to take significant steps toward making HIV/AIDS a disease of the past.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the life of one of my constituents, the late Arnold M. Golden, Sr., who passed away at his home on St. Croix last Saturday. Arnold M. Golden was a Crucian gentleman and statesman, one who spent all of his life in service to his family and his community.

Known to family and friends as ``Morty'', he distinguished himself as a Virgin Islands Senator, a St. Croix administrator, Commissioner of both the Departments of Public Works and Commerce under the Governor Juan Luis Administration, and the manager of the Sunny Isle Shopping Center. He served on many community groups and organizations to include the Knights of Colombus, League of Women Voters, Boy Scouts of America, Landmarks Society and AARP.

Morty Golden was a community servant, dedicating himself to the betterment of our islands, especially St. Croix. He was among the generation of Virgin Islanders who guided the growth and development of the modern Virgin Islands, working to develop the tax system, the planning, land use and conservation laws, and the Virgin Islands National Guard. His most recent service of note was as a Delegate to the Fifth Constitutional Convention, where he advocated for transparent, workable government.

I knew him as an elder statesman, always ready with words of wisdom on how to make our islands a better place to live and our government function in a way that served the needs of all its people. He was a champion of municipal government and of transparent government with more accountability to its citizens. He was a champion of good governance and for the further development of our territory through the adoption of its own Constitution.

Arnold M. Golden was born on December 13, 1931 in the town of Frederiksted to Louis R. and Violet (Pedersen) Golden. He was the eldest of 10 children and attended the St. Mary's and St. Patrick's Parochial Schools. He graduated from Christiansted High School in 1949 and attended the Polytechnic Institute and UPRAT Mayaguez in 1949 and later the University of the Virgin Islands, where he pursued interests in engineering and management.

Morty worked briefly at VICORP before being drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served 2 years of active duty, with one tour of duty in Korea. He was later Commissioned in the Armed Forces Reserves, and served with the Army Reserve Unit on St. Croix for a number of years. Later he was employed by A.C. Sanford as a land surveyor, where he worked on the construction of the Alexander Hamilton Airport. He was later employed as an appraiser by the Tax Assessor's Office, assisting in the modernization of the office and tax system.

In 1968, he was elected to the Virgin Islands Legislature and was instrumental in the passage of legislation to create the Planning Office, the Executive Budget Act, and land conservation legislation. He worked on legislation authorizing Governor Melvin Evans to secure the authority to activate a National Guard Unit in the Virgin Islands, as well as the Jr. ROTC units.

Morty Golden was honored to serve in numerous positions under the administration of Governor Juan F. Luis to include: Administrator, Commissioner of Public Works, Commissioner of Commerce and Assistant to the Governor. He also served on many government boards and commissions. He also managed the Sunny Isles Shopping Center in between his government service. Upon his retirement in 1987, he returned to land surveying.

He served the community in various community organizations to include the Catholic Social Center, the Knights of Columbus, the Boy Scouts, the League of Women Voters, Landmark Society, and AARP. He has been honored for his outstanding community service by the Jr. Chamber of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Postal System and Rotary Club of St. Croix West.

Mr. Speaker, Arnold M. Golden's most important role was as the patriarch of his beloved family. He was preceded in death by his son, Louis M. Golden, and leaves behind his beloved wife of 56 years, Carmen Maria (Encarnacion) Golden, his children: Helen Marie Danielson, Violet Anne Golden, Peder Mark Golden, Carmen Louise Walker, and Arnold M. Golden, III, his grandchildren: Leroy E. Danielson, Jr., Janelle Marie Plummer, Louis M. Danielson, Lionel Danielson, David M. Thomas, Jasmine L. Walker, Benjamin Walker, IV, Christina Walker, Nico Golden, Carla Golden and Juma Golden and four great-grandchildren: Leroy E. Danielson, III, Alimah M. Danielson, Daylon Lee Tank Yuk and Louriz M. Danielson.

Mr. Speaker, the life and legacy of Arnold M. Golden is one of which the entire U.S. Virgin Islands community is very proud. He is an example of public service at its best. My family and staff extend our condolences to his family and friends. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, I'm a family physician and the first female doctor in the Congress.

Just less than 2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a final ruling that the health care reform law is, in fact, constitutional. It is now the law of the land.

Despite this, today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are revisiting old political battles instead of using the final weeks in this session to fully implement a current law that will protect the health of every American, instead of creating jobs during a time when unemployment is at a persistent high, instead of strengthening the American economy and ensuring that taxes on middle class families are not raised.

I have heard the scare tactics and spin that my colleagues are using to mislead the American public. The truth is this: repealing the health care reform bill would set this country back on a course no American-- Republican or Democrat--wants to go back to.

With the list of horrible consequences, H.R. 6079 reads like a dishonor roll.

The Republicans' repeal of health care reform will raise taxes on 18 million middle-class people.

More than 6 million young adults will lose the option of being covered under their parents' health care plans.

More than 5 million seniors will pay more in prescription drugs, leaving many having to choose between paying their rent, food, or medicine.

129 million Americans, 17 million of whom are children with so-called preexisting disease, which before health care reform included acne and pregnancy, may be denied health care coverage when they need it, and 33 million currently uninsured Americans will stay among the ranks of the uninsured.

More than 32 million seniors and 54 million other Americans will pay more for mammograms, colonoscopies, annual wellness exams, and other often lifesaving preventive care that detects cancers and diseases at their earliest stages when they are most treatable.

105 million Americans would again have lifetime limits on their health insurance, which often puts health care services out of reach when people need it the most. Also, 15 million Americans would be dropped from their insurance companies altogether.

Many of the provisions of the law may never get funded that would close the shameful gaps in health care that cause people of color, the poor of every race and ethnicity, even those who may be Republican or Tea Party, rural Americans and those who live in our Nation's territories, to die in excess numbers from preventable deaths and cost the country billions of dollars every year. There's nothing appropriate, just, fair, or worthy in this attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It turns back progress. It closes a door to wellness that is now just being opened to over 30 million Americans. It sets this Nation on a path that is unhealthy and less financially secure, and it threatens our position of leadership in the world.

Even though we know this is just an empty exercise, that it's not going anywhere, we do have the opportunity to stand together and do the right thing to not let bad politics drive bad policy. When the bill comes up for a vote, vote ``no'' on H.R. 6079.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in accordance with the subject of the Special Order this evening.

I want to, again, begin by thanking the Democratic leader for giving the Congressional Black Caucus this time to focus on health care reform specifically, especially as the House is preparing to continue their attempts to repeal what we know is a good bill and a needed bill in this country.

Before I begin to yield time, I just want to recognize the 103rd anniversary of the NAACP. They have long been premier champions of health care and fought for health care as a right. They are committed to eliminating the racial and ethnic disparities in our health care system that plague people of color in the United States. Their 880 Campaign is based on the fact that over the past decade, because we have not eliminated health disparities, over 880,000 African Americans and other people of color have died premature deaths from preventable causes. That does not need to happen. So we continue that fight in health care reform. We have made great strides in it. And we look forward to implementing that law, despite the attempts to repeal today.

I want to congratulate the NAACP on their 103rd anniversary this evening, and I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Thank you, Congressman Johnson. Thank you for beginning to lay out the issue before us this evening, as we know that we've done landmark legislation in passing the Affordable Care Act. It is now settled law and the Supreme Court has ruled and we have a lot of other work that the American people need us to do.

At this time I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Corrine Brown.

I thank you, and I thank you for pointing out some of the benefits and the numbers of Americans who are enjoying those benefits already over these last 2 years. And those benefits, as you said, extend to all Americans, whether they live in Democratic districts or Republican districts. We want to make sure that people continue to be able to insure their children with preexisting disease, their young people up to age 26, to have our seniors and disabled and anyone who is insured be able to get that important preventive care without a co-pay, and begin to continue to strengthen the Medicare program as we have in the Affordable Care Act.

Absolutely.

Exactly.

That's correct. And as you said, there is a hardship provision so that if people just cannot afford it and fall in the cracks between the Medicaid expansion and the exchange, they will not have to pay. And it will be a very small percentage, one or two percent, that CBO has said would actually end up paying the penalty, and it's a very small penalty. Yes, for administrative purposes, it's collected through the IRS; but it's a penalty. And very few people would have to pay it.

As you said also in your statement, we pay anyway. And we pay more on the other end for not having everyone insured.

People who are not insured, or even people who are underinsured or who have a high co-pay, they have not gone for preventive care. Now they can get it without a co-pay. And without that preventive care, they end up in the emergency rooms in

the hospital when the illness has worsened and the cost is more. We can prevent that by having everyone insured and having everyone have preventive care.

I know people are saying that we are not reducing costs. You can't reduce costs in the first couple of years. But if you look out that 10- year period and even in the 10 years past that, you will see in many ways that the cost will be reduced.

That is correct. And we will be working with our State legislatures to make sure that they understand what is at stake. And I'm sure that the voters in their districts who are already enjoying those benefits and who are looking forward to finally having insurance that they can afford for the first time will be talking to them about what they feel is important.

I'm going to read some statements from some of the primary care physicians at the end of this Special Order, but they're beginning to weigh in. And based on what I was reading today, they are weighing in pretty favorably. And they will benefit as well. It is change, and change is difficult no matter what. But they will benefit as well, and they are beginning to speak up.

I'm the first female physician. I'm the only physician in the CBC, but there are other physicians in Congress.

I was the first. We have one other elected in this Congress.

Physicians and other providers, the thing that we don't talk about a lot is the jobs that will be created through this Affordable Care Act. We did finally pass a transportation bill, and thank God that will begin to create some jobs and save some jobs, but the health care reform bill is also a job-creating bill. It's projected it will create about 4 million jobs of all kinds over the 10-year period. So we've been creating jobs as well in the Affordable Care Act.

I would like to yield such time as she might consume to the gentlelady from Ohio, Congresswoman Fudge.

Thank you.

Congresswoman Fudge, you're right. This is not a win for Democrats. It's not a win for the President. This is a win for the American people.

Thank you for bringing up the rebates, the $1.1 billion in rebates. In addition to the rebates--because some insurance companies have spent over their 80 percent that has to be provided in service--the Secretary has been able, in at least 12 States already, to keep the increases in premiums at 10 percent or less. That's another function of the Affordable Care Act. And you know our constituents have been crying out over the increases in premiums that they've been experiencing every year, and now the Affordable Care Act gives the Secretary the authority to keep those premiums within not more than a 10 percent increase.

Thank you.

So as my colleagues have all said, the Supreme Court has upheld the law. It is settled law. It's time for us to move on.

This is landmark legislation, landmark legislation like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. We have a lot more work that the American people need us to do:

We need to continue the middle-income tax cuts.

We need to pass the American Jobs Act.

We need to continue to address the issue of the mortgages that are causing people to lose their homes. I was reading today in one of the papers that African Americans are expected to bear the burden of the mortgage fallout for many years to come, longer than everyone else.

And then we also have to implement the Affordable Care Act. We have the exchanges. I know there is a lot of talk about the exchanges and whether we'll be able to provide the subsidies, but what we ought to be doing is working together to make sure that that very important part of this law can be fully implemented.

We're talking about the working poor, people who are doing the right thing, being responsible, working and trying to take care of their families. It would be so unfair to them, now that they see within their reach affordable health care, to take that away. We're going to pay for it either now or we're going to pay for it later, as Congresswoman Brown was saying. It's less to pay on this side and ensure that everyone has access to the services that they need to keep them healthy and to keep them from developing those catastrophic illnesses.

I want to talk a little bit about what the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Asian American Caucus have done in crafting this health care bill.

Congresswoman Fudge is right. We didn't start just before the bill was passed. We actually started before the debate began in the Congress. We developed benchmarks.

We call ourselves the Tri-Caucus.

We decided very early that insurance would never be enough for our communities that have been left out of the health care mainstream for so long and that health equity had to be a goal of any bill that we passed, so the Tri-Caucus worked together. We worked very hard. We met with House and Senate leadership. We met with the White House several times to ensure that the benchmarks that we set for our communities were going to be met, so that, really, this bill would provide access to quality health care for all Americans--not just a few, but for all Americans.

We hear a lot about the consumer protections:

The fact that children cannot be denied insurance if they have a preexisting disease, which is important to us;

The fact that our young people can stay on our insurance until 26 years old;

The fact that there are no lifetime and annual limits, and all of those important provisions that we hear about all of the time.

But I want to talk a little bit about some of the health equity provisions, because this bill prevents discrimination. It defines what a health disparity is and a health disparity population, and it makes sure that all of the research in the bill, all of the task forces, all of the institutes, the comparative effectiveness research, all of those include monitoring and having a goal of eliminating health disparities in their mandate. There are incentive payments to providers if they can demonstrate that they have eliminated health disparities.

Health disparities actually cost this Nation. In a study done by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, they've shown where, just over a 3-year period, $1.24 trillion was lost in direct and indirect costs just because of health disparities.

We expanded, of course, the coverage in the consumer protections-- Medicaid expansion, which we really urge all of the States to provide for their citizens who are at 133 percent or under the Federal poverty level.

The territories, despite the vote to repeal our funding, that funding still stands. My territory is enjoying a great increase in funding. We have not lifted the cap. We are not getting State-like treatment, but for the very first time, many of the territories may be able to cover at least up to 100 percent of the Federal poverty level with the substantial increases that the Affordable Care Act provided.

We also have limited funding to set up exchanges, and the consumer protections and capacity building grants applied to the territories, which really need them.

We included the Indian Health Improvement Act.

We expanded community health centers and school-based health centers within the bill.

We provide for community health worker grants. In communities that have not had the benefit of robust health care services, it's important that people that they trust in the community can help them understand this law and help to make that connection to the health services that will be provided. That's what the community health worker grants would do.

They have community transformation grants.

We tried to include a program that we've been working on called Health Empowerment Zones. We didn't quite get that, but we have funding for communities where those health services have not been available, to be able to prepare that community and to begin to build some infrastructure so that every community can have the benefits of this bill.

We mandated that not-for-profit hospitals create a community health needs assessment every 3 years, and we created a Community Preventive Services Task Force.

Having community-focused, community-developed, community-driven, community-implemented programs is where we're going to see the biggest improvement in health care, especially in communities of color and communities that are poor and our rural communities in our territory.

The bill ensures that Federal health care programs collect and report data on race, ethnicity, sex, primary language, and disability status. We address health care disparities in Medicaid and SCHIP by standardizing data collection requirements.

Again, in comparative effectiveness, we were able to make sure that that research will include racial and ethnic subgroups, women and people with co-morbidities. We establish a National Health Care Workforce Commission that requires reporting. For the very first time in this country, we have a national strategy at prevention, and we have a national strategy to eliminate health disparities, for the very first time, all from the Affordable Care Act.

We increase the National Health Service Corps and loan repayment programs, expanded Centers of Excellence, and we made sure to invest in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions.

We're going to have to greatly expand our health care workforce on all levels to take care of the 30-plus million new people who will be coming into the system, and we want to make sure that that workforce reflects the diversity of our country, and that the now underrepresented minorities have a chance to get some of those jobs and be able to provide some of those services for the communities that they come from.

We provide support for cultural competence training for health care professionals, grants to the health care workforce, to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services. We require the dissemination of information adapted to a variety of cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds so that everyone can understand what it is we're trying to do and be able to access the services.

Mental health and substance abuse parity was included. We included dental services in the basic package for children. We would have wished that it could be in the basic package for all people, but we were able to get it in children.

We establish a prevention and public health fund, and I know the Republican leadership has been trying to repeal that fund, to deplete that fund, but this is an attempt to change the paradigm of how we deal with health care in this country, not to just be dealing with the acute, expensive, long-term care, but to focus on prevention. An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

We strengthened and expanded the Office of Women's Health. We elevated the Office of Minority Health to the Office of the Secretary. We've created new Offices of Minority Health in the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, SAMHSA, and other agencies where it's really critical that we have that input that really zeros in on the health care of the minorities who are the people who are really underserved and create some of the costs that we're trying to reduce. If we can take care of all of the people in this country, the costs will go down.

We elevated the Center on Minority and Health Disparities to a national institute at NIH, and they're doing great work with all of our universities across the country.

What we've come to understand is that when you're dealing with health, especially when you're looking from a community level, you can't just focus on disease. You have to look at the environment that people live in. And for the very first time we have a National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council headed by our Surgeon General.

That council brings about 17 agencies of government together to plan and to look at the impact of their programs, policies, initiatives that help, and to really plan how we can create an environment in our communities and in our country that supports wellness and supports prevention and supports good health, so that people can walk in their neighborhoods, so that they could have fresh fruit and vegetables in their

neighborhoods and other things like that so we can deal with the obesity problem, so we can deal with smoking cessation, and all the things that contribute to poor health and really increase the costs. When we look at communities and focus on community prevention, that's where we're going to reduce the cost of health care.

So, I wanted to just say a word about Medicare because I am so tired of hearing about $500 billion taken out of--cut from Medicare. Now, that's a misinterpretation of what really happened. That $500 billion comes from cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in part.

I was reading in an article in the paper just today that Medicare could probably save $70 billion just in 1 year, in 2010, by really zeroing in on waste, fraud, and abuse and implementing some of the recommendations of the General Accountability Office--they could save $70 billion in 1 year. Multiply that by ten, I think it comes up to $700 billion, which is more than the $500 billion that the Republicans keep saying we took out of Medicare.

We didn't. We made payments fairer, remember, by making the payments more equitable across the board. So we may have lowered some of the reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage, but we were able to still keep some of the better, more effective Medicare Advantage programs in place.

We began to close the doughnut hole. We took some of that money to close the doughnut hole so that over the 10-year period there will be no time that a senior or a person with disability will have to pay the full cost of their medication.

We are providing preventive care with no copayments and an annual physical exam with no copayment. And in addition to all of that, with that $500 billion, we extended the life of Medicare by 8 years.

So I just want to clear that up. We did not take $500 billion out of Medicare. We used it to reinvest into Medicare, to make it stronger, to provide more services and more benefits for the beneficiaries.

Of course, health care reform will take an investment, but it will reduce costs over time. We'll reduce disparities, we'll have better end-of-life care with planning by individuals and their families, we'll have that community-based prevention, obesity prevention, smoking cessation and health policy and every policy that I talked about. And all of that will reduce the cost of health care.

I just want to close by just reading a few statements from some physicians. I'm a primary care physician, a family physician myself. And Medscape today published an article from a primary care round table. And I know the doctors who spoke here said many, many things. I just want to quote a sentence or two from several of them.

Charles P. Vega, M.D. At the end of his statement he says:

The Supreme Court decision breathes life into the health

care reform movement at a critical time, and we need to take

advantage of this fortune, not only to implement the most

important parts of the Affordable Care Act, but also to start

building towards the next logical steps in health care

reform, beginning with an efficient public option that

emphasizes smart, quality care.

And Dr. Robert W. Morrow says:

And now we're in a regulatory space where the health of the

public could take precedence over the profits of the

commercial health plans. And why not?

Dr. Roy M. Poses, M.D., says of the Supreme Court ruling:

The news is not bad. We're probably, on balance, somewhat

better off with some health care insurance reform than none.

However, we're still a long way from meaningfully addressing

concentration and abuse of power in health care. There will

be no rest for the weary bloggers of the Health Care Renewal.

Another doctor, Dr. Li, says:

My take is that the plan is not as good as what's being

touted by the left, but it's far better than what's being

said by the right.

And Dr. Robert M. Centor says:

Clearly, upholding the individual mandate allows the U.S.

to approach universal health care. Universal health care is

such a worthy goal that we must applaud this victory.

Dr. Mark Williams says:

For me the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA implies at least

a period of relative clarity and less uncertainty, despite

much political rhetoric. In short, we now have some time for

planning and innovation.

And he also says:

Healthcare is too precious to be considered a business or a

marketplace commodity. Whatever system we choose must commit

itself to the needs of the population and the global

community, not simply to our own personal needs. It must be

based on needs and not simply on service expansion.

And lastly, from my own American Academy of Family Practice, they say:

Having the mandate upheld is consistent with what has been

AAFP policy for over 20 years. We have advocated for health

care coverage for everyone and access to at least basic

health services, including good primary care with prevention

and chronic illness care. You can argue whether the mandate

is the only means to get there, but at least in the analyses

that I've seen, it was one of the best identified ways to get

everyone covered.

And so, the American people, when you ask them about the different provisions of the law, an overwhelming majority really supports the provisions that we've been able to provide for them in health care reform.

Many physicians are touting the Supreme Court decision and the law. I think, if we can all forget about the political rhetoric of repeal and just work together to make sure that it's implemented in the best way possible, we will really be doing what the American people have sent us here to do.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

After 20 years of being fully and fairly included in the surface transportation bills, what is being voted on today cuts funding to the smaller territories by $10 million. And while I am glad our sister territory of Puerto Rico as well as the States and District of Columbia are level-funded, it just seems grossly unfair that only the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Marianas are singled out for cuts.

Why cut $10 million? Or it could have been spread out across the entire bill and not raised a blip in the 50 States, the District, or Puerto Rico. But for us small economies, it's a big blow.

That being said, it could have been worse. This body would have made our funding discretionary and, therefore, not secure. So while I decry the cuts, I have to thank the Senate for hearing our pleas and keeping our funding in the trust fund.

After all of the time, though, that we have waited for even this 2- year, 3-month infrastructure and job-creating transportation bill and knowing the need to keep college affordable and reauthorize flood insurance, I cannot, in good conscience, oppose the bill before us today.

But what is being done to the territories is unfair and discriminatory. And since it makes so little difference in the overall bill, it seems deliberately and unnecessarily punitive to us loyal Americans who serve and shed our blood just like every other in the defense and love of this, our country. Fairness would demand that it be restored.

Madam Speaker, while we have decried bullying in our schools, unfortunately it's going on right here in this House.

Tomorrow, the Issa resolution holding our Attorney General in contempt is to come to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to put an end to this totally politically inspired attack on Attorney General Holder and President Obama's administration.

Thousands of documents have been produced, many interviews have been held, and Mr. Holder has testified before Congress nine times on the operation Fast and Furious, which was started in Arizona no less, and under President Bush's administration. Democrats were not allowed one witness or a hearing that would have made this a fair, balanced, and likely closed investigation.

At the end of this extreme, unprecedented, partisan attack on the current administration, which is what it's all about and what can only be called a political witch hunt, what you will find in Attorney General Eric Holder is an intelligent, competent, patriotic, dedicated, and humble public servant who is upholding the integrity of his office and serving this country with honor.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House not to sully the history and decorum of this body with this first-ever vote to hold a sitting Attorney General in contempt.