Floor Statements

Last Thursday, a different kind of March madness took place in the NCAA basketball tournament. In a game between Kansas State and Mississippi State, Angel Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican point guard for Kansas State, was met with taunts from Mississippi State students while he was getting ready to shoot a free throw. The taunt: ``Where's your green card?''

That wasn't the only March madness. Earlier this month in San Antonio, Texas, a white high school in San Antonio chanted during the regional basketball championship trophy presentation. Their chant: ``USA, USA, USA.'' Why did they chant USA? Because their team had defeated San Antonio's Thomas Edison High School, a team of mostly Latino players.

One U.S. citizen asked to produce his green card, one entire team of Americans taunted as if they were foreigners.

These young people, subjected to hatred and bigotry, handled it well.

Angel Rodriguez ignored the taunts and played a great game. If he hadn't been busy helping Kansas State win the game, he might have mentioned to everybody that he was from Miami or that all Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States.

I'm impressed that the kids from Thomas Edison High School kept their cool. They deserve our praise not only for being good basketball players, but just for being great kids.

Mississippi State and Alamo Heights have apologized for the taunts. That's an important step in the right direction. That's not the issue. The issue is why people think it's okay to treat Latinos as if they are second-rate Americans, why so many people think being Latino means being a suspect in our own country, why they look at a young man named Rodriguez and think he doesn't belong in this country. It's because misguided kids taunting Latinos is not really the disease. It's the symptom.

The heart of the sickness is more troubling. The truth is, when it comes to Latinos and immigrants, far too many so-called leaders in our Nation are starting the taunts.

On the campaign trail and on talk radio and on TV, and even here in this Chamber, there are leaders that act like the biggest bullies in the schoolyard. If elected officials have no boundaries when it comes to scapegoating and demonizing immigrants and Latinos, then why should young people at a basketball game know any better? Why does an American, a Puerto Rican citizen basketball player, get taunted about a green card?

It's easier to understand when you hear the frontrunner for the Republican nomination of President promoting a national immigration policy that makes all Latinos look like suspects and all immigrants look like criminals.

Mitt Romney has said that Arizona's anti-immigrant law--a law that essentially demands racial profiling of anyone who looks like they might be undocumented--is a model for our Nation. But that's not all Mitt Romney has said to American Latinos. He has said all 11 million immigrants, most of them Latinos, should self-deport, even if they've lived here since they were children and have American citizen families.

Mitt Romney has even gone as far to attack the first Latino Supreme Court justice. He believes that Justice Sotomayor is unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He's proud of the support of anti-immigrant extremists, including the author of Arizona's anti-immigrant law. He has attacked the DREAM Act, a perfectly reasonable bill. And Mitt Romney is hardly a lone voice. It is sad.

One Member of this House said he would be for any measure to stop illegal immigrants ``short of shooting them.'' Even hanging them? gassing them? One other colleague of ours here called undocumented immigration a slow-rolling, slow-motion terrorist attack on the United States.

Pat Buchanan wrote a book entitled ``State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.'' Folks like Buchanan and Limbaugh regularly use words like ``hordes'' and ``swarms'' to describe immigrants.

Maybe Mitt Romney thinks he's just saying what he needs to say to get the Republican nomination, and maybe some elected officials think their extreme rhetoric doesn't really carry outside the Halls of Congress. But America knows better. So does a group of Kansas State basketball players and a group of good kids from San Antonio, Texas. They know that words matter very much.

Here's my advice to the Romneys and the Buchanans of the world and a few of my colleagues here in the House: Instead of bullies, why don't you be leaders? And why don't you try some words that bring people together instead of insults that tear our Nation apart.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 111.

Madam Speaker, Puerto Rico lost one of the towering figures of its labor movement, Pedro Grant, at the age of 92.

Throughout his life, Mr. Grant was an example for the struggle for justice. He was one of the main leaders of the United Workers Movement, which led to the revival of the labor movement in Puerto Rico in the sixties and seventies.

By his example, Mr. Grant taught us that a life well lived is a life devoted to the struggle for justice and human rights and dignity for working people. He was a lifelong fighter against abuses of power and standing up for the little guy. He was a Puerto Rican patriot whose wisdom and strength will be sorely missed.

I will say a few words in his language, Spanish, in his memory:

Viviste bien. Siempre dijiste presente en todas las luchas de tu peublo. Viviremos a la sombra de tu ejemplo. Gracias. Mereces un buen descanso, hermano.

You lived well. You were always present in all our struggles. We will live in the shadow of your example. Thank you. You deserve a good rest, my brother.

Here's how sorry Rush Limbaugh is for his attacks on a law school student who dared to give her opinion about access to contraception coverage. He's so sorry that a full transcript of his tirade, including the words he ``apologized'' for, was available yesterday under the heading ``Most Popular'' on the home page of his Web site.

He's so sorry that the verbatim document of his March 1 rant, in which he repeated his name-calling of Sandra Fluke and mocked Democrats for criticizing him, is right on his Web site today under the title ``Left freaks out over Fluke remarks.'' Also on Limbaugh's ``Most Popular'' list today is ``Democrats Are Desperate: Obama Calls Sandra Fluke, the 30-Year-Old Victim.'' I don't mean was on his Web site, before he decided to apologize; I mean it's there today. Just click on the link.

And this Monday, Limbaugh talked at length about the discoveries his staff had made about Ms. Fluke. Apparently, in Rush Limbaugh's world, part of apologizing is researching and criticizing the person you're apologizing to. I want to give you a sample of Limbaugh and his crack research team's eye-opening discoveries:

Here's Limbaugh, verbatim, on March 5:

This woman, well, we've looked her up. I mean she's a full-

fledged activist for women's causes. And she has been to

Berkeley, she's traveled all over the place. Cornell, she

graduated from the women's studies courses there. She's a

full-fledged feminist activist.

America, I join you in being shocked at the discovery of these facts. Sandra Fluke has traveled all over the place. She's even taken women's studies courses at Cornell. Women's studies? No wonder she gives her opinion in public and thinks that women should have some say over their health and reproductive choices. I mean, what would you expect from somebody who went to Cornell?

There's more. You see, I did my own research, Limbaugh. It shows that Toni Morrison, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mae Jemison all went to Cornell, too. And what do these three troublemakers have in common? It's obvious. They're women, women who somewhere in their lives, most likely at Cornell, the same place that brainwashed Sandra Fluke, got the idea that they could accomplish anything they wanted to and speak about it in public and have their opinions respected.

Morrison--Nobel Prize. Ginsburg--the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Mae Jemison even got that great crazy idea she could be the first black woman in space. Shocking.

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. A glance at Rush Limbaugh's Web site makes it obvious that he continues to spew nonsense and that he's not the least bit sorry for what he said. It makes plain that he deeply resents women who speak their mind. Those who do are ``full-fledged feminist activists'' who deserve only his scorn.

There are, however, some things to visit Mr. Limbaugh's Web site for. If you want a bumper sticker calling Obama, the President of the United States, a socialist, or a T-shirt promoting Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize, then his Web site is the place for you. But if you want a sincere apology from a man who is sorry that he called a decent young woman a ``slut,'' you're looking in the wrong place.

Now, the truth is that what a radio talk show host thinks about Sandra Fluke really doesn't matter, except for one important point: the Republican Party respects and fears Rush Limbaugh. The three leading Republican contenders for President of the United States won't take him on. Three men who are so tough that they compete daily with each other to say the most disparaging things about President Barack Obama, three tough talkers who promise to keep us safe from terrorists, these tough guys are struck speechless and cowardly by a

man sitting behind a microphone in his mansion out in Palm Beach, Florida.

When a talk show host calls a decent American woman a slut and a prostitute, that's sad and wrong. But when Mitt Romney, the Republican Party's frontrunner for President, is asked about it and all he can say is ``it's not the language I would have used,'' then it's a leadership crisis. I guess Mitt Romney would have said she was a ``lady of the night.'' What he should have said was, ``Rush Limbaugh, you're dead wrong. Stop it.''

It's time for all Americans to say enough is enough. And it's time for anyone who wants to be a leader--even Republicans who are terrified of Rush Limbaugh--to stand up for treating every woman with decency and respect.

As my colleagues know, Latinos are America's fastest growing population. So if you are a Presidential candidate and you want to make sure that every single Latino in America knows you strongly oppose sensible and fair immigration reform, you have to work pretty hard at it. It

takes a lot of time and determination. After all, the Latino population increased more than 40 percent between 2000 and 2010. A lot more Latinos, a lot more Latino citizens, and a lot more Latino voters.

A lot of us live in swing States. We are about 30 percent of the population in Arizona, about 25 percent in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada. Indiana alone has 350,000 Latinos. Not so many, you say; but when you remember that President Obama only won Indiana by 26,000 votes in 2008, his Latino support was the margin of victory.

The truth is we're growing everywhere. One-quarter of all of the children in America are Latino; 500,000 Latinos turn 18, and they all become eligible to vote every year. More than 50 million Latinos live in America. Most of them, 9 out of 10, are citizens of the United States.

Fifty million is a lot of people to keep track of, especially if you want to offend each and every one of them, but that is apparently what Mitt Romney is trying to accomplish.

To appeal to the most extreme elements of his party, last week he called Arizona's harsh immigration law a model for America. Well, he's partially right. Arizona's anti-immigration law is definitively a model. It's just not a model for immigration policy, but it's a model for an awful lot of other things. Let's just count them.

One, if you're a politician, Arizona's law is a model for how to achieve early retirement. State Senator Russell Pearce was an author and lead sponsor of Arizona's draconian anti-immigration law. He talked about little else. His constituents weren't pleased, though, so Senator Pearce became the first State legislator in the history of Arizona to be recalled from office. The biggest backer of Mitt Romney's immigration model is now unemployed.

Two, if you want to wreck your local economy, Arizona's law is a model for lost jobs and tax revenue. The purchasing power of Latinos in Arizona in 2009 was nearly $35 billion. That's right. One study estimated that undocumented immigrants alone paid $443 million in local taxes. Another study estimates that Arizona would lose nearly 150,000 jobs if all undocumented workers were removed from the State.

Three, Arizona's law is a model for how to energize Latino voters. In 2004, George W. Bush, when running for President, received nearly 45 percent of the Latino vote in Arizona. That's pretty good. How did anti-immigrant Jan Brewer do for Governor in 2010, 2 years later? More than 70 percent of the Latino voters voted against her. But wait. In 2011, Hispanic voter mobilization led to the election of two Latinos to the Phoenix City Council for the first time ever.

In Daniel Valenzuela's district, Latino voter turnout increased fivefold, 500 percent.

Four--and I'll stop at four because my time is limited--Arizona's law is a model on how to make decent people suffer.

Alabama followed the Arizona model, and a judge advised a woman facing domestic abuse that, if she sought a restraining order against her abuser husband, she would be asked to prove her immigration status and face deportation--while her husband laughed.

In both Arizona and Alabama, citizens and legal immigrants have been harassed and detained because they look suspicious or cannot immediately prove their citizenship status.

So let's review.

Mitt Romney's model for America: has an author who was kicked out of office; means lost jobs and tax revenue for everyone, not just immigrants; has mobilized Latino voters and pushed them away from the Republican Party; and has caused good, hardworking people--immigrants and nonimmigrants alike, documented and undocumented--to live in fear.

Maybe Mitt Romney and I have different ideas of what ``model'' means. Maybe he thinks Bernie Madoff is a ``model'' investment banker or adviser. I think ``model'' means something you can be proud of, something that makes America better and stronger, more just and fair, something that shows America the way to the future.

By that standard, Arizona's law is a perfect model. It shows America exactly the policy to avoid on immigration, and it shows Americans exactly the type of candidate to avoid for President of the United States.

One of the many things I love about America is we are a country of second chances. You can fail and still have a chance to get ahead in our Nation of opportunity. There was a time that it looked like Steve Jobs might not make it. He was forced out of his company, and Apple looked like it might become a historical footnote--until Apple realized its mistake and asked Steve Jobs to return and put him back on top.

Our current basketball sensation, Jeremy Lin, knows a thing or two about second chances. He was undrafted by the NBA, and he was cut twice before landing with the New York Knicks. Other than my hometown Chicago Bulls hero, Derrick Rose, Lin is the most exciting story in sports. America is about second and third and fourth chances, which brings me, of course, to Newt Gingrich.

Now, some might say that Newt being considered at all for President of the United States is a second chance. After all, his reign as Speaker of the House did not end well. It didn't end with good policy for America, good politics for Republicans, or good feelings about his personal reputation. Yet, he's hanging in there in the race for Commander in Chief. Now that's a second chance I'm talking about today.

I'm talking about Newt Gingrich's reaction to President Obama's effort to provide contraceptive coverage to all American women. Mr. Gingrich has been trumpeting his outrage, from ``Meet the Press'' to CPAC to any town hall meeting that will have him. He said: ``President Obama has basically declared war on the Catholic Church.''

To be clear: ``President Obama has basically declared war on the Catholic Church.''

That's the second chance I want to talk about this morning, Newt Gingrich as spokesperson for the Catholic Church. Newt Gingrich as the right man to stand up as a protector of the values of the Catholic faith.

If Newt Gingrich, Catholic spokesperson, is not a generous, forgiving second chance, then I don't think one has ever existed in America.

Now, I'm Catholic. And as a pro-choice legislator who strongly believes that no American woman should be denied contraceptive coverage based on where she works, I don't always see eye to eye with my church, so I don't pretend to be a spokesman or someone who can speak for all Catholics. Good people can disagree on tough issues.

But apparently Newt Gingrich is well-positioned to decide when our President has declared ``war'' on the Catholic faith. He isn't reluctant to speak on their behalf, even with a personal history that seems to be at odds with some of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Frankly, I think his personal life is none of our business, but when he wants to dictate morality to the rest of America, when he accuses our President of engaging in ``religious persecution,'' when he demands that his personal values be shared by all American women, he makes his personal life part of the public discourse.

I support the President's call for equity for all American women. I salute him for standing up for fairness in contraceptive coverage in all health care plans. I support the President's effort to find a compromise that respects every American's religious beliefs. He did something hard for a leader. He listened to his critics, he worked to find common ground, moderate ground, and he changed. And I applaud him for that.

And I applaud the American people for reminding us that everybody gets a second chance, even a chance for Newt Gingrich to stand up for American Catholics. If Newt Gingrich can speak for American Catholics, then it's true: in America, anything is possible.

Just consider what could happen. Maybe Charlie Sheen can become the spokesperson for the temperance movement. Lou Dobbs can be the face of immigrant rights. LeBron James can be in charge of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce. And the cast of Jersey Shore can lead a national campaign for manners, humility, and modesty.

If Newt Gingrich can do it, why can't they? In fact, if Newt Gingrich can do it, why can't I?

This is me with Senator Bill Bradley. He's over 6 foot 6, and I'm barely 5 foot 6. He has noticed the difference, and he is giving me a friendly kiss on the top of my head. So I'm pleased to announce today that if Newt Gingrich can speak for all Catholics, I'm going to start speaking for all tall people.

That's right. Five-foot-six Congressman Luis Gutierrez, president of the National Association of Extremely Tall Americans. I'm no expert on being tall. But then again, Newt doesn't really seem to be an expert on the rules of the Catholic Church either, so what's going to stop me?

Madam Speaker, this next Sunday, February 19, I will be joining thousands of Puerto Ricans in Old San Juan behind the banners of Casa Pueblo, labor unions, environmental groups, and many other leaders of Puerto Rico's civic society. The people will exercise their democratic right to demand redress from their government. In this particular instance, they're demanding clear explanations of the many contradictions, misleading statements, and scandals associated with the natural gas project popularly known as Gasoducto and misnamed by the Puerto Rican regime as Via Verde, or the Green Way.

Now, it looks like that regime, which fired tens of thousands of public sector employees alleging that there was no money to pay their salaries, has wasted more than $50 million on a project that was never needed, was never practical, and was never supported by the public, a project that many think may now be dead. It is also a project with a history of troubling insider deals and suspect relationships.

Madam Speaker, I will proudly march with thousands of people from across the island as we make our opposition to the Gasoducto clear. We will start at the Capitolio--the Capitol Building--in Old San Juan at 10 a.m. and march to the Fortaleza. That's the Governor's mansion.

One of our key messages is to the Federal Government and, specifically, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I wrote to the Secretary of the Army asking for an investigation of this very cozy relationship between the Jacksonville, Florida, district office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida-based consulting company made up mostly of retired Corps of Engineers staffers hired by the Puerto Rican regime in order to advocate for the pipeline.

I'm still waiting for a response to my request; but in the meantime, I ask why does the Corps waste taxpayers' money continuing to evaluate a gas pipeline for which there is no gas? Why are we still considering a costly pipeline instead of a more affordable alternative? Why are we still considering a project that has raised serious objections from the U.S. EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service and environmental groups across the country? Why are we still considering a project opposed by no less than 70 percent of the people on the island of Puerto Rico?

The public has turned against the project, its price tag, its danger, and its complete lack of justification. Key decision-makers in the private sector and in the Federal Government and in the Puerto Rican Government, even up to and including the Governor himself, are slowly backpedaling from what has been a headlong rush to build a 92-mile gas pipeline.

Even still, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to consider a permit for reasons that are simply unclear to me and anyone else, except they may wish to continue to do their friends' bidding--yes, their friends that they left behind at the office who soon will leave that Federal Government office to join them in the private sector. Oh, the ways of Washington, D.C.

But the people of Puerto Rico have already declared: permit denied. This coming Sunday in Old San Juan we will stand together, environmental leaders, labor leaders; and we will speak out loud and clear.

Permit to destroy the environment: denied.

Permit to put lives at risk: denied.

Permit to disregard the views and the voices of the people: denied.

Permit to waste money to lavish the friends of the regime with no-bid contracts: denied.

Yes, Madam Speaker, most people in Puerto Rico are convinced that the Gasoducto is dead, but I will be proud to join the voice of the Puerto Rican people next Sunday as we remain vigilant and firm in our opposition to this wasteful, dangerous, and abusive project. Together, we will continue to work to allow fairness and justice to reign once again on the island of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 49.

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that when Newt Gingrich first used the phrase the ``food stamp President,'' I was outraged, but then I started looking at the facts. I did my homework. I crunched the numbers, and I have to admit, food stamp President might be on target.

I think we have to be willing to understand the numbers and speak the truth even when that truth might hurt. So I've come to the floor today with some facts and figures--all sourced and backed up--because I know that Newt Gingrich wouldn't have it any other way. So let's learn about the food stamp President.

Here are the facts:

It clearly shows that the food stamp President increased spending on food stamps by more than $19 billion. Let me repeat that: under the food stamp

President, the U.S. increased its spending on food stamps by more than $19 billion. That's a ``b.'' The source? The U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Here's fact number two. Under the food stamp President, the number of people using the food stamp program increased by 11 million people. The source? The USDA.

Here's fact number three. Even the amount of the benefit has increased under the food stamp President. The amount per benefit increased $27.38 per recipient. Not much you would say, $27. Guess what? The $27 increase per benefit is the largest increase that's occurred under any President in the last 30 years. Pretty dramatic, huh? What's the source of that? The USDA.

Now, let's just review for everybody again. Republicans and Democrats, let's all get together and review that the numbers don't lie. Under the Food Stamp President, spending increased by more than $19 billion; the number of people using the program increased by 11 million people; and the amount of the benefit increased by a historic amount not seen in the last 30 years.

We may not like the facts, but sometimes the truth just hurts.

Here we have him, the food stamp President of the United States. Yes, George W. Bush is the Food Stamp President of the United States. Under the food stamp President, George Bush, we spent more, had more recipients, and gave each recipient more money for food.

Now, I know that some of you are saying, Luis, you aren't being fair. Aren't there some other food stamp Presidents out there? Okay. You're right.

Yet, under another food stamp President, spending increased by more than $9 billion, the number of recipients increased by 7 million, and the amount of the benefit increased by $17. Yes, it's showing who it is. Here it is. George Herbert Walker Bush was also the food stamp President. See, it runs in the family. Food stamp President, senior, and food stamp President, junior. It's hereditary. A rampant family disease that makes them just want to feed hungry poor people.

Now, I have to confess and make a confession today. I support the food stamp program. I think that SNAP--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to call it by its actual name and not something that Newt Gingrich thinks is politically punchy--serves an important purpose. The purpose is largely to prevent children and old people from going hungry. SNAP doesn't provide them with some fancy perk from some out-of-control free spending program. It provides kids and old people with food. You can't redeem food stamps at Tiffany, which might be another reason why Newt Gingrich thinks it's so bad.

But I think that Americans want their people not to go hungry. Just in case I'm wrong, if Newt Gingrich met a food stamp President other than the one named George Bush, I want to thank Barack Obama today because he's also invested in SNAP. He's invested in nutrition for America's most vulnerable.

Here's another fact, the last one I'll make today, Mr. Speaker, and this one is for Newt Gingrich. Just in case his food stamp President name-calling was designed to make a political point that he wasn't quite so willing to come right out and say of the recipients whose race we know, 22 percent of SNAP recipients are black, 34 percent are white, because hunger knows no race or religion or age or political party. Hunger is color-blind, Mr. Gingrich.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 12.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 5 and 6.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 949.

personal explanation

Today I'm sending a letter to Colonel Alfred A. Pantano, the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville, Florida, the district that oversees, among other things, the permitting process for the construction of a massive gas pipeline that will cross the mountains in Puerto Rico. The 92-mile gas pipeline, which does not make any sense environmentally, economically, or ethically, is moving forward in part because Colonel Pantano's office issued a Draft Environmental Assessment that clearly favors the eventual issuance of the permit.

I would like to read an excerpt from my letter:

``I was intensely angered, but sadly not entirely surprised, when I read the report issued by your office regarding the gasoducto in Puerto Rico. From the start, people in Puerto Rico have been telling me that they suspect all the regulatory oversight is nothing more than show and this process has been assured of passage because of insider cozy relationships between the Army Corps Jacksonville staff and the very industry they are supposed to be overseeing and regulating.

``Further, having sunk millions of dollars in this project already, the ruling party in Puerto Rico's very credibility is at stake on this massive construction project going forward.

``The Draft Environmental Assessment is so slanted and flawed that it adds more evidence to the growing view that there will be no meaningful oversight for this project and no meaningful input from the residents of Puerto Rico.

``I believe your decision, Colonel Pantano, shows a complete disregard for compelling evidence demonstrating little need for the project. It shows disregard for the opinion of other Federal agencies who have looked at the project. The decision disregards evidence of potential safety hazards to the people of Puerto Rico. This woefully slanted decision also gives credence to the suggestion of impropriety in matters related to this project and the inability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to oversee this project.

``I believe this process should begin again in an open and transparent manner, that the process that has led to the decision should be fully investigated, and further efforts should be supervised by new leadership. I ask for a U.S. Army Office of Inspector General investigation immediately into the relationship between the government of Puerto Rico, the Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville office, and the power companies and its contractors.

``Lobbyists who used to work for the Army Corps of Engineers should not be allowed to line their pockets at the expense of the safety of the people of Puerto Rico. Your boss, President Obama, stated `the cozy relationship between the regulators and the industry they regulate must come to an end.'

``I strongly support the President and agree with him completely. However, my misgivings about the pipeline project multiplied substantially when the project was abruptly removed from Army Corps' office in Puerto Rico and transferred to the Jacksonville office in Florida.

``There is clearly a cozy relationship between current Jacksonville staff that you supervise and former Jacksonville staff who now supervise and work for the private company consulted by and hired by the government of Puerto Rico to lobby and provide technical assistance for the project.''

The result: The Army Corps of Engineers appears to have adopted all the power company's wholesale argument for moving forward. What a surprise. These include ignoring the advice of other Federal agencies that do not seem to have any cozy connections and relationships to the moneyed interests behind the pipeline, including warnings from the Fish and Wildlife Service--ignored; the Environmental Protection Agency-- ignored.

Finally, I point out that it is an insult to the people of Puerto Rico to have released the Army Corps' report in the manner it was released. The report is exclusively in English, whereas the common language in Puerto Rico is

Spanish. English is a language that hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans whose lives will be directly affected by the pipeline do not speak and cannot read. How are they supposed to give advice and consent?

It is also personally insulting that the 30-day comment period occurred during the holiday season when the residents of Puerto Rico are especially focused on their family, and interestingly enough, Congress will be in recess.

The people of Puerto Rico, including those who live humbly in the mountains and those who have derived their livelihoods from the land, deserve a government that protects their interest. They deserve to know when their safety and way of life are threatened, the government will protect them. This case reveals the opposite. It reveals a government agency that ignores the warnings of other government agencies and a wealth of facts regarding safety concerns and environmental impact. It reveals a government agency that responds more to well-connected lobbyists than advocates for the people of Puerto Rico. It reveals a government agency that is doing nothing--not doing the job that it was mandated to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record this petition, on behalf of many individuals and environmental groups from the Legal Assistance Clinic at the Law School at the University of Puerto Rico, to have the environmental assessment translated into Spanish.

Escuela de Derecho,

Universadad de Puerto Rico,

San Juan, PR, Decmber 6, 2011.

Re Petition to Translate into Spanish the Draft Environmental

Assessment, Statement of Findings, Public Notice, and

Joint Permit Application for the Via Verde Natural Gas

Pipeline Project, Permit Application No. SAJ 2010-02881

(IP-EWG).

Colonel Alfred A. Pantano,

District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Jacksonville District, San Marco Boulevard, Jacksonville,

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 860, 861, and 862.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that, due to an error, I voted ``aye'' on H.R. 822, the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act,'' (rollcall vote No. 852) when I intended to vote ``no.'' I would also like the record to show that I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 849.

Coming from Illinois, a state that does not issue permits to carry concealed weapons, I understand the importance of allowing each state and locality to determine what gun policy is most appropriate for them. From 1999-2006, 9,054 residents of Illinois were killed by gun violence. These numbers are jarring and, when faced with escalating gun violence in the city of Chicago, I simply cannot support efforts to erode and circumvent tough state gun laws.

The ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act'' would preempt state laws by forcing states to accept permits to carry concealed weapons from other states regardless of any differences in safety standards or requirements to obtain the permit. In other words, Indiana, which prohibits individuals with certain dangerous criminal misdemeanor convictions from carrying concealed weapons, would be forced to allow permit holders from states without that requirement to carry concealed weapons within the state. In addition, it would be virtually impossible for a law enforcement officer to determine if an out-of-state permit was validly issued, creating more danger and uncertainty for our officers.

I fear that, if this bill were enacted, it would put law enforcement officers and our communities at great risk while simultaneously eroding the authority of the states to dictate their own rules in the gun permitting process. I am deeply committed to ensuring that our communities are safe from the ravages of gun violence and I will ardently oppose any legislation to further erode strong state and local gun laws.