Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, this bill would increase both health care costs and the number of American families who would be unable to purchase health insurance.

A central pillar of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are the flexible, state-based health insurance exchanges that will bring greater competition, consumer protection and choice into the health insurance marketplace. Exchanges drive down premium costs for consumers and small business owners, and will empower all Americans to shop for the best available health insurance plan for their families. If repealed, half a million Americans who would be covered under the current law will find themselves unable to purchase insurance.

For the record, I strongly oppose H.R. 1213 and any effort to de-fund the Health Benefit Exchanges or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, due to an error, I incorrectly voted for final passage of H.R. 1213 (rollcall 285), legislation that seeks to repeal mandatory funding provided to states under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish Health Benefit Exchanges. My intention was to vote against this bill.

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 No. 278.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk once again about Puerto Rico, but this time it's a little different.

I rise to note that Governor Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico has actually said something I can agree with. Speaking about a proposed gas pipeline, the Republican Governor of Puerto Rico said, ``We cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels. Gasoducto is fossil fuels.''

He went on to say, ``Tying us down to natural gas for 30 years would be a grave mistake.''

He was referring to the construction of a natural gas pipeline on an island where beautiful beaches, mountains, and rain forests are both irreplaceable natural resources and part of the economic engine that drives tourism. A gas pipeline, that sounds like a dubious proposition. And I agree.

Mr. Fortuno spoke those words 2 years ago as a candidate. Sadly, now that he's safely in office, Governor Fortuno has changed his mind. Now he enthusiastically supports not just gas pipelines but a much bigger, environmentally disruptive, and more expensive pipeline.

And how the construction of this gigantic, supersized pipeline is being handled is another reason why I must speak out again on the civil rights crisis in Puerto Rico. The ruling party would rather people not notice that Mr. Fortuno and Governor Fortuno have opposite positions on the same gas pipeline, so they are working hard to move this project forward under the cover of night.

Every day the ruling party answers this question: If you wanted to undertake a potentially dangerous, economically dubious, environmentally disastrous, and extremely unpopular project, how would you go about doing it?

Here's the ruling party's answer: You circumvent feasibility studies. You avoid environmental impact studies. You ignore the standard permitting and licensing procedures. And you take every step possible to eliminate public hearings and public scrutiny.

But how do you proceed without these necessary safeguards and information? Well, if you're the government

of Puerto Rico and you want to build a 92-mile natural gas pipeline over mountains and through forests and lakes and rivers and across critical groundwater systems in Puerto Rico, you would amend a law designed to deal with natural resources so that you can bypass the normal permitting and public process.

What the ruling party does is declare an ``energy emergency'' on the island. This government's energy emergency allows the pipeline to proceed, despite warnings from the Sierra Club, the environmental group Casa Pueblo, and even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; despite residents' concerns that it would be constructed near schools and churches and residential areas; despite geologists noting that it is near earthquake faults and that there have been 2,500 seismic events in the last 3 years on the island, and one just felt all over the island just 2 days ago.

The self-described ``energy emergency'' also helps hide the fact that you've given a $10 million contract to a pal of the Governor who has no experience at constructing gas pipelines. He does, however, have experience skiing with the Governor. And maybe that's why you run a slick, taxpayer-funded PR campaign that renames the project ``The Via Verde''--``The Green Way.''

So instead of speaking to huge financial, human, and environmental costs, this Orwellian ad campaign calls a gas pipeline over mountains and through the woods and rivers a ``green way.'' Like a lot of people, I think it would be better to be named just ``Green Away,'' a magical cleanser that you apply to your forests, rivers, and lakes, and it makes them go away, along with the millions of green tax dollars.

Here's an even more honest name for this project: ``The Wrong Way.'' Because it's wrong to spend the people's money on a project they don't want and hasn't been appropriately studied, as the newspaper El Nuevo Dia has shown in a series of reports.

Candidate Fortuno was right; Governor Fortuno is wrong. It's time to shine some light on this matter.

I have sent Freedom of Information Act requests to every and all Federal agencies that have addressed the pipeline in Puerto Rico. I will release the results so that the people know whom their government is meeting with, what documents exist, and what studies have been done to show the need for this project. Furthermore, I have already urged the Army Corps of Engineers to deny the permit request for the pipeline until experts testify, permits are applied for, community meetings are held, and environmental impact studies are done.

Maybe the government can make the case for this project in the light of day, but they shouldn't be asking for a verdict without presenting their facts to the people first. It's time they stop doing things the ``Via Verde'' way and start doing things the right way.

The 1st of May all to Adjuntas.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House Chamber yesterday. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 254 and 255 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 256.

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 225.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the HAMP Termination Act, or H.R. 839, a bill to eliminate the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). This is just another attempt by my Republican colleagues to do away with important and necessary programs that help our struggling families and communities cope with the devastation of the housing crisis. Our families are dealing with real emergencies and they want real solutions, yet the Republicans offer no meaningful replacement to help families during this housing and foreclosure epidemic.

The Home Affordable Modification Program was put in place by the Obama Administration to provide critical assistance to American homeowners who are working tirelessly to save their homes. While it wasn't meant to save every home on the brink of foreclosure, this program has helped over 600,000 homeowners since it was first launched. This means that because of HAMP, over 600,000 families were given an opportunity they otherwise wouldn't have had to save their home. Approximately 30,000 homeowners are assisted through HAMP each month. If we eliminate this program now, we would be doing a great disservice to these homeowners and to the recovery of our fragile housing market.

The ineptitude and noncompliance of banks and mortgage servicers have created a laundry list of mistakes and missteps in handling homeowner mortgages that led us into this devastating housing situation. HAMP has been criticized by all parties because it did not meet its initial projected goals. This is partly because HAMP sets strict requirements for homeowners to qualify for a modification to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not wasted or misused. Modifications that continue to be made outside of HAMP are done by servicers who avoid meeting the strict requirements and rules under this program which are put in place to protect homeowners. We have a responsibility to our constituents and we can't simply leave the fate of homeowners and struggling families to the banks and mortgage servicers when their bad mortgage lending practices contributed to our nation's housing crisis in the first place.

HAMP is not perfect, but there is no question that HAMP has provided critical assistance to homeowners facing avoidable foreclosures. The HAMP program has set affordability standards and, more importantly, this program has created a framework for the private sector to provide assistance. The political theater put together by my Republican colleagues to eliminate HAMP and other valuable housing programs and replace them with nothing, doesn't do anything to alleviate the dire circumstances hundreds of thousands of American families are facing today.

Mr. Chair, ending HAMP now would undoubtedly hamper our nation's economic recovery efforts. Many of my colleagues have mentioned throughout this debate something we all know to be true: not a single witness--including the Government Accountability Office and the Special Inspector General for the

Troubled Asset Relief Program--who was invited by Republicans at the hearing we held earlier this month in the Housing Subcommittee, over which I serve as Ranking Member, supported shutting down any of the housing programs Republicans propose to terminate, including HAMP.

Eliminating HAMP would leave American homeowners with fewer options for coping with the worst housing crisis of our generation and would leave our fragile housing market in worse condition than when we started. I urge my colleagues to support American homeowners and vote no on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Neighborhood Stabilization Termination Act, or H.R. 861, a bill to eliminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). I would like to shed light on the positive impact the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has had on neighborhoods and communities across the country and particularly in Chicago, Illinois, as well as dispel myths my Republican colleagues have been passing off as the truth.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of several programs targeted for elimination by House Republicans. These are programs that are helping middle-class and working-class Americans avoid losing their homes through the calamity of foreclosure. While imperfect, these programs are literally keeping a roof over people's heads, keeping families together, and preserving the fabric of American neighborhoods.

Let's not forget, Congress bailed out financial institutions when they hit rock bottom and Congress acted to shore up the economy when it was on the brink of a deeper crisis.

But now Republicans are saying we can't afford programs that lend a hand to American homeowners in their hour of greatest need? That's not the America I know, that's not the America that families need, and that is not the America we were sent to Washington to protect. Let's help our neighbors and our neighborhoods and not leave them to fend for themselves during these tough times.

Recently, several worthy and notable organizations, such as Chicanos Por la Causa (CPLC), have been specifically targeted by my Republican colleagues for the funds they've received under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Let me make this clear, Chicanos Por La Causa is the lead applicant for a national consortium of non-profit affordable housing developers that have received federal funding to revitalize neighborhoods in eight states and the District of Colombia that have been negatively impacted by foreclosures and abandoned properties. CPLC, which was awarded $137 million to address foreclosed and vacant properties, submitted one of the highest scoring grants. The grant to CPLC increased the equitable allocation of NSP funds by providing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with important

tools to help American communities. Specifically, it provided HUD with a method for investing through 13 consortium members in a mix of urban and rural communities that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, and in predominately Latino communities through organizations that provide culturally and linguistically competent services.

Currently, there are approximately 1.3 million Latinos who are in the process of foreclosure or have already lost their homes. There is no doubt the Latino community has been disproportionately affected by the foreclosure crisis. For this reason, Chicanos Por La Causa, together with the National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, have helped blighted communities repair the devastation and distress that comes with abandoned properties. The Resurrection Project is one of the organizations under this consortium that is in my own backyard in Chicago. The Resurrection Project has served the Back of the Yards community in my district by investing $12 million in NSP funds to help stabilize the community. Back of the Yards is one the poorest and most blighted communities in my district and one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. These funds will certainly assist with the recovery efforts and revitalize this historic neighborhood in the city of Chicago.

Mr. Chair, our nation is facing extraordinarily dire economic times. American homeowners, our neighborhoods, and our communities do not deserve to have Congress turn our backs on them in the hour of greatest need. I believe the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is vital to our states, to our cities, and to our communities that have been hardest hit by the largest housing crisis of our generation. This is why I am opposing the Neighborhood Stabilization Termination Act. Two weeks ago I submitted a letter for the record during the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on foreclosure mitigation programs targeted for elimination. The letter was submitted on behalf of the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community Development Association, National Association for County Community and Economic Development, Council of State Community Development Agencies, and the Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., all of whom support this very valuable neighborhood revitalization program. I ask my colleagues to stand with our neighborhoods and our communities and vote no on this bill.

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 175 and 176.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I spoke about a serious problem in Puerto Rico. The problem is the systematic effort by the ruling party to deny the right of the people to speak freely, to criticize their government openly, and to make their voices heard.

I talked about student protests that have been met with resistance by the Puerto Rico police. I talked about closed meetings of the legislature and about the efforts to silence and destroy the local bar association.

I was not the first to speak about it, and I could have said much more. This report, entitled ``Human Rights Crisis in Puerto Rico: First Amendment Under Siege'' is searing.

It details the complaints of students, legislators, the press and the general public who were beaten, and pepper-sprayed by police; female students who were treated with gross disrespect; and the government's overreaction to demonstrations at the university and at the capitol over budget cuts and layoffs.

This next picture, this is the capitol in San Juan, Puerto Rico, surrounded by riot police as people attempted to gain entrance to the same assembly as this one here today, and this is how they were met by the police. This is how the police dealt with protesters.

The images of police tactics and behavior in these photos explain why our Department of Justice is investigating the Puerto Rican police for excessive force and unconstitutional searches as we speak today. How could you see these images and not speak out? I was hardly the first to speak out about these matters, and I probably won't be the last. Here it is, the Daily Sun in Puerto Rico, ``Sticks versus speech.''

As a Member of Congress, it is more than my right, it is my obligation to speak out when fundamental freedoms are attacked. And what was the response to my free speech defending the right of the Puerto Rican people to be heard? It was to challenge my right to be heard here in the halls of Congress. The Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico said in this very body that he is the only one authorized to speak about Puerto Rico at any time.

This week, the Puerto Rican Legislature debated a resolution of censure--yes, censure--condemning me for speaking out against these very abuses. A leading member of the ruling party even said, Gutierrez wasn't born in Puerto Rico, his kids weren't born in Puerto Rico. Gutierrez doesn't plan to die and be buried in Puerto Rico, so Gutierrez doesn't have the right to speak about Puerto Rico.

Well, let me tell you something, if you see injustice anywhere, it is not only your right but your duty to speak about it. We don't speak about injustice or apartheid or human rights abuses or the denial of rights of women in places around the world because we ourselves were born there. That would be silly. Where we see injustice we speak out because it is the right thing to do.

Ironically, by questioning my right to speak out on behalf of free speech, they have made my point crystal clear. By challenging my free speech, they have amplified the words of my 5-minute speech more than if I had spoken for 5 hours.

And it is their right, my critics have the right of free speech even as they deny the same right to others, but I want them to understand this: Your efforts to silence me--just as your efforts to silence so many in Puerto Rico who disagree with your government--will fail, just as every effort to blockade progress only makes the march toward justice more powerful and swift.

I may not be Puerto Rican enough for some people, but I know this: Nowhere on Earth will you find a people harder to silence than Puerto Ricans. You won't locate my love for Puerto Rico on my birth certificate or on my driver's license or on my children's birth certificate or any other piece of paper. My love for Puerto Rico is right here in my heart, a heart that beats with our history and our language and our heroes, a place where, when I moved there as a teenager, people talked and argued and debated because we care deeply about our island and its future. That is still true today. That freedom is still beating in the hearts of university students, working men and women, labor leaders, lawyers and environmentalists, and every person who believes in free speech. You will not silence them, and you will not silence me.

Abraham Lincoln, a leader who valued freedom above all else, said, ``Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.'' It's good advice, and I hope the leaders of Puerto Rico take it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the ACLU report titled ``Human Rights Crisis in Puerto Rico: First Amendment Under Siege'' into the Record, as well as a statement by the president of the Service Employees International Union and the essay, ``Exposing the Shadows of Civil Rights in Puerto Rico'' by the National Puerto Rican Coalition.

Human Rights Crisis in Puerto Rico; First Amendment Under Siege

(By the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico National Chapter)

While the world celebrates the democratic revolution in

Egypt, major violations of basic human rights are occurring

in our own backyard. Since Governor of Puerto Rico Luis

Fortuno came into power two years ago, free speech has been

under all out assault. The following events have taken place

recently:

Thousands of public workers have been laid off and had

their union contracts terminated, leading to tens of

thousands of people peacefully protesting over the past year.

One event turned out over 100,000 peaceful protestors and

while in NYC hundreds marched on May Day, in Puerto Rico May

Day turned out an estimated 30,000 citizens.

At a protest at the steps of the Capital Building over the

closing of access to legislative sessions, access that is

constitutionally mandated, protesters were beaten

mercilessly, pepper sprayed and shot at by Puerto Rico

Police. The same has occurred at other locations.

At most events young women are the first to be targeted for

police violence. At the University of Puerto Rico, female

students, many of whom were beaten, were also sexually

harassed, groped and assaulted (touched) by police. Students

have been mercilessly beaten, maced and shot at with rubber

bullets. Citizens have accused, which images captured

confirm, police of applying torture techniques on immobilized

student protesters. In the past two years, there have

been several riots at protests in and around the University

of Puerto Rico. Many protesters have accused the police of

causing the riots, which some videos also seem to confirm.

Since taking the oath of office, the current

administration, which owns all three branches of government,

has set out to quash Freedom of Expression. In Puerto Rico,

Expression has been in the form of protests against

government policies, such as the firing of approximately

26,000 workers in total, privatizing government, closing off

access to public information and legislative sessions,

attempting to close down the university FM radio station

during periods of civil unrest and going after the Puerto

Rico Bar Association, which was a mandatory integrated Bar

and is Puerto Rico's oldest institution. The 171 year old

Puerto Rico Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados de Puerto

Rico) has historically been a known focal point for liberal

dissent against government policies.

Puerto Rico Governor Fortuno, who is considered a rising

star in the Republic Party, has publicly committed to not

allowing what he calls ``extreme left'' protests and

expression. On Friday, February 11, 2011, Governor Fortuno

spoke about his administration's policies while speaking at a

Conservative Political Action Conference of the American

Conservative Union (ACU) in Washington, DC, an activity

attended by members of the National Rifle Association, the

Tea Party and the John Birch Society.

At the University of Puerto Rico all forms of expression

have been prohibited, through a Resolution issued by UPR

Chancellor Ana Guadalupe; a resolution which Governor Luis

Fortuno ordered armed police officers to enforce. On

Wednesday, February 9, 2011, a group of students participated

in civil disobedience on campus, consisting of a paint-in.

During the paint-in, students peacefully and without

interrupting the educational process painted messages of

protest in a limited area of the street at the front of the

main library, in defiance of the Chancellor's absolute

prohibition on any form of protest. Students immediately came

under extreme physical and violent attack by members of the

police force's elite and heavily armed SWAT and Riot Squad

teams.

While the ACLU is looking to file charges on Human Rights

violations and evaluating other legal options, the Puerto

Rico Daily Sun, a conservative English language newspaper,

published a damming editorial in which it called for the

resignation of the university's president, chancellors and

the Board of Trustees. On Friday, February 11, 2011,

President Ramon De la Torres' resignation was unanimously

accepted by the Board of Trustees. However, the Board

Chairperson, Ygri Rivera, immediately stated that she will

not be removing armed Puerto Rico Police officers from the

University of Puerto Rico campus.

In its editorial, the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, stated that

``[t]he indiscriminate aggression of police riot squads

against students, who are exercising their constitutional

rights in public areas without interfering with any academic

or administrative activity, is a gross violation of their

rights and an act comparable only to the acts of the

dictatorships we all denounce and reject''. The Daily Sun

added that ``[w]e do not want this new order, neither for our

university, the Capitol, La Fortaleza or our neighborhoods.

We reject it with all our might, Exercising our freedom of

speech, or freedom of association, is not a crime''.

As we say in Puerto Rico, ``mas claro no canta un gallo''

(it could not have been more clearly stated).

On Sunday, February 12, 2011, just four days after students

were mercilessly beaten by Puerto Rico Police agents, over

10,000 alumnus, parents, grandparents, family members and

other citizens took to the streets and marched over to

reclaim the UPR campus, demanding that the PRPD be

immediately ordered off campus.

See news video: http://www.primer

ahora.com/milesseunencontralacuotayla

invasionpoliciacaenlaupr-474118.html.

In addition to the debacle and related violence at the

University of Puerto Rico, in the past two years legislation

has been passed that would prohibit protests at construction

sites and most recently at any government building that

renders educational services and other locations rendering

government services, under penalty of criminal prosecution.

The Puerto Rico Bar Association was recently de-certified

through legislation which the governor signed into law, which

all but shut down operations. Several lawyers aligned with

the views of the current administration pushed for de-

certification and had previously sued the Bar Association in

federal court alleging that the Bar was forcing them to

purchase an unwanted insurance policy; its $78.00 per year

cost was paid from Bar Association dues. Bar members were

never informed of the particulars of the lawsuit and Federal

Judge Jose Antonio Fuste issued a GAG order prohibiting the

disclosure of important aspects of the case to Bar class

members.

The Puerto Rico Bar Association is not being allowed to

inform and counsel Bar members about their right to opt out

of the lawsuit. Thousands of lawyers are not even sure why

they are a part of this lawsuit. It is believed that an

English language notice on the right to opt out of the

lawsuit may not be sufficient guarantee that Bar members will

fully understand the ramifications of their actions. Many

members of the Bar have limited English skills, particularly

lawyers in the smaller and rural towns.

The newly elected President of the now voluntary Puerto

Rico Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico),

Osvaldo Toledo, was jailed on Friday, February 11, 2011, at a

federal detention center in Puerto Rico, where he remains on

contempt of a court charges for refusing to pay a $10,000

fine imposed on him for having counseled Bar members who

insist that they have a right to know the particulars of the

suit and procedure for opting out.

Federal Judge Jose Antonio Fuste's GAG order extends not

only to the President of the Puerto Rico Bar Association, but

also board members, administrators, agents and servants. The

Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union in

Puerto Rico, William Ramirez, had previously been warned by

the Bar that he may not be able to speak out against what is

held to be an injustice and First Amendment infringement.

Speaking out in defiance of the federal court order may

result in the arrest of anyone covered by the court's GAG

order and further fines imposed against the Puerto Rico Bar

Association.

After studying the court's order, we at the ACLU do not, at

this time, believe that the federal court order reaches class

members or other members of the Bar, including the staff and

cooperating attorneys of the ACLU in Puerto Rico. However, we

do believe the order to be unjust and believe it should be

set aside.

The ACLU will continue to fight for the right to free

speech and peaceful assembly in Puerto Rico and fully intends

to take on any challenges that it may face.

I rise today to bring the urgent attention of the U.S. House of Representatives to a human rights and civil rights crisis. I want to talk to you today about a part of the world where the rights of citizens of all walks of life to protest and speak their minds is being denied with clubs and pepper spray; a part of the world where a student strike led the university to ban student protests anywhere, anytime on campus; and where, when the students protested the crackdown on free speech, they were violently attacked by heavily armed riot police; a place where a newspaper editorial stated, ``The indiscriminate aggression of police riot squads against students who are exercising their constitutional rights in public areas is a gross violation of their rights and an act comparable only to the acts of the dictatorships we all denounce and reject''; a place where the government has closed public access to some legislative sessions just like this one.

I ask this Congress to look at a part of the world where the Bar Association has been dismantled by the legislature and its leader has been jailed for fighting a politically motivated lawsuit. And where is this part of the world? Egypt? No. Protesters exercising freedom of speech brought down a dictator in Cairo last week. What far away land has seen student protests banned, union protesters beaten, and free speech advocates jailed? The United States of America's colony of Puerto Rico. Sound outrageous? It is. But true, and well documented.

I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to turn their eyes to Puerto Rico. The doors of the U.S. Congress are open. Our proceedings are public. In fact, the public is our boss, and that's how it works in a democracy. Across America today, I am sure there will be protests at college campuses. Across America, workers will go on strike, and there will be marches and protests against mayors and Governors and derogatory things said, even about President Obama.

In Madison, Wisconsin, as we speak, protests over employment policies and budget cuts at the University of Wisconsin are taking place. College and even high school students have been joined by union members and their allies in peaceful protests on the streets across the State of Wisconsin. Will we see pepper spray and beatings? Not likely. The protesters will be protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution. And that's the way it works in a democracy. It is their right to say whatever they want and say it without fear of pepper spray or clubs or a legislature that limits and restricts the people's rights.

In the 50 States, we have lots of organizations not unlike the Puerto Rican Bar Association, an organization under attack by the government, and we don't tolerate its leaders being sent to jail because they exercise their rights and they stand up for what they believe in. But that's not the reality in Puerto Rico.

Just last week, Judge Fuste, a Federal judge with close ties to the ruling party and a personal history of opposing the Puerto Rican Bar Association, this Federal judge whose salary is paid for by the taxpayers of America, ordered Osvaldo Toledo, the president of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, to jail. And what was Mr. Toledo's crime? Educating his members on how to opt out of a politically motivated lawsuit designed to destroy the Bar Association. For me, this attack was the final straw that brought me to the floor to speak out today.

So, in solidarity with Osvaldo Toledo, jailed for doing his job as the leader of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, I will enter into the Congressional Record today the instructions for his members on how to opt out of the class action lawsuit that is threatening the viability of the Bar Association.

I will say to those who would pass laws to stifle public protest, to those who would authorize the use of force against peaceful protesters, and to stifle the words and actions of their enemies, attacking free speech has no place in a democracy, and a Federal judge like Fuste should know better.

Here is a fact that most of us learned a long time ago: Brutal laws, secret meetings, armed enforcers don't extinguish the flame of justice; they are the spark that makes it burn even brighter. You may, with your armed guards and your restrictive laws, try to slow down the protests of the people of Puerto Rico. You may harass the Puerto Rican Bar Association and make their life uncomfortable for a while. And every time you turn police on students and jail an opponent, you guarantee that the good people of Puerto Rico and this Congress will speak out.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the people of Puerto Rico, there are some places

that this crusade to end free speech cannot reach, not today, not ever. I stand with you.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I rise to, first of all, support the Flake amendment but also to oppose the underlying bill and the drastic cuts that will devastate the most vulnerable citizens in our Nation.

Just to highlight some of these cuts, the bill will cut $25 million from the Ryan White HIV-AIDS Program and the Aides Drug Assistance Program, ADAP. Now, ADAP is a program of last resort for the poorest Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Currently there is a waiting list of over 6,000 people in 10 States to receive benefits from this program.

And $850 million in reductions to the CDC, an organization whose first task is to defend us against disease and infection, $850 million. That is smart. Let's just cut and make America more vulnerable.

The bill cuts $1.6 billion in funding for NIH, so I guess we won't need any research since we are going to let the diseases run rampant in America.

It goes so far as to say in the District of Columbia, we are even going to tell you how to spend your very last dollar.

But it gets better. Community Health Centers, Community Health Centers, where the most vulnerable are treated for their health, $1.3 billion in cuts. Community Health Centers will lose the capacity to serve 11 million patients over the next year, and well over 3.3 million current patients will lose their care within the next few months.

The bill cuts $5 billion from the Pell Grants. I did hear that there were a lot of new millionaires elected to the Congress of the United States, so I imagine they can pay for their children's education. But maybe we should think about people that don't have the median income of Members of Congress, people who don't make $175,000 a year, which puts all of us in the top 1 percent of wage earners.

What about the most humble and the poorest and those who wish to aspire one day to lead this great Nation of ours? Shouldn't they be given an opportunity? Not under this program. Let's cut the program, the basic program that allows young men and women to seek a college education, the Pell Grant. Let's eliminate billions of dollars from there also.

But wait, $25 billion to the Federal TRIO Program. That is for the first generation. That is the first kid in a family where nobody has gone to college. Let's cut from that program too.

The program cuts $25 million from GEAR UP. And, wait, $1 billion from Head Start?

I am just going to end with this. I want the public to understand this. We get great health care here, excellent health care. It is not free, but we get great health care. About $400, that is what they deduct from my check. My wife gets good health care, my daughter gets good health care, and so do every one of you get good health care. Shame on anybody that would adopt this kind of budget, knowing very well

the kind of great health care that we get. Cut your health care first before you cut the health care of the most poorest, the most vulnerable in this Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I rise today to introduce my amendment to cut funding for the V-22, a hybrid helicopter/airplane that was in development for more than 25 years, cost the lives of 30 individuals before it ever saw combat, and still does not meet operational requirements in Iraq. Cost overruns have plagued the V-22 since its development. Initial estimates projected $40 million per plane. But today it has exploded to $120 million per plane--a threefold increase. This amendment would save $415 million for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 by cutting funding for the V-22 from the Air Force and Navy's aircraft procurement accounts.

In 2009, the GAO found that the Marine Corps received 105 V-22s. Of those, fewer than half--only 47--were considered combat deployable. But on any given day, there are an estimated 22--fewer than one in four-- ready for any combat. This is largely due to unreliable parts and maintenance challenges. It was reported that 13 of the V-22's parts lasted only 30 percent of their life expectancy and six lasted less than 10 percent. In addition, the GAO found that the V-22 did not have weather radar and its ice protection system was unreliable. Not me. GAO. So that flying through icy conditions is prohibited on this plane. Can't do it. Icy conditions are often found in Afghanistan. Oddly enough, the V-22 also had problems in dusty conditions, which, coincidentally, also exist and is common in Afghanistan.

So I ask my colleagues, why do we continue to fund this boondoggle? The majority claims to have made some tough choices in this bill. Apparently this includes continuing to fund a plane that Dick Cheney called, a, quote, turkey and tried to kill four times when he was Secretary of Defense. It should also be noted that Dick Cheney did not often meet a defense program he didn't like, so this should be very telling to everyone here. In order to continue funding this plane, this Congress proposes steep cuts to be made on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens.

H.R. 1 puts the safety of American families at risk. The bill eliminates COPS hiring, a program that will put 1,330 fewer cops on our streets. The bill cuts the SAFER program, which means there are 2,400 fewer firefighters protecting our communities; so that we can build a plane that can't fly under icy conditions, can't fly when there's sand, and one out of four is ever used at any given time?

The majority has made the shortsighted choice to cut $1.3 billion from community health centers which, according to the CEO of the National Association of Community Health Centers, is equivalent to terminating health care to the entire population of Chicago, or to everyone living in the States of Wyoming, Vermont, North and South Dakota and Alaska combined. Why? For a plane that cannot fly when it's icy, which cannot fly when it's dusty. And where are we at? In a combat situation where we need it to do both things.

Look. If this weren't enough, the bill also eliminates title X funding which provides services for cancer screenings, annual exams, STD testing and contraceptives.

H.R. 1 would also cut $5 billion from Federal Pell Grants. In Illinois, this will reduce financial aid to 61,000 poor students. And as I had suggested earlier here today, maybe as Members of Congress, maybe because we are in the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States of America, people of America understand we make $175,000, each and every one of us, and there are over 150 millionaires in this body, maybe we don't care. Maybe you can cut the Pell Grant program because you don't care whether kids get ahead and are able to go to college. But some of us should, especially those of us that have been blessed with the riches of wealth in this Nation and allowed to be able to serve in this body.

And so I simply say, Let the kids go to school. Let there be health care for the most vulnerable of Americans. And all we will be missing is this boondoggle of a hybrid helicopter that does not serve the purpose for which it was proposed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I have already used my 5 minutes prior, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez

Amendment No. 63: Page 23, line 12, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $21,985,000)''.

Page 28, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $393,098,000)''.

Page 359, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $415,083,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in the House chamber on February 8, 2011. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 26.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 17 and 18.