Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation that would extend the SSI program to Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam.

SSI provides cash assistance to blind, disabled, or elderly individuals who have limited or no income. Although SSI applies in the States, it does not apply in Puerto Rico, which instead receives a block grant to assist its most vulnerable residents.

Of all the disparities that Puerto Rico faces because of its territory status, this is perhaps the most harmful. Puerto Rico's annual grant is about $35 million. By contrast, the Nation's poorest State, with almost 1 million fewer residents, received over $740 million in SSI funding in 2010.

While in the States beneficiaries receive about $500 each month, Puerto Rico residents receive only $70. Residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens, but when it comes to SSI, their citizenship is second class.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over the changes that would be made to the Pell Grant program by this spending bill.

In 2009, my colleagues and I on the House Education and Labor Committee made a landmark investment in the Pell Grant program when we passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Through that legislation, we increased the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,550, up from $4,050 in 2006. As college tuition rises, the higher maximum award has served as a lifeline to students who want to better their future by attending college or a technical or trade school. I am pleased that the bill we are considering today protects that maximum award level.

However, I am disappointed that this spending bill makes several changes to the Pell Grant program that will close the doors to college to many students in Puerto Rico and across our nation. Specifically, the bill would limit the number of semesters during which a student may receive a Pell Grant, require that a student hold a high school diploma or General Equivalency Degree to obtain a Pell Grant, and reduce the income level below which a student will automatically receive the maximum Pell Grant award from $30,000 to $23,000.

These changes appear to be premised on the belief that, for a student to benefit from postsecondary education, he or she must take a traditional path--graduate from high school or obtain a GED, and then complete college within a set amount of time. Most, if not all, of us in this body took that path. But today, an increasing number of students are not taking that path, particularly as our economy continues its slow recovery. If we require students to meet our preconceived notions of the type of student who is worthy of a Pell Grant, we will shortchange many of our nation's young people who seek a better life for themselves. Some students are unable to graduate from high school, to receive a GED, or complete college within 12 semesters because they must work to provide for their family. Other students must care for an ill family member. Whatever the reason, if a student is motivated to attend college or a technical or trade school, we should provide the same financial assistance that we provide to students who take a more traditional path.

In today's economy, graduating from college is more important than ever. Fifty years ago, an individual could obtain a well-paying job without a college degree. Today, college opens so many doors for our nation's youth that would otherwise remain sealed shut. We in Congress should do everything in our power to increase access to college and technical and trade schools. I regret that this spending bill falls short on that measure.

Mr. Speaker, American citizens in the Caribbean are facing a security crisis. While the national murder rate has declined in recent decades, the number of homicides in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands remains unacceptably high. Since 2008, the murder rate in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands has been about five times the national average and about twice as high as that of any State.

Most of the murders committed in Puerto Rico and the USVI are linked to the drug trade. As Attorney General Holder and other officials have acknowledged, the Federal Government's effort to prevent traffickers from transporting drugs across our Nation's southwest border is causing traffickers to turn increasingly to the Caribbean to ship drugs into the United States. As the National Drug Intelligence Center recently observed, violence by traffickers in the two territories has ``become indiscriminate, endangering the lives of . . . innocent bystanders.''

In response to questions I posed, Attorney General Holder recently called drug-related violence in Puerto Rico and in the USVI a national security issue that we must confront. At my urging, Congress has also taken notice of the problem, directing Federal law enforcement agencies on three separate occasions to devote more attention to the Caribbean region.

According to briefings provided to my office, 70 to 80 percent of the cocaine that enters Puerto Rico is transported to the U.S. mainland. Because Puerto Rico is a U.S. jurisdiction, once drugs enter the island, they are easily delivered to the States through commercial airlines and container ships, without having to clear customs or having to otherwise undergo heightened scrutiny. Once in the States, these drugs destroy lives and communities in my colleagues' districts. So this is a problem of national, not simply regional, scope.

That said, the primary reason the Federal Government must do more to reduce drug trafficking in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is that U.S. citizens in these two territories are dying in unprecedented numbers. Our Nation has devoted considerable resources in confronting drug gangs that are operating along the southwest border, and rightfully so. Yet Puerto Rico's murder rate is four to five times higher than that of any Southwest border State.

According to a recent piece in The Washington Post, since 2008 the island has received less than one-fifth of the funding that the Federal Government has provided to combat the drug trade and associated violence in Mexico and Central American nations.

The number of authorized positions at key Federal law enforcement agencies in Puerto Rico is too low. The number of vacancies is too high. And interdiction assets, like planes and boats, are in short supply.

Since taking office, I have urged the Federal Government to devote resources to Puerto Rico at a level commensurate with the severity of the problem it faces. Specifically, I have asked the White House drug czar to establish a Caribbean border initiative modeled after the successful Southwest Border Initiative.

The time for half measures and piecemeal efforts has passed. What is needed instead is a well-planned, well-funded, well-executed, governmentwide strategy that will encompass all Federal agencies charged with fighting drug trafficking and related violence. To protect the lives of the U.S. citizens in the Caribbean and to reduce the flow of drugs headed to the States through that region, the Federal Government must make a commitment of resources to Puerto Rico and the USVI that is similar to the commitment it has made to the southwest border.

The challenge we face today is similar to the one we faced back in 1994. I was Puerto Rico's attorney general back then and lobbied successfully for Puerto Rico and the USVI to be federally designated as a high-intensity drug trafficking area, which contributed to a significant reduction in the island's violent crime rate. The problem has evolved over time, and the Federal response must evolve along with it. I will not rest until it does.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment will make a narrow and carefully targeted modification to the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 as it applies to Puerto Rico. This amendment would authorize foreign-flagged vessels--in particular, large yachts and recreational vessels--to transport tourists and other paying passengers between ports within Puerto Rico.

My amendment would remove an outdated obstacle that makes it impossible for the United States to compete with foreign jurisdictions in the Caribbean region when it comes to attracting investment in nautical tourism. Puerto Rico has the highest unemployment rate in the U.S., and increased nautical tourism has the potential to create new American jobs and spur economic growth.

Current Federal law already allows foreign-flagged vessels to transport tourists and other paying customers from a port in Puerto Rico to any port in the Caribbean region outside of Puerto Rico, including to ports in the neighboring U.S. Virgin Islands, where the act does not apply at all. Yet, contrary to common sense, these very same vessels cannot be used to transport tourists and other paying passengers between Puerto Rico's own ports.

For example, individuals and businesses cannot charter larger, foreign-flagged yachts or recreational vessels for tourists and other customers who would like to sail between Puerto Rico's various marinas. My amendment would allow this to happen.

Madam Chair, the status quo simply defies common sense. Puerto Rico consists of multiple islands and is home to 3.7 million American citizens. It has over 700 miles of coastline and over 150 beaches. It is located in the heart of the Caribbean Sea, often recognized as the yachting capital of the world. It is surrounded by island nations like the Dominican Republic, Aruba, and the British Virgin Islands, all of which have established thriving nautical tourism industries. Yet the United States in general, and Puerto Rico in particular, have been unable to participate in this growing market.

According to the U.S. Coast Guard, there are a mere 30 or so recreational vessels now operating in the Caribbean that, under current law, are authorized to transport tourists and other paying customers between Puerto Rico ports. Nothing could better illustrate how the U.S. jurisdiction of Puerto Rico is being disadvantaged by present law.

As noted, the purpose of my amendment is simple and straightforward. Puerto Rico faces many economic challenges. The territory's current unemployment rate exceeds 15 percent. While the increased nautical tourism that my amendment would allow will not alone solve these problems, it does

have the potential to make a meaningful difference for the communities and constituencies I represent.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this narrow amendment, which simply enables the United States to compete with foreign jurisdictions in the Caribbean's growing nautical tourism market.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Madam Chair, I hear that there is some opposition, but what frustrates me is that there are no specifics. I haven't yet heard a specific way in which my proposed amendment would harm any U.S.-flagged vessel or industry.

Indeed, the groups that are supposedly opposing have not been able to articulate any specific amendment that I could make to my bill to take care of their concerns. Rather, their concerns appear to be more of a generalized and of a vague quality, namely that they are concerned that allowing any modification or revision to the Passenger Vessel Services Act will eventually lead to other requests for modifications down the line.

I believe we have to be balanced. Puerto Rico has been economically going through a recession now for 5 years in a row, and this could make a difference. Helping Puerto Rico helps the U.S. We are talking, after all, about an American territory, about American jobs, and about the nautical tourism industry in Puerto Rico and the U.S.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to commend my colleague, Congressman Grimm, for introducing this bill to name a post office in his Staten Island district after Sergeant Angel Mendez, who, at age 20, in Vietnam, laid down his life for his fellow marines, earning the Navy Cross for his actions.

Sergeant Mendez died far too young, but his short life was filled with greatness. With this bill, Congressman Grimm, a Devil Dog himself, honors Sergeant Mendez, the Marine Corps, and this country.

The bond between New York and Puerto Rico is deep and strong. Sergeant Mendez' parents were born in Puerto Rico and, like so many island residents of their generation, moved to New York in search of a better life for themselves and their children.

How Sergeant Mendez came to possess such character and courage will never be known; and, in fact, I am moved by the description just made by Congressman Grimm about his valor in Vietnam. But on that day in 1967 when he was mortally wounded on a battlefield thousands of miles from Staten Island, this New York son of Puerto Rican heritage became an American hero. Today, thanks to Congressman Grimm, we pay tribute to his strength and his sacrifice, and engrave his name in stone.

I am now, more than ever, a proud Puerto Rican American remembering the life of Sergeant Angel Mendez. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2422.

Mr. Speaker, the coming months represent a defining moment for our Nation. Responsible leaders from both political parties understand that we must come together on behalf of the American people to create jobs for millions of unemployed workers and to put our Nation on the path to fiscal stability.

President Obama has transmitted the American Jobs Act to Congress, and I hope its key components will be enacted into law. The supercommittee has begun its work of proposing responsible ways to grow our economy while reducing our deficits. The work that lies ahead will not be easy, but it must be done.

With this as backdrop, I rise this morning to discuss the Puerto Rico Investment Promotion Act, which I will introduce tomorrow. The bill is designed to attract investment to Puerto Rico and to create jobs on the island, where the unemployment rate over the last decade has consistently stood six to eight percentage points above the national average. At the same time, the bill seeks to generate new revenue for the Federal Government and to encourage job-creating investment in the 50 States, where unemployment now exceeds 9 percent.

This bill is endorsed by Puerto Rico's Governor, Luis Fortuno, the leaders of Puerto Rico's two main political parties, and the island's business community.

At the outset, it is important to explain why I'm promoting legislation of this sort. Like the States, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico faces serious economic challenges. However, the economic problems of Puerto Rico have proven to be structural and chronic, not cyclical and temporary.

I believe that Puerto Rico's economy will never unleash its tremendous potential under its current political status. And I support statehood for the island in part because history shows that every territory that joins the union experiences substantial increases in its economic activity and standard of living. However, until a majority of Puerto Rico's people express a desire for statehood and Congress welcomes the island as a full member of the American family, it is incumbent upon me to take all reasonable steps to strengthen the island's economy within the severe constraints imposed by the current territorial status.

My aspiration for Puerto Rico is that it will enjoy the political, social, and economic equality that only statehood offers; and I look forward to the day when it will no longer be necessary for Puerto Rico's leaders to petition the U.S. Congress for customized, island- specific legislation to encourage job-creating investment, and to compensate--at least somewhat--for the countless ways in which our political status does damage to our people. But until that day arrives, we must be as pragmatic about the present as we are hopeful about the future.

To explain the bill, a little background is in order. Currently, nearly all of the large U.S. firms that conduct business in Puerto Rico are organized as controlled foreign corporations, CFCs. A CFC's earnings are not subject to any Federal taxation until they're distributed, usually in the form of a dividend, to its U.S. parent, a process known as repatriation. CFCs in Puerto Rico and in foreign countries have little incentive to repatriate because

those earnings, once received by the parent, are subject to full Federal taxation. As a result, billions of dollars in CFC earnings remain in foreign banks, where they generate no Federal revenue and create no American jobs.

My legislation seeks to integrate Puerto Rico companies into the U.S. tax system. It would authorize, but not require, companies that are incorporated in Puerto Rico and that earn at least 50 percent of their income on the island to operate as domestic U.S. companies. The bill would promote consistency and uniformity by bringing the treatment of an electing Puerto Rico company in line with the current treatment of a Puerto Rico individual under section 933 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Specifically, an electing company would be subject to Federal taxation on its worldwide income, except on the income it earns in Puerto Rico. Because it is a domestic rather than a foreign firm, the Puerto Rico corporation could distribute its earnings to its U.S. parent in the form of a dividend under section 243 of the Tax Code, which allows the parent to deduct a substantial amount of a dividend, depending on the parent's ownership stake in the subsidiary. Therefore, profits that were previously kept outside of the United States are now more likely to be brought back into this country, where they may be subject to a reduced, but still meaningful, level of taxation under section 243 and used to create jobs in America.

Moreover, as I already noted, under this legislation, electing corporations that have income derived from sources outside Puerto Rico--whether in the States or foreign countries--would become subject to Federal taxation on that income. This will generate additional revenue for the U.S. Treasury, since CFCs with non-Puerto Rico-source income currently pay no Federal tax on that income.

I hope my colleagues will support this bill.

This legislation is a substantial improvement over earlier proposals put forward by leaders in Puerto Rico with the goal of encouraging job- creating investment on the Island. Those proposals were carefully considered by the Federal Government and were met with resistance, even by Members of Congress and other Federal officials sensitive to Puerto Rico's unique circumstances. The primary shortcoming of those proposals is that they sought benefits without burdens. My legislation, by contrast, is balanced. It would benefit both Puerto Rico and our Nation. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to discuss the issue of Federal support for health care in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories. This is a story of unprecedented progress, but it is also a chronicle of continuing challenges.

While the treatment of the territories under Federal health care programs has substantially improved in recent years, serious disparities still remain. The consequence of these inequalities is not difficult to discern.

Last month, a study found that patients at hospitals in the territories fared significantly worse than patients at hospitals in the States. The study cited funding disparities under Medicaid and Medicare along with the territories' lack of voting representation in the Federal Government as likely causes for these discrepancies. The study concluded that ``eliminating the substantial quality gap in the U.S. territories should be a national priority.''

Consider Medicaid, which helps our most vulnerable citizens. Medicaid has always operated differently in the territories. The Federal Government pays at least 50 percent of the program's cost in the wealthiest States and upwards of 80 percent in the poorest States. By contrast, Federal law imposes an annual cap on funding in the territories. Historically, Puerto Rico's cut was so low that the Federal Government paid less than 20 percent of Medicaid costs on the island in any given year. Inadequate Federal funding has made it difficult for Puerto Rico to provide quality health care to its low- income population.

If the purpose of this policy was to save the Federal Government money, it was shortsighted. Between 2005 and 2009, over 300,000 Puerto Rican residents moved to the States. Many were men and women of limited means who, upon migrating, immediately became eligible for full benefits under Medicaid and other Federal programs.

Last Congress, my fellow Delegates and I fought hard to ensure that our constituents were treated in an equitable manner in the Affordable Health Care Act. Under the law, funding for Puerto Rico's Medicaid program will triple over the next decade. Though it is far less than Puerto Rico would receive if treated like a State, this increased funding does represent a significant step towards parity.

But the Affordable Care Act did not eliminate serious disparities facing my constituents. For example, Puerto Rico is still subject to unequal treatment under Medicare. Although island residents pay the same payroll taxes as their fellow citizens in the States, ill- conceived Federal formulas provide lower Medicaid reimbursements to Puerto Rico hospitals.

Despite the pressing need to correct all these disparities, I know that to legislate effectively you must choose your battles wisely, especially in a fiscal climate as challenging as the one our country faces today. Therefore, I have introduced three health bills that would correct unprincipled inequalities and do so in a fiscally responsible way.

The first bill amends the HITECH Act, which provides payments to doctors and hospitals that become users of electronic health records. The act inadvertently excluded Puerto Rico hospitals from the Medicare payments, and my budget-neutral bill would include them. My second bill, which has bipartisan support, would modify a unique Federal law that makes it more difficult for Puerto Rico seniors to enroll in Medicare part B and would reduce the penalties for late enrollment. And my third bill would make it possible for territory Medicaid programs to cover breast and cervical cancer treatments by placing Federal contributions for those services outside the annual cap.

So I have filed these three cost-conscious bills to address some of these disparities we are facing, and I hope to have the support of my colleagues when the time comes to consider them.

Now a word about the current state of affairs in Puerto Rico; after all, I represent Puerto Rico in this Congress. And if we're going to be talking about a crisis in Puerto Rico, I'll tell you about a crisis in Puerto Rico. It is the high incidence of violent crime that is tied to the drug trafficking that is happening in the Caribbean. And I, for one, am doing something productive. I am seeking additional resources because it is in the interest of both the United States as a country, as a whole, and Puerto Rico to increase the presence of Federal law enforcement officers in Puerto Rico.

While I want civil rights to be protected all over America, what I am doing is supporting the ongoing investigation of the Department of Justice. But I am not denigrating the integrity of those who put their lives at risk to defend the safety of our citizenry.

Mr. Speaker, each year, 26 Federal agencies award over half a trillion dollars in grant funding. Earlier this year, Congress significantly changed the manner in which the Federal Government allocates funding. In the past, State and local governments and nonprofit organizations spent a great deal of time trying to persuade individuals Members of Congress to earmark funds to support local projects.

While debate will no doubt continue on the value of congressionally directed spending, the reality is that, at least for the time being, the days of earmarks are over. With a ban on earmarks, a greater emphasis will now be placed on competitive grants, whereby applicants from across the Nation compete for funding made available for different purposes.

In theory, a larger role for competitive grants in the Federal appropriations process holds promise. Under a well-administered grant competition, an application is judged on its merits. In practice, however, an increased emphasis on competitive grants will only improve the overall process if the Federal Government announces and publicizes grant opportunities in a clear and organized manner. Grant seeking will not be a true meritocracy if the process of identifying, applying for, and obtaining Federal grants is clouded in mystery and confusion and understood only by paid experts.

In 1999, Congress created a Web site, grants.gov, which allows applicants to search and apply for grants online. But much more needs to be done to make the grant solicitation process as transparent and user friendly as possible.

Many of my constituents have expressed frustration with the manner in which the Federal Government makes grant opportunities known. Often, a potential grantee will seek to apply for needed funding only to learn that the deadline for the most relevant grant passed days or weeks earlier. In other instances, prospective applicants will search grants.gov, but become frustrated upon finding that they need to scroll through pages and pages of grant listings, some of which are outdated or have not been funded by Congress.

To address these problems, I recently introduced H.R. 2393. This bipartisan

legislation would make two important changes to the Federal grant solicitation process. First, my bill would require each Federal agency, within 2 months of the start of any fiscal year, to submit a forecast of all grants solicitations that the agency expects to issue for that year. Such a forecast would allow prospective applicants to determine in advance which grant opportunities they wish to apply for.

The second improvement my bill would make is to require each grant solicitation forecast or listing to be organized by detailed subject area. Grants.gov currently organizes grant opportunities by agency and by very broad areas such as energy or housing. As a result, when an applicant seeks to search for health-related grants, for example, he or she must scroll through 30 pages of grant listings. My bill would require grants.gov, as well as all other Federal agencies, to organize grant opportunities by specific subject areas so that the applicants can more easily identify those grants that are most likely to address their needs.

Now, let me turn to Puerto Rico, which I represent in this Congress. And it pains me that some statements were made earlier on this floor regarding my beautiful island and its government. Puerto Rico shines because of its democracy. Every 4 years we have free elections, and our voters go out and express their will at the rate of 80 percent, which is something that we are very proud of.

We do have a police department in Puerto Rico, actually the second- largest in the Nation, and there is an ongoing civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice. But I am sure, and I can vouch, that the police department of Puerto Rico is doing everything it can so that any civil rights violations are corrected and are not repeated.

Again, I wish when we talk about Puerto Rico in this Congress, we talk about all of the positive things that are happening in that island, including our people's love of their American citizenship and their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, the 2010 census confirmed that Hispanics are a growing part of the American family. There are now more than 50 million Latinos in the United States, accounting for more than half of the Nation's population growth between 2000 and 2010. Today, one in six Americans is Hispanic.

This tremendous growth adds to our country's rich diversity, but it also brings challenges. The number of English language learners in our Nation's schools has increased by 50 percent over the past decade. English learners are found in States with traditionally large Hispanic populations, like Texas and New Mexico, and in States that have experienced a recent influx of immigrants, like Colorado and Indiana. And English learners are found in large numbers in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

How well our schools educate those students will determine the future success of our Nation. And providing a quality education means ensuring that they graduate from high school with proficiency in English. The benefits of learning English are clear for students living in the 50 States where it is difficult to obtain most jobs without being fluent in the language.

But learning English is also vital for students in Puerto Rico. In my life I have visited many countries around the world; and everywhere I have traveled, I have seen young people studying English with passion and determination. Puerto Rico's sons and daughters, particularly as American citizens living in a U.S. territory, simply must be proficient in English to compete effectively in the modern globalized world.

Yet for too many years, some politicians in Puerto Rico sought to limit the teaching of English in our local schools in a misguided effort to influence the debate over Puerto Rico's political status. This cynical approach has harmed our children and our island. Regardless of one's views on Puerto Rico's status, there can be no question that proficiency in English, as well as in Spanish, is in the best interest of Puerto Rico's youth. To deny our children the opportunity to learn English is to deny them the countless opportunities that come with being bilingual.

Accordingly, since arriving in Congress, one of my primary goals has been to improve English language instruction in Puerto Rico schools. That is why I have introduced a bill to raise a cap that restricts the amount of Federal funds the island can receive to strengthen its English language programs. In order to ensure that the children of Puerto Rico have the same opportunities as children in the States, it is imperative that the island be treated fairly when it comes to allocating Federal funding for English language programs.

Moreover, our schools' success in teaching English learners in Puerto Rico and in the States will depend on the number of well-prepared bilingual teachers available to instruct these students. In Puerto Rico the challenge has been to find enough teachers who are sufficiently proficient in English to effectively teach the language. At the same time, the increased number of English learners in the States has left school districts scrambling to find enough teachers who are fluent in foreign languages, such as Spanish and Mandarin, as well as in English.

In both cases, schools are asking themselves, How can I find an experienced teacher to meet this need? One answer: teacher exchanges.

I recently introduced legislation that would fund teacher exchanges between school districts in different regions of the United States. Under my bill, for example, a teacher in Puerto Rico could improve her English ability by spending a year in the States trading places with a native English-speaking instructor who seeks to improve her Spanish language skills. Through this exchange the teachers and, more importantly, the students in each community would benefit. No wonder that organizations representing English teachers, foreign language instructors, principals, and school boards have all endorsed my bill.

As Congress works to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I urge my colleagues to address the needs of English language learners, whether those students are located in Santa Fe, San Antonio, or San Juan. Our goal should be as simple as it is ambitious: to ensure that every student in our Nation has the opportunity to graduate from high school as a fluent English speaker.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the various amendments offered by my colleagues to either increase funding for the Urban Areas Security Initiative or to maintain current funding levels but ensure that they are more fairly distributed among U.S. cities.

The amendment would strike a provision in the bill that would make more than 50 cities ineligible to receive funding under the Urban Areas Security Initiative. This discretionary grant program provides federal funding to metropolitan areas to purchase equipment, conduct exercises, develop plans, and train and compensate first responders. The funds are allocated to high-risk urban areas based on vulnerability and threat assessments conducted by DHS.

In the case of Puerto Rico, the City of San Juan received $3.1 million in funding through this program in 2010. These resources have allowed law enforcement and emergency responders in San Juan to prepare for national security incidents, without compromising other parts of their missions. If San Juan loses access to these funds, it may be forced to shift money that it had allocated to combat crime to address its counter-terrorism needs instead. This is a choice that the City should not be compelled to make.

Indeed, it is illogical to eliminate funding for certain high risk urban areas, like San Juan, just because other cities have a higher risk. All high risk urban areas should receive funding proportional to their relative risk assessment. And this is exactly how funding for the Urban Areas Security Initiative is currently divided. In 2011, the 11 highest risk urban areas were eligible for $540 million, while the next 20 highest risk urban areas were eligible for $122 million. This allocation--where the very highest risk areas receive greater funding than other high risk areas--makes sense and should be continued.

To leave San Juan, San Antonio, and Syracuse to their own devices, while devoting all funding under this program to larger cities that already receive robust federal and local support is not prudent.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bipartisan, budget-neutral amendment.

Mr. Speaker, government's most solemn obligation is to protect the people it serves. Since 9/11 our government has rightly placed much of its attention on defending the American people from terrorism. But we should not forget that government has a responsibility to safeguard the public from all forms of violence, including violent crime.

Violent crime exacts a terrible price. Its costs are measured not only in the number of lives lost but in the number of citizens who live in fear that they or someone they love might be the next victim. Data released on Monday show that violent crime in the United States has fallen over the past few years. However, we cannot become complacent. Despite the positive national trend lines, certain American communities have become less, rather than more, secure.

The Federal Government has a particularly strong duty to protect its citizens from violence when that violence is linked to a crime that crosses State or national borders. That is why our government has worked hard to stem the flow of drugs entering the United States through Mexico and to combat drug-related violence along the southwest border.

But these efforts, while essential, are not enough. To protect the American people, we must protect the full length of our southern border. As Federal programs like the Merida Initiative choke off drug routes through Central America, narcotraffickers have increasingly turned to the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico. Because of Puerto Rico's role as a key transit point for drugs destined for consumption in the 50 States, the island has one of the highest murder rates in our Nation.

Given the unacceptably high level of violence in Puerto Rico, and its close connection to the drug trade, one would expect that most Federal law enforcement agencies would have their positions filled there. But that is not the case. Over 50 percent of authorized ATF positions are vacant, 22 percent of ICE positions are also unfilled, and 17 percent of DEA positions are vacant. Puerto Rico has 31 Federal law enforcement officers for every 100,000 residents, well below the national average of 36.

This mismatch between the severity of the problem in Puerto Rico and the scale of the Federal response prompts this question: Why do Federal law enforcement agencies have such high vacancy rates in such a high- need jurisdiction?

The budget shortfall is certainly one reason. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are being asked to do more with fewer resources, including fewer agents.

But the problem goes beyond money. Fewer workers are entering law enforcement than in the past. Those who do seek to enter the profession are more likely to be disqualified by health problems such as obesity or substance abuse. And military recruitment, which has risen in recent years, is competing with law enforcement for the same talent.

In the face of these challenges, the Federal Government is not without tools. For example, executive agencies can pay a recruitment incentive to a newly hired employee if the position is difficult to fill.

But our government must go beyond piecemeal efforts. It needs a comprehensive plan to recruit, assign, and retain law enforcement officers in those jurisdictions that have the highest rates of violent crime.

Puerto Rico is one example of a jurisdiction where an increased Federal presence is needed. But there are also many other jurisdictions with high crime rates and too few Federal law enforcement agents. The primary reason for high crime in these States or cities may be the nexus with the drug trade, or it may have different roots. Regardless of the cause, the harm that results is the same. In communities beset by violent crime, residents become hostage to fear--fear that makes them think twice before walking to the store to buy milk, fear that makes them hug their kids for an extra moment before leaving them or sending them off to school, fear that prevents children from using the neighborhood playground.

It is imperative that the Federal Government reduce personnel shortages in Federal law enforcement agencies in high-need jurisdictions. Congressman Grimm and I recently introduced legislation to direct the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to establish a program to recruit, assign, and retain agents to serve in locations that have experienced high rates of violent crime.

The Federal Government cannot be passive in filling law enforcement shortages, hoping the right candidates will volunteer. Nor can it simply expect agents to remain with the government, particularly when the private sector often pays more. Instead, the Federal Government must proactively address personnel challenges by dedicating staff to recruitment and retention.

I urge the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to take action now to make recruitment and retention a priority. Vacancies at law enforcement agencies are not a minor administrative hassle but an urgent public safety problem. Too much is at stake to accept the status quo. For every moment we wait, we risk losing another American citizen to senseless violence.

Madam Speaker, the United States stands at a crossroads. Responsible leaders recognize that a bipartisan fiscal strategy must be crafted to reduce deficits. A deal will require courage on the part of its proponents, because each revenue raiser and spending cut is bound to trigger opposition.

Unless officials can persuade voters that sacrifice and self- restraint now are essential for stability and strength later, a deal will not happen. Even with public buy-in, leaders must be ready to

take action, despite the political perils, and be prepared to raise the national interest above their personal interests and reelection. It will not be easy, but it must be done.

For officials in Washington who are in search of a comeback story, I suggest the case of Puerto Rico. In January 2009, the U.S. territory stood on the brink of disaster. The new government had inherited a deficit of $3.3 billion. As a percentage of revenue, this was the largest deficit of any U.S. administration. The new administration was even forced to take a loan to meet its first payroll. Major rating agencies had downgraded Puerto Rico's credit to near junk status. Simply put, the island's economy was about to implode.

Leaders in San Juan faced a stark choice. Like their predecessors, they could usher Puerto Rico down this unsustainable path, paralyzed by the fear that tough choices would antagonize voters; or they could place their responsibility to protect Puerto Rico's future above their desire to preserve their poll numbers.

Fortunately for Puerto Rico, the new leadership chose the right course. For 2-plus years, Governor Luis Fortuno and the island's legislature have taken decisive action to impose fiscal discipline and create a leaner, more responsible government. They have cut government spending by nearly 20 percent, sharply reducing the deficit as a percentage of revenue. Indeed, by this metric, the island has moved from last in the Nation to a fiscal position that is better than 30 States. The rating agencies have rewarded Puerto Rico's progress, with Moody's giving the island its highest rating in 35 years.

To achieve savings, the government cut expenses and political appointments and was compelled to reduce its payroll. In my experience, rational leaders do not lay off workers because they think this will play to their political advantage. To the contrary, few actions are likely to arouse greater public displeasure. After all, work does more than put bread on the family table. It gives men and women dignity and a sense of purpose. But the Government of Puerto Rico's actions were absolutely necessary and were taken despite serious political risks.

Measures were taken to cushion the blow for those workers who were let go, and layoffs did not include teachers or first responders. More importantly, the government factions prevented an economic disaster, which would have resulted in far greater suffering and job loss.

It is important to emphasize that these decisions were not partisan. Governor Fortuno is a Republican and I, as Puerto Rico's only Representative in Congress, am a proud Democrat, and I supported his policies. The island legislators who voted to advance this agenda are affiliated with both national parties. And unlike in some States, Puerto Rico's leaders did not politicize ARRA or other Federal funding which served as a lifeline for the island. Rather, they have worked to put every dollar to good use.

So for leaders in Washington who say it will be impossible to achieve bipartisanship in the budget debate, the case of Puerto Rico should provide a measure of hope. As it nurses the economy back to health, the Puerto Rico Government is also advancing a long-term, pro-growth strategy. For example, the government has reduced individual and corporate tax rates and ensured that everyone contributes their fair share; boosted sales of housing and commercial properties through other incentives; and worked to address Puerto Rico's high energy costs and dependence on foreign oil, including through the development of a natural gas pipeline that will create thousands of jobs, lower carbon emissions and significantly reduce energy bills for individuals and companies on the island.

In closing, Puerto Rico's leadership has proven that it is possible to work across party lines to control spending and create growth. I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to work in this same spirit and to set aside partisan differences to secure the long-term fiscal health of the country we love.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to codify the method by which the Secretary of Transportation is to allocate annual formula grants to airports in Puerto Rico for capital development and planning. The amendment is simple and straightforward and serves to clarify current law. It ensures that, at a minimum, the Secretary will allocate formula grants under the Airport Improvement Program to airports in Puerto Rico no differently than the Secretary allocates such grants to other airports throughout the United States. The amendment also ensures that the Secretary will not be precluded for any reason from making project grants to airports in Puerto Rico from the discretionary fund under the Airport Improvement Program. And the amendment makes clear that formula grants and discretionary grants for airports in Puerto Rico should not be deemed mutually exclusive.

It is critical to note that the Airport Improvement Program is funded by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes, all of which apply in Puerto Rico. So there is no reasonable basis to treat Puerto Rico less than equally under the program, especially since aviation serves such a critical role on the island.

Puerto Rico is a non-contiguous U.S. jurisdiction, located over 1,000 flight miles from the nearest large hub airport in the national air transportation network. Accordingly, Puerto Rico is heavily dependent on safe and reliable air service to carry passengers and transport goods to and from the U.S. mainland. The island's main airport, the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport in San Juan, is ranked among the top 50 commercial service airports in the United States in terms of the number of passenger boardings, averaging over 4\1/2\ million boardings each year.

In addition to travel to and from the mainland United States, residents of Puerto Rico and visitors to the island rely on air service to travel to points within the main island of Puerto Rico and between the main island and the outer island municipalities of Vieques and Culebra.

Apart from San Juan International Airport, Puerto Rico is home to five other commercial service airports, located in Aguadilla, Ponce, Mayaguez, Isla Grande, and Vieques. And we have five other general aviation airports serving smaller communities. According to the FAA, approximately $285 million is needed over the next 5 years to bring Puerto Rico's airports up to current design standards, add capacity to meet projected needs, and to improve safety. My amendment simply ensures, Mr. Chairman, that Puerto Rico's public-use airports can access essential Federal funding on the same terms as airports elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Florida, even though he rises in opposition. I'm pleased that as the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, he's supporting this amendment.

So under these circumstances, I just ask him if he has any further speakers.

I will simply say I will have some time to consider your offer to work with you on my other amendment, which is not now on the floor. But until then I simply urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Essential Air Service program, enacted in the wake of airline deregulation in 1978, ensures that smaller communities that were served by air carriers before deregulation continue to be served so that residents of these communities can access air travel. Nowhere is the Essential Air Service program more essential than in noncontiguous U.S. jurisdictions, like Puerto Rico, that are separate and distant from the U.S. mainland.

The bill already passed by the other body would make reforms to the EAS program going forward, but would continue the program, in effect. The bill before us would phase out the EAS program by October 2013, but would expressly authorize the Secretary of Transportation, if he or she deems it appropriate, to continue the program beyond that date in the noncontiguous jurisdictions of Alaska and Hawaii.

My amendment would provide the Secretary with the same reasonable discretion in the case of Puerto Rico. The sound arguments that militate in favor of allowing the Secretary this discretion with respect to Alaska and Hawaii apply with similar force with respect to Puerto Rico.

Like Alaska and Hawaii, Puerto Rico is a non-contiguous jurisdiction, separated by ocean from the U.S. mainland. Puerto Rico consists of multiple islands, three of which are home to resident populations and active airports: namely, the main island of Puerto Rico and the outer islands of Vieques and Culebra.

As in Alaska and Hawaii, not all communities in Puerto Rico are connected by road, and the nearly 4 million U.S. citizens residing in the territory rely heavily on aviation to connect to the national air transportation network. Federal support under the EAS program has made this essential connection possible for many of my constituents who face unique geographic challenges.

Continued operation of the EAS program in Puerto Rico is likely to cost the Federal Government only about $1 million a year, roughly .06 percent of the total cost of the program in 2010. The EAS program is funded through FAA overflight fees, which apply to operators of aircraft that fly in U.S.-controlled airspace, including Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, based on an earlier discussion we had on the floor, I know my friend, the gentleman from Florida, is willing to work with me to address this matter as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his kind words and for the commitment he has made to ensure that Puerto Rico is not overlooked in the deliberations about the Essential Air Service program. I cannot overstate the importance of air service for my constituents, especially those living in Ponce and Mayaguez, as well as the islands of Vieques and Culebra. Therefore, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Florida as well as with the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Continuing Resolution, which would make devastating cuts to vital programs that can help America win the future.

I recognize the need to reduce our nation's deficit in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. But, as a recent editorial stated, ``these are the wrong cuts, to the wrong programs, at the wrong time.'' To sharply scale back or to eliminate programs that are critical to our nation's future in an effort to achieve an arbitrary level of deficit reduction is unwise. Although I disagree with many of the cuts included in this bill, I will focus my remarks on three programs whose long-term benefits far outweigh their short-term costs: the Pell Grant Program, COPS funding, and the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.

Pell Grants give nearly ten million disadvantaged students, who might otherwise be unable to afford college, the ability to obtain a university education. As the cost of college rises, and economic challenges persist, many more families are struggling to pay their child's tuition bill. Yet, the legislation we are considering today would reduce annual Pell Grant funding for students by nearly $690 on average--and by nearly $720 in my district, Puerto Rico. Many students who are currently attending college with the help of a Pell Grant, or who plan to attend college with the help of a Pell Grant, will be unable to do so if this cut is implemented.

Whatever one's political affiliation, it should be clear that a college education opens doors for our young men and women that would otherwise remain sealed shut. College graduates earn significantly more than those without college degrees and have a broader range of career options available to them. And when our students are better educated, our economy is more prosperous and our nation is more competitive. Our nation will not be able to keep pace with China and other countries if we do not increase the number of Americans who graduate from college. To decrease Pell Grants in the present environment is not just bitter medicine; it is bad medicine.

Another proposed funding cut that would cost our country dearly in the long term is the bill's elimination of the COPS Hiring Program. This program puts officers on the streets, protects communities, and saves lives. No matter what part of the country you are from, you deserve to feel secure in your home. As Attorney General of Puerto Rico in the 1990s, I worked with the Clinton Administration to help secure passage of the bill that created the COPS program. Since the mid-1990s, Puerto Rico has received over $160 million in COPS grants. This funding has translated into over 3,500 new police officers in our communities. I can attest that programs funded by COPS have been a key ingredient in Puerto Rico's fight against crime. If the COPS Hiring Program is eliminated and crime increases, it will produce economic and emotional costs that far exceed the investment we could make to COPS today. To propose the elimination of the COPS Hiring Program--especially at a time when states and territories are least able to find the funding necessary to safeguard their citizens--is profoundly irresponsible.

Finally, I have deep concerns about proposed cuts to air and water quality improvement programs administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed reductions to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will be especially difficult to bear on water and wastewater systems across the country. Reliable 24-hour delivery of safe drinking water is essential to the public health, economic opportunity, and quality of life of my constituents and all Americans. The state and tribal grants administered by the Environmental Protection Agency through these revolving funds are important investments in this infrastructure nationwide.

I am concerned not only with these reductions, but also with reductions to the part of the agency that addresses air quality. As a result of action late in the 111th Congress, Puerto Rico and the territories are--for the first time--eligible for the Diesel Emissions Reduction grants program. The program, however, would be sliced in half by this bill, limiting its reach and effect toward reducing harmful particulate matter emissions. Puerto Rico is challenged with poor air quality, and I am concerned with its linkage to asthma and other chronic respiratory illnesses. We cannot make progress toward improving respiratory health without proper funding for air quality programs.

Because H.R. 1 proposes cuts to these and many other important programs, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the chamber this morning with disappointment, sadness, and a deep resolve to set the record straight. I am compelled to respond to remarks delivered yesterday on this floor by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, in which he harshly criticized the duly-elected government of Puerto Rico, the officers who serve honorably in its police force, and the chief judge of the U.S. district court for the District of Puerto Rico. The speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. I hope such action will not be repeated. But if it is, make no mistake: I will return to this floor again to defend my constituents-- and the government they chose in free and fair elections--from all unwarranted attacks. I will rise then in the same capacity that I rise now: as Puerto Rico's only elected representative in Congress and the only member of this chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the Island's nearly four million American citizens. I will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor, and my duty to do so.

To compare Puerto Rico to an authoritarian country is beyond the pale. It demeans not merely my constituents, but also the millions of men and women around the world who suffer under real dictatorships, who are truly oppressed, and who lack the dignity that comes only with genuine freedom. Puerto Rico is a rich and vibrant democracy, with strong institutions, governed by the rule of law. Fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution--including the right to free speech, free assembly and due process of law--apply fully in Puerto Rico. So does federal civil rights law. This is not to suggest that violations of individual liberties never take place in Puerto Rico. On occasion they may, just as they do in every jurisdiction. And I would be the first person to condemn such conduct if it occurs. But, in Puerto Rico, unlike in a dictatorship, there are legal remedies available to citizens who claim to have been deprived of their rights. Those who fail to grasp this basic distinction do not understand Puerto Rico or appreciate its strengths.

Moreover, I believe it is wrong for a member of this body to insult a federal judge simply because that judge ruled in a way the member finds objectionable. To use an enlarged photo of that judge as a prop is, in my view, particularly unfortunate. Such theatrics undermine, rather than strengthen, the argument being made. Judge Fuste, a man who has devoted over 25 years of his life to public service, does not deserve such treatment.

Yesterday, a great disservice was done to the good name and reputation of the people of Puerto Rico. I regret that it occurred. I hope--and expect--that it will not happen again.