Pedro Pierluisi

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. On November 6, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico will hold a plebiscite on the island's political future. Voters will be asked if they want to continue the current status or to seek a new status. Voters will also be asked to express their preference among the three alternatives to the current status recognized as legally and politically viable by the Federal Government and international law: independence, nationhood in free association with the United States, and statehood. This plebiscite is different from previous plebiscites in Puerto Rico. It will be the first time that island residents have an opportunity to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' to the question of whether they support the status that Puerto Rico has had since 1898. This question has inherent value in a democracy where a government's legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. And this plebiscite will only include those status options identified as valid by Congress and the White House. True self-determination is a choice among options that can be implemented, not an exercise in wishful thinking. If a majority of voters express satisfaction with the current status, Puerto Rico's status would not change at this time. Likewise, if there is majority support to change the current status but not majority support for one of the three alternatives, Puerto Rico's current status would also continue. However, if the majority votes against the status quo and in favor of statehood, free association, or independence, Congress and the President should take action that honors that choice. Top Democratic and Republican leaders have indicated they will take the results of this plebiscite seriously. That is as it should be. The United States is the greatest democracy in history and a champion of peaceful self-determination around the world. Consistent with this principle, I am confident that Federal officials will respect the choice made by their Federal citizens from Puerto Rico if they express a clear desire to change the island status. Now I want to speak directly to the men and women I represent in Congress. This plebiscite will have a real impact on you, your family, and the future of the island we love. It is important that you make your voice heard and your vote count. It is well-known that I oppose the current status and advocate for statehood for Puerto Rico. Whether it is called ``territory,'' ``commonwealth,'' or ``colony,'' the current status denies us the most fundamental rights in a democracy: the right to choose the leaders who make our national laws, and the right to equal treatment under those laws. In my view, the current status is an affront to our dignity. In my office hangs a framed photo of servicemembers from the island who have lost their lives since 2001. They're the latest in a long line of Puerto Rican patriots who have fought and fallen for this Nation. This photo inspires me, but it also makes me sad. I cannot understand how we, such a proud people, can voluntarily submit to a status that makes us second-class citizens in the country that we have defended for generations. I realize that after nearly 115 years, the prospect of change can be unsettling, but I also know that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. We deserve better than what we have, and the time has come for us to seek a new status that will empower us to realize our full potential. Among the alternatives to the current status, I believe statehood is the right choice. Independence and free association are worthy options, but both would place at risk our U.S. citizenship and Federal support under programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for future generations of Puerto Ricans. Because I believe the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans are opposed to breaking or substantially weakening the strong political, social, and economic bonds that have formed between Puerto Rico and the United States, I think the only viable alternative to the status quo is statehood. At this critical moment in history, we should aspire to perfect our union, not to sever it. The current status is about second-class citizenship, which we should rise up to reject. Independence and free association are about separation, which would diminish the opportunities available to our children and grandchildren. Statehood is about equal treatment. It would deliver to Puerto Rico what all free people deserve: full voting rights, full self-government, and full equality under the law. This November, I hope that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico will send a clear message to Congress that they're ready to make a change.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a great Puerto Rican and a great American, Anibal De Jesus Rodriguez, who passed away on June 26, 2012. Army Staff Sergeant De Jesus Rodriguez was a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War. He served with distinction from September 1943 until December 1964, retiring after more than 20 years of active-duty service to our nation. In recognition of his achievements while in uniform, De Jesus Rodriguez was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the American Theater Service Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. In addition to his own extraordinary service, Sergeant De Jesus Rodriguez helped cultivate a tradition of service in his family. His brothers also served in the U.S. Army, as did his three sons: Anibal, Efrain and Juan. Moreover, three of his grandsons have served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. It is families like his that keep our nation safe and strong. And it is families like his that make our country great. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of this proud veteran, American patriot, family patriarch and role model, Anibal De Jesus Rodriguez. I know he will be greatly missed by those who had the privilege to know him. But I also know that he will never be forgotten.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, for supporting H.R. 1550 and for working with House leadership to schedule the bill for floor consideration. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Conyers, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Congressman Scott, for their support. H.R. 1550 was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee and has been endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents over 25,000 Federal law enforcement officers employed by 65 agencies. The short title of this bill, as modified, is the Federal Law Enforcement Personnel and Resources Allocation Improvement Act of 2012. The bill would direct the Department of Justice, when allocating law enforcement personnel and resources among U.S. jurisdictions, to give priority to those areas of the country that have high rates of homicide and other violent crime, including forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The bill would require the Attorney General to designate an existing official within the Department of Justice who will be responsible for developing practices and procedures to implement this directive and for monitoring compliance with the directive by the Department's component agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the United States Marshals Service. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to submit an annual report to the appropriate congressional committees. The report would specify which jurisdictions have a high incidence of homicide or other violent crime and would identify the steps that the Department of Justice is taking to prioritize the allocation of law enforcement personnel and resources to those high-crime areas. In addition, the report would describe the methodology the Department is using to determine the total number of authorized Federal law enforcement positions nationwide, to allocate those authorized positions among different jurisdictions, and to assign personnel to fill those authorized positions. The basis for H.R. 1550 is as follows: in recent years, the number of murders and other violent crimes nationwide has decreased substantially. Between 2007 and 2011, for example, the total number of murders in the United States decreased by over 20 percent, and the total number of violent crimes decreased by nearly 18 percent. Most U.S. jurisdictions, whether urban, suburban or rural, have experienced a meaningful reduction in murders and other violent crimes. From the macro-perspective, the progress we have witnessed has been real and, in many cases, remarkable. Much of the credit is due to law enforcement officers on the Federal and local levels. Enhanced and effective policing can make, and has made, a tremendous difference in our communities. Unfortunately, certain jurisdictions, sometimes referred to as ``hot spots,'' have been exceptions to this steady downward trend in violent crime. My own district, Puerto Rico, is a case in point. Today, the number of annual murders in Puerto Rico is nearly 90 percent higher than it was in 1990. Between 2007 and 2011 alone, homicides rose by 55 percent, with most of the violence linked to the drug trade. Yet the Federal law enforcement footprint in the U.S. Territory has not evolved in light of these changed circumstances. Instead, it has remained stagnant. Puerto Rico may be the most dramatic example of a U.S. jurisdiction where violent crime has increased rather than decreased, but it's by no means alone. For example, Flint, Michigan, experienced a 73 percent increase in homicides between 2007 and 2011, while a major metropolitan area in the Central Valley of California witnessed a 100 percent increase in murders. Moreover, there are numerous other areas where there has been some progress in reducing crime, but where violence remains far too high. Examples of such areas include Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Oakland, Little Rock, Birmingham, Atlanta, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Miami, and New Orleans. H.R. 1550 would promote and institutionalize steps that the Department of Justice, to its credit, has already begun to take. Recently, the Department developed a new initiative known as the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership to help target Federal resources to areas in need of additional law enforcement support. Pursuant to this initiative, for example, more than 50 officials from the FBI, DEA, ATF, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and DOJ's criminal division have begun a 4-month surge of Federal law enforcement resources in order to prevent and combat violent crime in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. This is a positive step that should be encouraged and replicated in other high-crime jurisdictions, which is the precise result that H.R. 1550 seeks to bring about. To be clear, it is well understood that the methods that DOJ may successfully employ to reduce violent crime in, say, Philadelphia or Baltimore may need to be adjusted for use in San Juan or St. Louis, with the specific approach dependent upon the nature of the crime problem that each jurisdiction confronts and other relevant factors. For that reason, my bill does not in any way try to micromanage the Department or to promote a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting crime. H.R. 1550 simply seeks to ensure, in this time of fiscal constraint on both the Federal and local levels, that DOJ has in place a carefully crafted and consistently applied policy of allocating limited law enforcement personnel and resources to those areas where they are needed the most. Again, I thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Scott; and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this bill.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. I thank the majority, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, violent crime in Puerto Rico and the neighboring U.S. Virgin Islands has been on the rise since 2000, even though violent crime nationwide has decreased substantially during that same time period. Puerto Rico's homicide rate is about six times the national average. Although there are a number of reasons for this alarming spike in violence, one of the most important factors is that the U.S. government has, to its credit, substantially increased resources along the Southwest border with Mexico in an effort to stem the flow of drugs into our Nation through the Central American land corridor and to reduce violence in U.S. border States. As a result, drug trafficking organizations have adapted, increasingly utilizing air and maritime routes through the Caribbean in order to supply the U.S. market, just as they did back in the 1980s and 1990s. In 2011, Puerto Rico, with a population of 3.7 million, had nearly as many homicides as Texas, with a population of 25 million. According to estimates, 75 percent of these homicides were linked to the international drug trade. Through various bills and accompanying committee reports, the Appropriations Committee has taken clear notice of this issue and directed Federal law enforcement agencies to prioritize counter-drug efforts in the U.S. Caribbean. Indeed, in the report accompanying the bill before us, the committee states: The public safety and security issues of the U.S. territories in the Caribbean must be a priority. The committee expects that the Secretary will allocate the resources, assets and personnel to these jurisdictions in a manner and to a degree consistent with that principle. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including this important language. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is on the front lines of the counter-drug fight. The agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in Puerto Rico. These men and women work for the various offices under the agency's umbrella. My amendment is designed to address a problem that has recently arisen, one that compromises the ability of CBP to carry out its vital counter-drug mission in Puerto Rico. For over a century, Federal law has provided that the collection of certain duties and taxes in Puerto Rico by CBP or its predecessor agencies will be deposited in something called the Puerto Rico trust fund. Pursuant to the law and an implementing agreement between the Puerto Rico government and the Federal Government, a significant portion of that money is also used to fund certain Federal operations, including the maritime operations of CBP's office of Air and Marine in Puerto Rico. For many years this arrangement worked well enough. However, recently, because of a shortfall in the Puerto Rico trust fund of about $1.7 million due to reduced customs collections, CBP closed a critical boat unit in San Juan that, in 2010, seized over 7,000 pounds of illegal drugs. This is because CBP has interpreted current Federal law to require that it use either the trust fund or general congressional appropriations to fund its operations, but not both. My amendment would simply give CBP the authority to supplement any funding from the trust fund with general appropriations made in this bill, so that we will avoid a repeat of what happened in the case of the San Juan boat unit. My amendment does not require CBP to spend a single additional dollar in Puerto Rico, or to prioritize Puerto Rico over other jurisdictions in any way, and the CBO has indicated the amendment has no budgetary impact. The amendment merely gives the agency the flexibility and discretion to draw upon general appropriations in the event there is a shortfall in the trust fund in order to fulfill its responsibilities in Puerto Rico. Adoption of the amendment will ensure that the CBP's counter-drug mission in Puerto Rico is not unduly harmed. This, in turn, will promote the broader national security interest of the United States, since 80 percent of the drugs that enter Puerto Rico are ultimately transported to the U.S. mainland. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including language in the committee report on this subject, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security, including CBP, has the resources it needs to adequately address the drug-related violence crisis in Puerto Rico. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. I have an amendment at the desk that was printed in the Congressional Record as Amendment No. 16.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, today I'm introducing legislation to provide equitable treatment to Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories under the TANF program, which provides cash payments to needy families with children. Currently the territories are not eligible for supplemental grants, contingency funds, and child care funds under TANF. Moreover, Federal law imposes an annual cap on the overall funding that each of the territories can receive under a variety of public assistance programs, including TANF. My legislation removes this funding cap and makes the territories eligible for TANF grants that they do not presently receive. Puerto Rico is treated unfairly under Federal programs designed to help our Nation's most vulnerable residents. This TANF bill complements two previous bills I have introduced, which would include my constituents in SSI and SNAP. To see how Puerto Rico was hurt by its current territorial status, one need only look at the island's shocking treatment under these three key programs. When you look at the status and well-being of all the American citizens living in the territories, you realize that what they face is geographic discrimination. It makes no sense to penalize the American residents who decide to reside in the five territories belonging to the United States. The only reason that sometimes is raised for such discrimination is that the residents of the territories do not pay Federal income taxes. But it is not right to even raise that argument when close to half of the U.S. households in the U.S. and the U.S. mainland in the 50 States are not paying Federal income taxes because of their income levels. It is also not right when most of the vast majority of the residents in the territories would not pay Federal income taxes anyway. What we're talking about is fairness. What we're talking about is parity. There should be equal treatment for all American citizens, regardless of where they reside within America. I support statehood for Puerto Rico for several reasons, one of which is this concept of parity. Once a territory becomes a State, it doesn't have to seek parity. It automatically participates in all Federal programs. That's one reason. But I support statehood for Puerto Rico for a more important reason. I'm talking about the lack of voting rights for the residents of Puerto Rico. I, for one, suffer the consequences. I am the one the American citizens in Puerto Rico elect to represent them in this Congress. When I come to this Chamber, I can speak, I can introduce legislation, I belong to committees. But when the time comes to vote for or against bills that benefit or affect my constituents, I cannot do so. My name doesn't even appear on the electronic board here in this Hall. That is embarrassing. It hurts me, and it hurts my constituents. If Puerto Rico were a State, we would have at least five Members in the House of Representatives and two Senators advocating for our residents. That's one of the reasons I support statehood. But there's more to it than that. Last year, President Obama visited Puerto Rico. I felt so proud because I had something to do with it. But you know what? It is embarrassing to say that no President had visited Puerto Rico in an official capacity in 50 years. We had to wait 50 years for a President to show up in Puerto Rico. I am sure that if the American citizens living in Puerto Rico were given the right to vote for their President, Presidents would be visiting Puerto Rico on a regular basis. They would be making commitments, they would be learning about our needs, and they would be doing the right thing with respect to the American citizens living in Puerto Rico. On November 6, there will be a plebiscite in Puerto Rico and two questions will be posed before the voters. The first question will be whether they want Puerto Rico to continue being a territory of the United States. We have to ask that question because that's how democracy works. The second question will ask them to express their preference with respect to the three available status options we have, apart from the current territorial status: statehood, independence, and free association. I hope they answer those questions, sending a message loud and clear to this Congress that they no longer want to be a territory and they want to be the 51st State of the Union.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume I rise in support of H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2012. This bill would strengthen the laws that criminalize the use, construction, and financing of border tunnels. Increasingly, cross-border tunnels are being used to smuggle people, drugs, and contraband into the United States. They can even be used to smuggle terrorists or weapons of mass destruction into the country. Cross-border tunnels present a serious problem for law enforcement, and I support this bill's efforts to stop the growing use of these tunnels. This legislation is urgently needed because the number of tunnels has substantially increased in recent years. Whereas the first documented tunnel was discovered in 1990, the Department of Homeland Security reported last year that 154 attempted tunnels have been found since 1990, all but one of which were located along the Southwest border. In addition, the sophistication of some of these tunnels is also increasing in recent years. Cross-border tunnels range from small, hand-dug tunnels barely wide enough for a person to crawl through to professionally engineered tunnels built by Mexican drug cartels. In November 2010, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement task force discovered a tunnel with two separate entrances in warehouses in Otay Mesa, California. One of the tunnel's walls were fortified with wood and cinder block supports, and the tunnel was equipped with rail, electrical, and ventilation systems. The tunnel was being used to import large amounts of marijuana into the U.S. Current law already criminalizes the construction of a cross-border tunnel, allowing such a tunnel to be constructed on your property, or the use of such a tunnel. H.R. 4119 would strengthen existing law by making it a crime to attempt to engage in any of these activities, as well as to participate in any conspiracy involving any of these activities. The bill also makes the construction or use of a tunnel a predicate offense for authorization of wiretaps, provides for criminal asset forfeiture of merchandise involved in tunneling, and includes a money- laundering provision. Border tunnels present a real and serious threat as a burgeoning tool for criminal activities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure which will help enhance the safety of our Nation's borders. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) as much time as he may consume to address the merits of this bill, which he co-sponsored.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. We have no further speakers, so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4119, the Border Tunnel Protection Act of 2012. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 365, and I yield myself such time as I may consume to explain the bill and to respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for it. The National Blue Alert Act of 2012 has strong bipartisan backing and was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on April 25. I am proud to join my colleague, Mr. Grimm, as the lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York, a former FBI agent, for his leadership on this and on other law enforcement issues. This bill constitutes an effort to protect and defend the men and women of law enforcement, who protect and defend us, our families, and our communities. The bill has been endorsed, as has been stated by the gentleman from Texas, by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association. In our sister Chamber, an identical companion bill to H.R. 365 has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and currently awaits floor consideration. The legislation before us directs the Attorney General to establish a national Blue Alert communications network within the Department of Justice to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is killed or seriously injured in the line of duty and when the suspect has not yet been apprehended. A Blue Alert would provide a physical description of the suspect and may include a description of the suspect's vehicle and license plate information. The Blue Alert system is a cooperative effort among Federal, State, and local authorities, law enforcement agencies, and the general public. The Blue Alert system would use the same infrastructure as AMBER Alerts, which are disseminated for missing children, and Silver Alerts, which are disseminated for missing seniors. Pursuant to the bill, the Attorney General will assign an existing DOJ officer to serve as the national coordinator for the Blue Alert communications network. The national coordinator's duties will include: encouraging State, territory, and local governments to develop Blue Alert plans; establishing voluntary guidelines for these government entities to use in developing such plans; developing protocols for efforts to apprehend suspects; and establishing an advisory group to assist State and local governments and law enforcement agencies to create, facilitate, and promote Blue Alert plans. In the last 220 years, nearly 21,000 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty in the United States, and many more have been seriously injured. In Puerto Rico, which is the jurisdiction I represent, over 325 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty since 1900, with over 40 island officers killed between the year 2000 and the year 2010. This year, two veteran Puerto Rico police officers were fatally shot in the line of duty--Abimael Castro Berrocal and Francis Crespo Mandry. Although at least one suspect has been apprehended, other suspects in both of these killings remain at large. This morning, these two officers, along with over 160 of their brothers and sisters in law enforcement who lost their lives in the line of duty in the past year, were honored in front of the Capitol as part of the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service. The overriding purpose of this legislation is to help deter violent acts against police officers and, in the event such a violent act occurs, to ensure that the perpetrator is quickly apprehended and brought to justice. Police officers, unlike young children and seniors, are not a vulnerable population group in the traditional sense. They are strong, capable, and brave, but every day, they put themselves in harm's way to protect us. They have our backs, and it's important that we have theirs. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3534, the Security in Bonding Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3534 will strengthen the protection that surety bonds are intended to provide by requiring individual sureties to use low-risk cash assets, such as United States bonds, as collateral. At the same time, H.R. 3534 will require the Government Accountability Office to assess the impact of these enhanced collateral requirements on the availability of surety bonds for emerging businesses, and particularly for disadvantaged business enterprises, seeking to be prime contractors on Federal projects. When the Federal Government enters into a contract, the American taxpayer, as well as those who subcontract with the contractor, should be protected. That is why, under current law, any Federal construction contract valued at $150,000 or more requires a surety bond as a condition of the contract being awarded. The bond will pay the government and downstream contractors in the event that the contractor fails to perform the contract. Bonds issued by so-called ``corporate'' sureties, which have been vetted and preapproved by the Treasury Department, provide financial assurance to taxpayers and contractors in the event that a contractor fails to perform. On the other hand, bonds issued by individual sureties have not been so vetted and are not subject to strong collateral requirements. Accordingly, I support H.R. 3534 for several reasons. To begin with, any entity that provides a surety bond should be held to strong underwriting standards. For instance, we know very well what happens when industries, particularly those involving financing, are not closely regulated. Consider mortgage lenders, for example. In a vacuum of regulation, unscrupulous and predatory lenders engaged in practices that hurt not just their borrowers, but ultimately jeopardized the Nation's economy and the financial well-being of all Americans. Measures such as H.R. 3534 are intended to mandate more reliable collateral standards, which is a commendable goal. Such strengthened requirements should help to ensure that American taxpayers are not made to pay for the consequences of undercollateralized bonds. In addition, this bill will protect so-called ``downstream'' subcontractors and suppliers who very much depend on the economic vitality and performance of the general contractor and its surety. Many such downstream subcontractors and suppliers are small businesses owned by members of historically disadvantaged groups, including racial minorities, women, and the disabled. Ensuring that unnecessarily heightened risk is avoided for minority-owned businesses is key to their economic survival as well as to our Nation's fiscal health. According to the Commerce Department, these businesses are an ``integral part of local, national, and global business communities.'' Measures such as H.R. 3534 that strengthen collateral requirements lessen the incidence of poor underwriting practices and undersecured surety bonds. Finally, H.R. 3534, as amended in committee, will help to ensure that it does not result in too much of a good thing. Particularly during these difficult economic times, our role in Congress should not be to construct unnecessary or overly burdensome hurdles to those who want to enter into a particular business or industry. To the extent that heightened collateral requirements might dissuade individual sureties from providing bonds on Federal projects, there is a risk that new businesses may have a more difficult time bidding on Federal projects. We need to ensure that these businesses continue to be vital contributors to our Nation's economy, not only as subcontractors, but also as prime contractors. This is why there was bipartisan agreement in committee to add language requiring the GAO to, among other things, assess the impact that the enactment of H.R. 3534 may have on disadvantaged business enterprises' ability to successfully bid on Federal contracts. This analysis will help us monitor whether H.R. 3534 has any unintended consequences in this regard. I thank Chairman Smith for his willingness to work with us to reach a mutually agreeable result. I also commend the bill's sponsor, Representative Richard Hanna, as well as Representative Jared Polis, the lead Democratic cosponsor, for their leadership on this important matter. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the provision in this legislation that would single out the Medicaid programs in the U.S. territories for a 65 percent cut, even though the territories are already treated in a profoundly unequal manner under this program. I'm joined in my opposition to this cut by the Republican Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, who knows discrimination when he sees it. And I'd like to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that in the case of the territories, we are talking about an actual cut. We're not talking about a reduction in the growth of our funding, because we have a cap to live with. Just as we fought to obtain the funding that this bill now seeks to repeal, we will fight alongside our allies in the White House, the Senate, and this Chamber to retain this funding. This is a fight we intend to win.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise to reinforce the comments made by our colleague from Guam, Ms. Bordallo, regarding the importance of funding in Fiscal Year 2013 and future years for coral reef research conducted by NOAA and its external partners. I represent Puerto Rico, one of the several U.S. jurisdictions that has tropical shallow-water coral reefs located off its coasts. Additionally, last year as a result of a federally-funded mission led by NOAA deep sea corals located off the southwestern coast of Puerto Rico were discovered at a depth of 500 feet and in an area spanning 12 miles across. These reefs are the ``rainforests of the sea'' and their protection is linked to the success of our ecotourism economy, the integrity of our coastlines, the quality of our water, and the health of the rich and diverse marine life that surrounds our islands. Corals are threatened by a variety of stressors. Last month, NOAA released a status review of 82 coral species currently being evaluated for potential protection under the Endangered Species Act. The report indicates that 50 coral species found in U.S. waters are likely to become extinct, with seven Caribbean corals extremely likely to go extinct, five of which are among the most imperiled species. Simply put, corals are decreasing around Puerto Rico and elsewhere in U.S. waters. The science that stands to be funded by this bill, H.R. 5326, is important for both monitoring the health of these corals and understanding the causes of their decline. Once understood, local, state and federal managers will be able to work together on mitigation and protection strategies. The decisions made in the final bill will determine whether and to what extent NOAA will be able to engage external partners, especially in the jurisdictions where coral reefs are located, to conduct this important science. I hope that, at the end of this process, NOAA will have the resources it needs from Congress to increase its collaboration with external research partners and to fund the science needed to inform management decisions for protecting coral reefs in U.S. waters. I, too, thank the Chairman, Mr. Wolf, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Fattah, for their commitment to work with the other body in ensuring this priority is sufficiently funded during the conference process.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Chair, along with my colleagues--Mr. Grimm, a former FBI agent; Mr. Pascrell, the cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus; and Mr. King, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee-- I'm offering this bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the COPS hiring program in order to bring such funding in line with the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $166 million. The base bill provides only $40 million for this program, which is clearly not sufficient. Forty million dollars is $126 million below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, over $217 million below the President's request, and $175 million below the amount proposed by the Senate companion bill. The COPS program was created by title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I was Attorney General of Puerto Rico at the time, and I'm proud to have worked with my fellow AGs to help secure passage of that bill. As someone whose own family has been deeply touched by violent crime and who has spent countless hours talking with families that have been similarly affected, I am unyielding in my belief that the most solemn duty of government is to safeguard its citizens. Whether you live in Staten Island, South Orange or San Juan, you deserve to feel safe in your home and in your community. The COPS program is rooted in this simple premise and has done much to make it a reality. The mission of the COPS program is to enhance the security of our citizens. Under the program, the Federal Government awards grants to State and local law enforcement agencies so they can hire and train police officers, purchase and use new crime-fighting technologies, and develop innovative policing strategies. To date, over 160 million in COPS grants have been awarded to law enforcement agencies in Puerto Rico, which, unfortunately, has the highest homicide rate in the country. These grants have put more than 3,500 new police officers on Puerto Rico's streets. Over $6 million has gone to improve safety for students and teachers in the island's schools. And about $9 million has been awarded for crime-fighting technology. Nearly every one of Puerto Rico's municipalities has benefited from COPS grants. Each of my colleagues could no doubt cite similar statistics, but even these numbers cannot adequately capture the impact that COPS funding has had in the communities we represent. The number of lives saved, the number of crimes prevented, and the number of families spared the pain of losing a loved one, these numbers are simply beyond calculation. To increase funding for the COPS hiring program by $126 million, our amendment reduces funding for the NASA cross-agency support account by an equivalent amount. In the fiscal year 2010 cycle, the House, in a strong bipartisan vote of 228 203, adopted an amendment that followed this same approach. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, which is supported by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today I'm introducing the Puerto Rico SNAP Restoration Act. In 1971, Congress enacted legislation to partially include Puerto Rico in what is today called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and what was then called the Food Stamp program. Implementation of the Food Stamp program in Puerto Rico began in 1974. In 1977, Congress amended Federal law to fully include Puerto Rico in the Food Stamp program so that rules governing eligibility and benefits applied no differently on the island than they did in the 50 States. Four years later, however, Congress exercised its authority under the Territory Clause and removed Puerto Rico from the Food Stamp program, electing to provide the island government with an annual block grant instead. Since 1982, Puerto Rico has used this block grant to administer its Nutrition Assistance Program, which differs from SNAP in a number of material respects. The bill I'm introducing today, which I will seek to include in the 2012 farm bill, would reinstate the SNAP program in Puerto Rico in place of the block grant. If this bill is enacted into law, Puerto Rico would join the 50 States, the District of Columbia and two U.S. territories--Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands--as jurisdictions fully participating in SNAP. My decision to file legislation converting Puerto Rico back to SNAP was made after carefully weighing the benefits and costs associated with this conversion. I relied primarily upon an in-depth study prepared by the USDA which evaluated the feasibility and impact of reinstating SNAP in Puerto Rico. On this subject, as with other important issues that I'm tackling, I have adhered to the principle that it is essential to build a strong evidentiary record prior to taking legislative action. The USDA report is comprehensive and raises a number of important policy questions, but its bottom-line message for Puerto Rico is crystal clear, namely, while there are some trade-offs associated with the conversion to SNAP, the benefits of conversion far outweigh the costs. Let me be more specific. Applying certain assumptions, the USDA study found that conversion would increase the number of households that receive nutrition assistance in Puerto Rico by over 15 percent. An additional 85,000 households would become eligible for assistance under SNAP. Moreover, restoring SNAP would raise the average monthly benefit by participating households by nearly 10 percent. And instituting equal treatment for Puerto Rico under SNAP would mean an additional $457 million in Federal spending for the island each year, over 90 percent of which would take the form of additional benefits. These numbers reveal a fundamental truth: because Congress removed Puerto Rico from SNAP 20 years ago, hundreds of thousands of needy children, families, and seniors on the island have received no nutrition assistance at all or have received far fewer benefits than they would have received if they lived in the 50 States or even in the neighboring Virgin Islands. Accordingly, Puerto Rico's exclusion from this program serves as yet another example of how the American citizens I represent, especially my most vulnerable constituents, are treated unequally because of the island's territory status. Whether I'm fighting to convert Puerto Rico back to SNAP or to increase the island's annual block grant, I strongly believe this is a fight worth making. By ensuring that the neediest of my constituents can afford a healthy diet, we enable them to lead a dignified and independent life, which in the long run helps reduce health care costs and takes pressure off other safety net programs.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss a subject of great importance to me, to the people I represent, and to many of our fellow citizens around the country, and that is the health of nearly 10,000 residents of Vieques, Puerto Rico. The people of Vieques sacrificed as much as, if not more than, any other U.S. civilian population to advance our military readiness. In the 1940s, the Federal Government expropriated lands on Vieques for use by the Navy. For over 60 years, the Navy conducted training operations on eastern Vieques, including ship-to-shore bombing, aerial bombing, and ground-based exercises. The Navy has reported that it dropped between 3 and 4 million pounds of ordnance on Vieques each year between 1983 and 1998. Training operations on Vieques ceased in 2003, in part due to concerns about the risks to safety, health, and the environment posed by decades of weapons use. The Navy is now administering the cleanup of Vieques with support from other Federal and local agencies. In 2005, the EPA listed Vieques as one of the most hazardous sites in the U.S. To date, over 35,000 munitions on Vieques have been recovered and destroyed, including at least 19,000 live munitions. Unfortunately, numerous studies have shown that residents of Vieques have higher rates of cancer and other chronic illnesses than residents of mainland Puerto Rico, raising serious questions about whether there may be a link between those health problems and the island's long use as a military training range. In December, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an agency within HHS, released a draft report that addresses whether there is evidence of a causal relationship between the identified health problems and the Navy's activities. ATSDR examined five ``pathways'' through which residents of Vieques might have been exposed to harmful contaminants: air, soil, fish, local produce and livestock, and drinking water. The conclusion reached by ATSDR in its draft report is generally the same as the conclusion reached by the agency in a series of controversial public health assessments it conducted on Vieques about a decade ago, specifically, that the available data does not establish that the contaminants in these pathways, some of which can be linked to military activities, were at levels expected to cause the reported health problems. Because the draft report leaves many crucial questions unanswered, today I'm filing extensive comments that I urge ATSDR to address before its report is finalized. My comments are intended to be constructive, because my constituents deserve a meticulous evaluation of the draft report aimed at producing concrete action by the Federal Government. In my comments, I note that ATSDR repeatedly acknowledges that its conclusions are not definitive, or even close to it, because the available data upon which the agency relies is incomplete in many respects. While ATSDR recommends that further studies be conducted to fill certain data gaps, the agency does not go far enough. In 2009, ATSDR stated that it expected to recommend biomonitoring to determine whether, and to what extent, residents have been exposed to harmful chemicals. Yet, in a startling reversal, the agency has now stated that ``it is not recommending a comprehensive, systematic biomonitoring effort at this time.'' Given the health problems on Vieques and the potential link between those problems and military activities, such an action is misplaced. Therefore, I have urged ATSDR to recommend a comprehensive biomonitoring investigation. More generally, I have encouraged ATSDR and other Federal agencies, working in partnership with independent researchers, to take a more active and assertive role in designing, implementing, and especially funding the additional studies that are still needed to determine the nature and potential causes of the health problems being experienced by residents of Vieques. It is unacceptable that more than a decade after ATSDR completed its first public health assessments on Vieques, fundamental questions about the safety of the island's environment and the health of its residents remain unanswered. My constituents deserve better.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation designed to preserve and protect El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico. El Yunque, which is the only tropical rainforest administered by the U.S. Forest Service, is a source of great pride for the people I represent and a major economic driver on the Island. Over one million people from all over the world visit El Yunque each year--to walk along its beautiful trails, to sample its eco-tourism pleasures, and to gain a greater understanding of its ecological importance. El Yunque is featured on a quarter released into circulation last month as part of the U.S. Mint's ``America the Beautiful Quarters Program,'' and a public launch ceremony to mark this occasion is scheduled to be held in El Yunque on March 14. To protect El Yunque's rich biodiversity and to provide a buffer zone against encroaching urbanization, forest administrators need to acquire a number of parcels of land. Thus, my legislation would require the Federal Government to use funds currently generated by activities within El Yunque for investment back into El Yunque for land acquisition purposes. I hope my colleagues will join me in taking this commonsense step to protect a national treasure.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, as a territory, Puerto Rico has always been treated unequally under Federal health programs. While the Affordable Care Act improved the island's treatment under Medicaid, a number of key inequalities remain under both Medicaid and Medicare. Today, I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate a provision in Federal law that requires Medicare to reimburse Puerto Rico hospitals far less than Stateside hospitals. Under the current system, Puerto Rico hospitals are paid a base rate that is about 13 percent lower than the base rate for hospitals in the States. Thus, an island hospital will receive substantially less than any urban, suburban, or rural hospital in the States for providing the same inpatient services, making it harder for island hospitals to deliver high-quality care and to remain financially sound. This is another example of how the people of Puerto Rico are placed at a clear disadvantage in the race of life because of the island's territory status. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support my bill.

Mr. PIERLUISI

Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3835, which would extend an existing pay freeze on federal employees for a third straight year, through December 2013. Federal employees often forego private sector employment to serve our nation. They perform essential services, ensuring that our mail is delivered, that our Social Security checks are issued, and that our drinking water remains clean. Federal employees also investigate drug smuggling, issue patents, and provide health services and other benefits to our Island's veterans. These are only a few of the many functions that federal employees perform every day in their work for the American people. Federal employees are willing to do their share to reduce the deficit. However, it is unfair to place the burden of reducing the deficit entirely on their backs. Federal employees have already contributed $60 billion toward deficit reduction by accepting a two- year pay freeze. We should not ask this one particular group to make additional sacrifices when we are not asking other Americans to make similar sacrifices. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to treat federal employees with the respect they deserve.