Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010

I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and at 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and at 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including the very important H.R. 3393, Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2009, introduced by Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 5013, Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010, and H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, our number one priority has been and continues to be the progress on the creation of jobs. Last month's report was a positive report. We gained 162,000 jobs, and the economy is showing signs of very substantial improvement as a result of the Recovery Act and of other actions that we've taken to get Americans back to work. So that will continue to be our focus.

Having said that, we also have passed already the HIRE Act, which we think

will have a very substantial, positive effect, which includes payroll tax forgiveness for the hiring of new employees who have been unemployed for some period of time. If they are kept on for 52 weeks, there will be a $1,000 additional payment, which we hope will encourage employers to hire new people. Additionally in that bill, we gave an extension of the Highway Trust Fund to allow for continued and increased investment in infrastructure and the Build America Bonds legislation, as well as giving a boost to small business growth in terms of expensing.

In addition, the House passed the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act, which is pending in the Senate. We hope that it is coming back to us this work period. We would like to build on our record of job-creating legislation with additional relief to small businesses.

The President has proposed, as the gentleman knows, the Small Business Lending Fund that would take $30 billion of TARP funds, which was obviously designed to try to get our economy moving again, and provide capital infusion to local banks, and provide assets of $10 billion or less to incentivize small business lending.

Also, we hope to complete action with the Senate on a long-term extension of unemployment insurance, COBRA benefits and tax extenders for businesses, large and small. Obviously, those pieces of legislation have passed the House.

I expect the House will also take action this work period on the COMPETES Act, which is relatively noncontroversial, but invests in growing our economy, particularly in technology innovations, math, and science.

Other items on our agenda for this work period are budget resolution, defense acquisition reform, which I announced we would do next week, defense authorization, the Afghanistan/Pakistan supplemental, the Haiti supplemental, and of course the Iran sanctions conference report, which I hope to have done. As to the resolution that you and I just voted for, the motion to instruct, I urge that that be reported back by the Memorial Day break.

Before the gentleman asks another question, would you yield so I might comment on the comments that the gentleman made?

The gentleman indicates that we want to stop spending. Every economist from his side of the aisle to our side of the aisle said that if we did not spend money last year that we wouldn't have grown the economy. In fact, Ben Bernanke, the Republican-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by President Bush; and Secretary Paulson all said you had better invest or you are going to go into a depression, not a recession.

The gentleman talks about job creation, and it is very interesting because, generally speaking, he wants to return to the policies of the Bush administration. And the Bush administration, of course, was the worst job-performing administration since Herbert Hoover. I know the gentleman knows that because those statistics are pretty clear. It created 19,400 jobs per month. You talk about 400 and some odd thousand jobs. I agree with the gentleman. We need to create that level if we are going to get the jobs that your economic program lost, 19,400 jobs, and you need 100,000 to stay even. That was average over 96 months of the policies that were pursued during the Bush administration that my friend supported.

Very frankly, if you will remember, during the Clinton administration, in an economic program that your party didn't support to a person--everyone voted against it--we created 216,000 jobs per month. Now, there's no secret as to where those jobs were lost. If you create 10 percent of the number of jobs you need to stay even, you're going to go behind and we have a real deficit.

The CBO says that the program that was adopted that, of course, your party opposed, created 2 million new jobs or retained jobs in our economy. Over the last 5 months, we have had a net positive growth in jobs. We grew 162,000 jobs last month. The gentleman is absolutely correct, not nearly enough, but much better than the 779,000 jobs that were lost in the last month of the Bush administration or the average 726,000 jobs that were lost in the last 3 months of the Bush administration.

We are now in the pluses. We are starting to grow. We need to do much, much more. And that's why I responded to the gentleman, when he asked me what we were going to do, we're going to continue to focus on bringing jobs back to America and to our people.

Well, I hope that we act on a budget certainly before the end of this work period. I think it's important to pass a budget. I have said that. I am working towards that end.

Will the gentleman yield on that?

The gentleman would like to pretend that the Bush administration didn't exist. He doesn't like to look back. He doesn't like history. He doesn't like to learn from our mistakes. I notice he doesn't outline the mistakes that the Bush administration made and that he made in supporting the Bush economic policies, but presumably he believes they existed, which led to such a disastrous performance of our economy. The turning of a $5.6 trillion surplus that the Bush administration inherited, which allowed it to do some of the things that it did without paying for them because they inherited surpluses, unfortunately, they left a $5 trillion deficit to this administration. They left a deep, deep, deep hole that we have been trying to dig out, without much help, frankly, from your side of the aisle, I will tell my friend. And we are getting out of that hole. Almost every indicator indicates that, including a growth in jobs. Not nearly to where people are feeling it. So we need to make sure that we continue to create jobs and create an economy that is working much better than it worked during the Bush administration.

The gentleman mentions that we were in charge of Congress in 2007. Yes, in 2006 the American public said we don't like the policies that the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress are pursuing; we want a change. We did change. But the gentleman well knows that no veto of President Bush was overridden to change the economic policies you were pursuing, period. We couldn't do that. We couldn't do it until such time as January of 2009 occurred. When it occurred, unfortunately and tragically for the American people and the millions, 8 million- plus, to be exact, lost their jobs, a financial system that was suffering from egregious regulatory neglect and had, as a result, put many, many taxpayers, millions of taxpayers, to the responsibility of trying to stabilize the ship of state. And we have done that.

The good news is that money is being paid back. And the good news is that in terms of the bill that you and I both supported but two-thirds of your party did not, we did stabilize, at the request of the Bush administration, the financial community.

So when the gentleman says that we need to grow jobs, we do. But very frankly, if the gentleman is proposing the same policies that were pursued for 8 years under the Bush administration, then that won't get it and didn't get it. And that's why it is important to learn, not to place blame, but to learn, as I said the other day, from those failures and not repeat them, to invest in the growth of our economy.

First of all, the gentleman does this often. I never said there has been enough tax relief. What you just said I said, I never said that. Nobody heard me say that.

If I can, I think you anticipated what the facts are as you know. I didn't say that but you anticipated I might say it.

Ninety-five percent of the American public, 95 percent of the American working people, got a tax cut, as you recall, in the legislation that you voted against, $280 billion in tax relief. That went into the pockets of Americans, helped them get through some very, very tough times which we inherited, did not create, which we inherited, and moving forward.

Now, with respect to the tax increases that you referred to earlier, they are going into effect because of a policy that I voted against but I think you voted for. You were here in 2001 and 2003. And why did you do that? You talk about budgeting. You did it because you couldn't conform to your budget requirements. So what you simply did was you did the artifice, with all due respect, to saying, well, they will expire in 2010. So what is projected to happen in 2010 is a direct result of the budget and the policies that you promoted and voted for, I tell my friend.

When you say taxes have gone up in this period, what period are you referring to?

And what were those taxes?

The health care bill has not gone into effect. You're saying this year taxes have been increased.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman perhaps believes if he says it enough that I said there's been enough tax relief maybe people will believe it. I have never said that on this floor or any other place. So I wish the gentleman would stop mischaracterizing what I say.

Now, very frankly, what I have said is the policies we pursued were not working demonstrably when we took over the Presidency of the United States, and could change policy, which we did. We changed policy consistent with, frankly, what Senator McCain said ought to be done during the course of the election, not the same way, but that we had to invest in our economy. Mark Zandi, Senator McCain's economic adviser, along with others, said we needed to do what we did.

Now, the gentleman voted against it. But it has, I tell you, worked demonstrably, 2 million new jobs according to the CBO--not new jobs, retained or created. In fact, over 2 million jobs; 162,000 jobs created last month. Not enough. He is correct.

But to ignore the fact that we are making some progress, I don't know whether you saw Larry Kudlow, he said, you know, stop talking down the economy, stop saying that things aren't getting better because the psychology of the economy is very important. And, in fact, whether it's the stock market indication going up, they have confidence, whether it's the growth in our economy from a 6.4 percent decline in the economy that we took over from the Bush administration, to now, a 5.6 percent growth, that figure doesn't mean anything to anybody unless they get jobs. I understand that. We need to get jobs.

What it does mean, however, with the economy growing, that jobs will follow. And that's important.

So please don't put words in my mouth. We need to cut taxes for the American public. In fact, as you know--I want to remark on something that you said. Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the earned income tax credit. Why was he a supporter of the earned income tax credit? Because he thought making sure people had enough money to get by on, buy some food for their family, buy some clothes for their kids to go to school and pay their mortgage payment, was an important thing to happen.

That's the difference, frankly, between our two parties. We don't believe that was a handout. It was a hand up in a very difficult economy. We said--and they don't pay taxes. Why don't they pay taxes, I ask my friend rhetorically. The reason they don't pay taxes is they're not making enough money to pay taxes.

Under your tax program, I would suggest to you, you did that, we supported it. They didn't pay taxes. But what we said is, they've got to live, their kids have to eat, they have to get by. And to the extent that they have some assistance in doing so and spend that money, as every economist will tell you, and you know this to be the case, it will help the economy grow. Yes, we help those people as well.

Maybe you think that was simply a handout and that we shouldn't have done it. But we did it, and it is the difference between our parties in many instances.

I yield back.

Will my friend yield one more time?

It is a new time. We're paying our bills. Now, we had to borrow a lot of money because we were in a very deep hole. And everybody said if you didn't, all economists, Marty Feldstein, conservative adviser to Ronald Reagan, said you need to put more money back into the economy.

We didn't have any money. You had a $5.6 trillion surplus that you inherited. We inherited a $5 trillion deficit. So we had no money. Your administration spent it all.

But you didn't pay for things you bought. You didn't pay for your tax cuts. Very nice to give tax cuts, but if you don't pay for them and they create deficits, then who's going to pay for them? Our children. And that's what happened.

We went to war. One was absolutely essential. We went to another war that some say was of choice, that is, in Iraq. We somewhat abandoned Afghanistan when we went to Iraq, and we didn't succeed in Afghanistan; but we didn't pay for either one of those wars.

Who are we expecting to pay for those wars? Our children.

You adopted a drug prescription program which, very frankly, we made better in the health care bill. We made seniors more secure in getting their prescription drugs. But you didn't pay for it.

Your economy that you left us, very frankly, is responsible for 38 percent of that deficit to which you referred; 90 percent-plus of the deficit that confronts this country are direct results of the policies pursued in the last administration. Just as when Roosevelt inherited from the Hoover administration a very substantial downturn, it took him time to turn that economy around.

So I say to my friend, we are prepared to work together, but we're not prepared to pretend that--when you say times are different, they are different. They are very different. The difference between a $5.6 trillion surplus and a $5 trillion deficit, the Bush administration inheritance and our inheritance. And that has made it tough. It's made it tough on us, tough on the American people. And we're trying to get out of this. I think we are.

And again I repeat to my friend, Larry Kudlow gave you some good advice, very conservative guy, on television. You know him; I know him. We appear on his program. And he urged those of you on the conservative side of the ledger, don't deny the facts. That's what Larry Kudlow said. Don't deny the progress that has been made because if you deny it and people believe that denial, they won't think things are getting better and they won't act accordingly. And that's not going to be good for our economy. It won't be good for our country.

So I caution my friend to, when things are positive, have the ability to say, yes, we've made some positive progress from where we were before this administration came into office.

I yield back.

If the gentleman will yield, I'll simply say, I agree with the gentleman. And I agree with the gentleman, and certainly want to join together in this effort. And the gentleman will observe, that's why we have adopted, readopted statutory PAYGO. We think that will constrain spending. That's why we've created a commission to look at spending and make recommendations to get a handle on the spending in this country and bring our deficit in line as it was in the nineties.

And that is why the President has submitted a budget that freezes discretionary spending at last year's levels. So we agree with you that we need to move in that direction and, in fact, we are.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1305 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1305.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1305 provides for consideration of H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority members of the Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by Representative Velazquez of New York. The rule makes in order those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. The amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the Rules Committee report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule is a fair rule. There were 35 amendments submitted for this bill, 13 of which were found to be nongermane. Of the remaining amendments, eight are made in order under this rule--three offered by Republicans and five offered by Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. I'd like to thank Speaker Pelosi, who has been an unrelenting champion of this important issue; and Leader Hoyer, whose strong support of this bill helped bring the resolution to the floor. I also want to recognize Resident Commissioner Pierluisi for sponsoring the bill and Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this issue.

This bill is based on the most fundamental democratic principle, the rule of self-determination. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for over 100 years; yet during that time, Congress has never bothered to determine whether Puerto Ricans are actually satisfied with the status quo. H.R. 2499 aims to fix that by offering fellow citizens this basic right.

Puerto Ricans have been American citizens since 1917. During that time, they've contributed to our country's culture and economy while also serving proudly in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation. In fact, Puerto Rico has historically ranked alongside the top five States in per capita military service in defense of our Nation.

Yet, in spite of the contributions Puerto Ricans have made to this country, they do not receive all of the benefits that are due to them as American citizens. Their representative in Congress is a resident commissioner, who works tirelessly to advance their interests, yet has limited voting rights, instead of several Congresspeople with full voting rights the Puerto Ricans deserve. While they pay many taxes, Federal programs treat Puerto Rico less

than equally when compared to the 50 States. As I mentioned before, while they have courageously served in the military, and in fact at a higher rate than many other States, they do not yet have the right to vote for President of the United States, the Commander in Chief.

It's imperative that Congress act to right these wrongs which Puerto Ricans have had to live through for so long. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act would do that. If enacted, this bill would authorize a plebiscite process which would offer Puerto Ricans the chance to vote on the future of their island. The plebiscite would ask the unambiguous question: Are you satisfied with the status quo? If a majority of Puerto Ricans vote ``yes,'' then the government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to hold regular plebiscites every 8 years to ensure that voters continue to have the opportunity to express themselves democratically over time.

If a majority vote is against the status quo, if they decide that they are tired of their being treated as second-class citizens, the plebiscite will ask them to choose between nonterritorial status options: independence, statehood, and free association. This plebiscite represents the straightforward expression of self-determination and direct democracy that would allow Puerto Ricans to express their wishes to Congress. I, for one, will support the express wishes of the Puerto Rican people as a Member of Congress representing Colorado.

Like any important piece of legislation, this bill has some critics. You will hear from them today. Opponents have claimed that the bill favors statehood, and they take issue with how the plebiscite is being constructed. It's not only fair but imperative that voters, our fellow Americans, be given the opportunity to express whether or not they approve of their current status quo that is disenfranchising Puerto Ricans.

I urge and encourage my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of the bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the author of two of the amendments that were made in order under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, in brief response to the gentleman from Washington, all States, certainly including the residents of Puerto Rico, if they, in fact, become a State, would have the protections of the Second Amendment, as well as all of the other amendments and protections of our Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

And, of course, it is entirely up to States what they do with regard to recognizing official languages. My own State of Colorado has no official language. I understand there are other

States that do. Certainly any State can establish English, Spanish, French, whatever language they want, as an official language or languages.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

In response to the gentleman from Georgia, we live in a Federalist system. States have the ability to determine what languages are recognized in an official capacity. I think it would be misleading to the people of Puerto Rico in the context of a vote to insinuate that there is a Federal tyranny with regard to language.

We live in an affiliation of States, a Federalist system that reserves power for the States. I know that the gentleman from Georgia has generally been a standard bearer of the rights of States and the prerogatives of States and, in fact, the ongoing battle against the overreach of Federal powers, and this is certainly an example of that.

States have the ability to decide what languages to print things in-- language or languages--certainly the ability to set the language that their own State legislature meets in. This would be an example of an overreach of the Federal Government were they to dictate that.

I will yield briefly.

Reclaiming my time, I think it's a very appropriate discussion to have. It's a discussion at the State level; and I know that some States have done precisely that. But, again, this would be an example of an overreach of the Federal Government where they would actually be involved with dictating to States that here you must speak Spanish, here you must speak

French, here you must speak English, although certainly the gentleman has argued there are many at the local and State level that have advocated those policies on behalf of particular States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this bill is revenue neutral for the Federal Government and that all costs of the plebiscite will be paid by the Puerto Rican government.

The United States is committed to democracy, and this bill gives us the opportunity to respect the democratically arrived-upon decision of the people of Puerto Rico. I join the number of

sentiments that have been expressed today, including those from my friend and colleague from Florida, which are that, should Puerto Rico decide to seek independence, as an individual Member of Congress, I will support that. Should they decide to seek status as an associated republic, I will support that, and should they choose to join us as a State, I will support that.

This recent health care debate, I think, helped to show the people of Puerto Rico some of the advantages that might be attained were they a State. Their Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, did an excellent job in trying to advocate for the interests of Puerto Rico in this health care debate, but he was but one vote. The people of Puerto Rico, counted and apportioned under a census, should have six Members of Congress, probably Members on both sides of the aisle, advocating for their interests alongside Members of Congress, representing other parts of our country. The current territorial status of Puerto Rico would end under any of the three options. No options would be subject to the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution. As my colleague from New York has mentioned, this is a topic that is discussed constantly around dinner tables in Puerto Rico.

As a Member of Congress from Colorado, I respect the voice of the Puerto Rican people and of the Resident Commissioner, Pedro Pierluisi, who has been elected with this as part of his platform.

Given the current hyperpartisan environment under which Congress works, it is very good to see a bill with such strong bipartisan support. It is important to point out that this bill has over 180 cosponsors and that it was voted out of committee with a strong bipartisan majority. In addition, the highest of Puerto Rico's elected officials from both parties, including its Representative to Congress and Governor Luis Fortuno, along with a sizable majority of both chambers of its legislature, also support this bill. The reason is they understand that this bill upholds the most basic democratic tradition on which our country was founded.

Today, we can offer millions of people the right to self- determination. For too long, we have denied our fellow citizens this right, and we are now faced with an opportunity to fix this grievous injustice and to give the people of Puerto Rico the ability to self- determine. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to uphold this country's commitment to democracy and to vote for the underlying rule, which is a fair rule, and the legislation.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1305 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the

Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned self-

determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived except

those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour and 30 minutes, with one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Natural Resources and 30 minutes controlled by

Representative Velazquez of New York or her designee. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider

as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute

recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed

in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During

consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on

the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may

demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted

in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, the House will be in session for five more weeks prior to the Memorial Day district work period. I would like to inquire of the gentleman what legislation he expects the House to consider prior to that district work period in addition to the items he just mentioned for next week.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman that I am heartened to hear about his continued insistence that this body continue to focus on the number one priority of the American people, which is getting this economy going again and getting Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, I would say that most Americans agree that what we ought to be doing is containing and limiting government spending. Many of the programs that the gentleman just pointed out indicate that we, perhaps, are going to keep heading down the same road that we have been in order to try and create an environment for jobs.

I would say to the gentleman, although there was some job growth last month, he, himself, I think, would admit that that is just not enough. In fact, if we were to look back at the times of very high employment in prior years, there is probably a need for over 400,000 jobs to be created each month for us, over a period of several years, in order to accommodate for the growth in population as well as to return us to that kind of low unemployment.

We have got a lot of work to do, in other words, Madam Speaker, and I know the gentleman knows that. And I think it is fair to say that, in fact, we need to create 434,000 jobs per month for 2 years to make up for the job losses that we have experienced. That is going to take some significant commitment on the part of this Congress to stop the government spending and, frankly, to lower taxes on small business.

As the gentleman knows, his constituents just like mine, everyone I talk to knows someone out of work, and it is high time for us to focus on small business, and that is to provide the tax relief for small business and to stop the government programs of spending. And I would hope that the gentleman can commit to trying to change the route that we have taken to finally begin to grow this economy again.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman when----

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say this: Always the gentleman likes to talk about the prior administration, and I would just like to point out that during the prior administration, the last 2 years of that, his party was in control of Congress and, certainly, if we look at the numbers, did contribute to some of the problem that we have got today. And I would say there's plenty of blame to go around. But what we are trying to do is to learn from perhaps mistakes having taken place and go forward in a constructive manner.

It is my sense, Madam Speaker, that this Nation is at a crossroads. We have serious challenges facing this country. Last Thursday was Congress's deadline for passing a budget, and it is my strong belief that we must act, and the gentleman indicates that we are going to act, but because of the critical nature of the challenges that we face, Madam Speaker, I believe that we have got three reasons to act swiftly and properly in passing a budget because it is at the heart of the lack of confidence of what the American people feel towards this body, and if we can rebuild that confidence somehow, we can see a return to growth in this economy so people can get back to work.

First, Madam Speaker, since the 1974 Budget Act passed, the House has never failed to pass a budget resolution. American families and small businesses are not given the luxury of avoiding a budget somehow because maybe it's too difficult, and neither should we. And the gentleman in his own words has said before that it is difficult to pass budgets in election years because the budgets reflect what the fiscal status is. And again, Madam Speaker, I point out never since the passage of the Budget Act in 1974 has this House failed to pass a budget resolution.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, as to the urgency for this body to act in this critical time, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf recently remarked that the

Nation's fiscal path is unsustainable and without a more aggressive approach to spending than the President took in his budget proposal, the debt will rise from currently 53 percent of GDP to 90 percent of GDP at the end of the decade. We all know, Madam Speaker, that is unacceptable.

Finally, I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, the President in his remarks consistently refers to pending tax increases as the expiration of the Bush tax cut. And, Madam Speaker, I would say the American people believe that erasing a tax cut is a tax increase. This Congress has a responsibility to the people that we represent to inform them, the families, the small businesses, of its intention on whether we are going to increase taxes on the small business people and working families of this country.

So I would ask the gentleman if he could give us some sense of when we could expect this body to act on a budget.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that and for his commitment to ensure that we right the ship, so to speak, and stop the spending.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would say back if he is so intent on comparing the budgets and the outlook under the Bush administration to this one, I would say this: If we compare the 2011 budgets of President Bush and President Obama, President Bush's outlook and budget for this year was $2.9 trillion. The 2011 budget of this President is $3.6 trillion. We could simply cut the deficit by 50 percent if we just lived within President Bush's 2011 budget.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if you cut out all of the emergency spending caused by the recession and just look at discretionary spending, since Congress votes on that every year, President Obama will increase discretionary spending by $319 billion over President Bush's budget for 2011.

So, Madam Speaker, I would say, again, we have got to do better. The American people are waiting for this body to step up in a responsible way to stop the spending, which brings on the need for yet even more debt, which ultimately will lead to higher taxes, despite what the gentleman says, that there's been enough tax relief, and get back to a fiscal path that makes sense so we can see small business grow again.

I yield.

I thought that the gentleman, Madam Speaker, had said that there has been so much tax relief under the current administration that it seems that all we need to do is keep spending.

I will apologize----

I will say to the gentleman again if he is so intent on comparing the two, let's go back to the Bush budget, which would allow us to cut the deficit by 50 percent, if he is so intent on saying how bad things were. Let's stop the spending.

But I would say to the gentleman as far as tax relief is concerned, that tax relief to 95 percent of the public, 25 percent of the tax relief went to entities and individuals that don't even pay taxes. Now, in the minds of most Americans, that is not a tax cut; that's a handout. And that is why we have got to start getting back to basics, Madam Speaker, and insist that the kinds of things that we do here are actually constructive to job creation because that is what we need to be about.

Now, we can go through the litany of things in this President's budget and what the majority has done over its term in office this session to demonstrate taxes have gone up significantly over this period.

It is time to stop taxing, stop spending, and stop borrowing.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for----

Well, I can say this year, this year, Madam Speaker, taxes have increased $670 billion, $316 billion of which comes at the expense of the middle class, breaking the President's promise.

Madam Speaker, I would say, if you look at the health care bill that was just passed----

The health care bill that has just passed, as long as this economy and the players in this economy understand that actions are being taken now to facilitate adopting to a very high tax environment.

Now, if the gentleman wants to join us, if he wants to join us in sending the signal to the public that we're not going to continue business as usual, then let's step up, send the signal we're not going to allow taxes to increase any further, and that starts with differing from the President's budget, which calls for $2 trillion of tax hikes over the next 10 years.

So I'll say to the gentleman, you can say all day long that you have sat here and provided enough middle class tax relief. It's just not true. The public doesn't understand that. The public sees Washington spending money in unprecedented ways and having to borrow to pay for that. And, ultimately, people understand that it is about raising their taxes, reducing their take-home pay in order to pay for that.

Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time. Madam Speaker, now, see, this is when the politics of attack kick in. For anyone to sit here and say that Republicans don't care about people, that's just not true, and he knows it. It's a definitional question.

If the gentleman differs with my characterization it's not a handout, it's a hand up, okay. But what we're talking about was tax relief. It was not a tax cut. If you don't pay taxes, you can't get a tax cut.

But what I'd say to the gentleman is this: times are different right now, Madam Speaker. The American public understands the crossroads this country is at, that we are on a path to fiscal ruin.

And the gentleman likes to continue to defend the stimulus bill as having been a success. Well, I would say to the Speaker, I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, no one, not very many people in America think the stimulus bill was a success at generating jobs, and that's just almost a unanimous fact among most Americans. So if we know that, why would we continue to advocate the same policies?

And instead, Madam Speaker, I would say again I hope the gentleman would join us in advocating tax cuts for small businesses so that we can grow jobs in this economy.

The gentleman did ask what tax cuts, or what tax hikes, occurred over the last, over this session. And during the gentleman's party's majority rule, we know that there was a $65 billion tax increase on tobacco products. There was an almost $7 billion tax increase under the stimulus law repealing guidance allowing certain payers to claim losses of an acquired corporation. There was another almost $23 billion of surtaxes extended for the Federal unemployment program. And there was also, Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, a delay of rules reducing double taxation of American foreign nationals to the tune of almost $6 billion. Those are the tax hikes that have occurred, in addition to the overwhelming billions and billions of dollars inside the health care bill.

So, Madam Speaker, it is not accurate for the gentleman to represent that, number one, this Congress has not raised taxes on the middle class. We know differently. And, number two, to sit here and hide behind the notion that there aren't going to be tax increases at the end of this year, and the fact that that realization is not impacting job growth or the lack thereof, that's not being completely accurate, Madam Speaker.

And I would say to the gentleman, times are different now. It is time for us to own up to the obligations that we face as a country and work together to try and put this country back onto a growth path.

So with that, Madam Speaker----

I thank the gentleman. And in trying to close this colloquy, Madam Speaker, I would say the gentleman knows good and well that when we had a positive job growth report last month, I was the first one to speak out and acknowledge the fact that, yes, growing jobs is a good thing. We've got a long way to go.

The gentleman admits that we are at a different time now, and he points to the deficits; and I point to the fact that the old administration, he alleges, didn't pay its bills, and that perhaps we, in the majority, spent too much. Okay. Fine.

But it doesn't give this majority and this Congress and this administration any better or more license to go and bankrupt this country by continuing on the spending path, and that is my point.

We are at a crossroads, Madam Speaker. I would tell to the gentleman, we have tremendous challenges before us; and as the American people know, if we don't stop the reckless policies of this town, it may very well lead to the fact that our kids and their kids will not enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that we do.

So I continue to tell the gentleman we stand ready to work with him to try and address this extremely critical time in our Nation.

I yield back.

And I'd say, final closing, Madam Speaker. I'd say that in order to get a handle on spending, just stop. And that is why we shouldn't allow for discussion of hiking taxes. It allows this body, this Federal Government, to have yet even more of the taxpayer dollars to decide how to spend.

It's time for us to stop and practice fiscal discipline and get this economy back on track.

I yield back.

I thank the gentlelady.

Look, this is the Puerto Rico 51st State bill. It is the only result you can possibly expect. The deck is stacked. We all know. I was talking to my friends on the other side, and you know what they keep saying to me: Why are you against statehood? Everywhere I go: Why are you against statehood? They don't say: Why are you against the people of Puerto Rico having a free vote in determining their future and in exercising their right to self-determination?

Why do we come here and try to like hoodwink one another, fool one another. I mean, you know what I would like to see on the House floor, the same depth of honesty, sincerity and clarity and transparency that exists when people come up to me and ask why I am against statehood for Puerto Rico.

That is not why I am up here. I am against a process that does not allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their sovereign right to determine their future in a free manner.

Now, what does that mean? Everybody says well, there are 4 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. Have you ever considered one thing, that the

proponents of statehood, the proponents of statehood have never said that the Puerto Rican team must be part of the U.S. Olympic team? Have you ever thought about that contradiction that exists? I am happy to have statehood with a Puerto Rican Olympic team, and would support such a statehood; but does the Congress support such a statehood?

The fact is that the gentleman from Puerto Rico is doing a wonderful job on this bill, knows and understands that the language that is used in Puerto Rico is the Spanish language. It is the language of government. It is the language of commerce. It is the language of industry. It is the language of the courts. It is the common language of the people of Puerto Rico. And you know what, I would love to see the 51st State have Spanish as their primary language.

But do you not think the Congress of the United States should consider such a fact? And the reason I put this to you is because they keep saying, remember those words, ``mandated by the Congress.'' This is plebiscite mandated by the Congress. So what they are going to do is have a plebiscite mandated by the Congress where the statehooders get to define what statehood is during their plebiscite. They are going to have a Congress where independence gets to be defined, and the only one that we define is the relevant current status in Puerto Rico. That is the only one that we define.

I want to take a minute so that we can see how absurd, it says here, and this is the definition, sovereignty in association with the United States, a political relationship between sovereign nations not subject to the territorial clause of the United States Constitution.

You don't think that's going to confuse some people? Just think about it a moment. What does that mean? Okay, so I guess at this point what the Congress of the United States is saying, if this is the winner, this is the winner, Puerto Rico is sovereign. It means Puerto Rico is independent.

Does the FBI got to go? Does the IRS go that day? No, seriously, who controls immigration in and out of Puerto Rico? Who controls the ports? The Federal Government is gone, do we stop sending Social Security checks? Medicare and Medicaid, are they suspended? I mean, think about it one moment. What is it that occurs at that moment?

I would love to see a relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico where Puerto Rico is an independent sovereign nation. That is my belief. But ladies and gentlemen, I will not impose my beliefs on the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico, as the gentleman from Utah referred to earlier, they said, No. They said, No. They said, No. How many times do we have to say ``no''? Do not impose a result that the people of Puerto Rico have rejected freely and which they can constitute.

As a matter of fact, the last time there was a plebiscite in Puerto Rico in 1998, do you know which option won? This option beat statehood: none of the above, received over 50 percent of the vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

You know, I am kind of like Mr. Rangel. I mean, this definition is a new definition. Now I will tell you this, the gentleman from Puerto Rico represents the Statehood Party in Puerto Rico. He came down here and he defined his own status or a lack of definition of his status. But you know what the next thing he did was, he defined the opposition status.

You know, that reminds me of kind of like Barack Obama going to John McCain during the election and saying: Tell you what, why don't you tell me what my platform is, write it for me, and that's what I'm going to run on later on.

You cannot allow this to happen because it is not a democratic process. The result is already. Let me just share with the gentleman that Senator Wicker, and I am going to ask that his statement be included in the Record at the appropriate moment, just issued a statement straight over from the other body, saying he's going to oppose this measure. It hasn't even been adopted and they are already going to oppose it, so we all know what the end result and futility is of what we do here today. They are already telling us that they are going to oppose this, and there is no companion bill.

Does the gentleman have another question?

Thank you. This is what I think we genuinely need. But let me just add further, there has been much said about the importance of American citizenship and there are many Puerto Ricans who cherish their American citizenship and have fought for their American citizenship. But if you have 4 million American citizens and they don't want to incorporate as a State, shouldn't we respect that? Here's the logic, they were American citizens; therefore, they deserve statehood. The finality of it all, the justice of it all, right, the correct course of it all is to grant them statehood.

I think if they wanted independence tomorrow and they are citizens of the United States, and let me just say, it seems to me that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were subjects of the king, and one day they got up and said we want to be free. They didn't quite agree with them, but that also is an option for American citizens.

You know what, maybe these 4 million American citizens don't want to become a State because they love their language; because they love their culture; because they love their idiosyncrasies; because they love applauding for their Olympic team when it goes out there on the international stage; because so many Miss Universes come from Puerto Rico. What if that is what they want, should we not respect that decision?

I yield.

You know, I do, I see this as a congressional mandate. And you know what? We should not mandate statehood. Citizens organized of the United States of America, in incorporated or unincorporated territory, under or outside the territorial clause of the Constitution of the United States, should, together, in a vast majority, I believe-- because, listen, this is like me going to my wife, and I ask her, Will you marry me? And she kind of hesitates and she says, How about if I'm loyal 50 percent of the time? How about 60 percent of the time? How about if we condition this relationship? Come on. That's what we're talking about here. We had a civil war to decide this. Once a State, always a State. Be careful what you wish for.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Look, let's take another look at it. Mr. Lungren came before us, and on numerous occasions, what did he say? Allow Puerto Rico to become a State. Just check his words. Before that it was Mr. Burton from Indiana. In other words, they equate American citizenship with a fundamental, inalienable right to statehood.

There's no one right, inalienable right, that the people of Puerto Rico have. It's to their independence. And the Founding Fathers that we like to talk so much about would agree with us here today. If Thomas Jefferson were here today, he would say one thing: There is one and only one inalienable right of the people of Puerto Rico, something that could never be taken away from them, and that's to their independence.

And why do I bring this issue up today? I bring the issue up today so that we can understand that Puerto Rico is not just 4 million American citizens on an island; it is a culturally, it is a psychologically, constituted geographically, linguistically constituted nation of people, Puerto Ricans. Go to that nation of people today, and while they may love and cherish America, which is actually a good thing if you think about it today, a nation of people who love and cherish America, they still are fundamentally Puerto Rican. Ask them.

Has anybody been to a Puerto Rican parade in New York? Go out there with American flags on the day of a Puerto Rican parade. See how much money you make at the Puerto Rican day parade in New York or Chicago. No, it's an affirmation of who we are. Very different than the Italian day parade, than the Irish parade, than the Polish parade, in which you see many American flags.

Why is it that we continue to affirm this? Why is it that even those proponents of statehood for Puerto Rico have not been able to banish the Olympic team? They dare not. Why is it they have not been able to banish the language of Spanish? They dare not. Because those are things that are intrinsic to the people of Puerto Rico.

Look, let's stop kidding ourselves. Let's stop kidding ourselves. This is an attempt to do one thing and one thing only. Everybody talks about the American citizens and their right to statehood. What about the American citizens, and I say the only inalienable right that they have, to their independence? What about the 1.8 million pages that were sent to Congressman Serrano on the backs of the FBI and intelligence agency for those of us that fought for Puerto Rican independence? What about those that have been jailed? What about those poets? What about those great Puerto Rican patriots who believe and will continue to believe in independence for Puerto Rico? That is a reality that we need to deal with.

So when Mr. Cantor was speaking about the inalienable right, he was speaking about the inalienable right that the Founding Fathers bestowed upon those to be free from colonialism.

The current situation in Puerto Rico is deplorable. The current status of Puerto Rico is a colonial status. And we should move forward to eliminate that stain in our relationship with the people of Puerto Rico. But they have just as much right to independence, they have just as much right to independence as they do to statehood. And as a matter of fact, they have asserted that right.

Let me end with this: We keep saying let them, congressionally sanction. Ladies and gentlemen, they have come together on numerous occasions, and on each and every occasion, they have said, We don't want to be a State. They would like something different. Why are we imposing?

And really, look, everybody talks about the Founding Fathers. You know how the Founding Fathers did it? They had a Constitutional Convention. They got together and they had delegates from different States come together so they could have a Declaration of Independence, so they could build a Constitution. You know what? Let not the Congress of the United States say that this is democracy. Do you know what true democracy is? This Congress saying to the people of Puerto Rico get together in a constitutional convention, assemble yourselves, decide among yourselves, and we the Congress of the United States will respect that decision. We will not impose a process. We will not impose definitions upon you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I am getting requests for time on the floor from a number of Members, and there simply is not enough time allocated by the rule. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each person that is allocated time get an additional 15 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. It strongly deviates from the procedures followed by other States to seek statehood, and it leaves numerous questions about the implications of statehood unanswered in this particular case.

H.R. 2499 is the wrong way to go about achieving statehood and breaks from the precedents set, as I mentioned, of other States and, most recently, those States that we entered into the Union in the last century, Alaska and Hawaii. Both of these States conducted their own vote on the question of statehood. When a strong majority voted in favor of statehood in each of these cases, it was only then that they went to Congress asking them to respond to that vote.

This bill has the process entirely backwards. This bill is a bill asking Puerto Rico if it wants to be a State, not the other way around. This is a dramatic departure from the long-established precedent of how other States sought admission to the Union.

This bill has Congress, as a result, blessing statehood before Puerto Rico even votes to express their will. Rather than receiving the request of statehood from a strong majority of the people of Puerto Rico, expressed through a locally initiated vote, this bill has Congressmen soliciting Puerto Ricans on the question of statehood.

Now, Mr. Chair, let me be very clear. I'm sympathetic to the people of Puerto Rico having the right and ability to vote on their own political future. But this bill is not--I want to repeat--not the only way that this can happen. In fact, this bill is not necessary for Puerto Rico to hold a self-determination vote. Puerto Rico can hold such a vote right now, today, without any action of Congress. And they have done it three times in the past.

Furthermore, Congress is asking Puerto Rico if it wishes to be a State without a clear understanding of the implications of statehood and the conditions that would be required to join the Union. First, there is the question of what statehood would cost the U.S. taxpayers in increased Federal spending. We really don't know the answer to that, but we do think it is higher. And the reason for that is we asked CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, for information on that. And they have not provided an up-to-date analysis of the cost of statehood. So in an effort to somehow quantify the costs, my committee staff reviewed information by the Congressional Research Service. The spending on just 10 Federal programs, Mr. Chairman, would cost an estimated $4.5 billion to $7.7 billion per year. Now, that's only 10 programs. We put all of the other costs together, you can only imagine that it may be higher than that.

So before voting on this bill, I think that Members ought to know if there is a cost and what that cost would be. This information could be calculated, but it is not being done. Without this information, in my view, H.R. 2499 should not be passed.

Second, Mr. Chairman, there's a question of reapportioning House seats. According to CRS, based on a population of approximately 4 million people, if Puerto Rico were to become a State, it would be entitled, rightfully, to two Senate seats and six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Without increasing the size--435 Members of the House--States could lose an existing seat or not receive an additional seat after the 2010 Census. Again, this is according to CRS. Those States, by the way, Mr. Chairman, include Arizona, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Texas, and my home State of Washington. The public deserves to know whether their State would lose representation to provide six of 435 House seats to Puerto Rico, or whether their proposed solution is that the Nation needs more Members of Congress. In other words, increase the number of Members from 435 to 440 or 441.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the question of whether English should be the official language of Puerto Rico. When a similar bill was debated in the House in 1998, an amendment on the issue of English as the official language was allowed to be offered on the floor of this House and allowed to be debated. Unfortunately, this time the Democrat majority has blocked direct amendments on this issue. Currently, both Spanish and English are the official languages of Puerto Rico. However, as a practical matter, Puerto Rico is predominantly Spanish-speaking. Spanish is used in the state legislature, local courts, businesses, and in schools.

Now, during our history, the matter of the English language was addressed during the admission of other States into the Union. And those States include Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. So I think it's only fair and appropriate to address and debate English as the official language in regard to statehood for Puerto Rico.

So, Mr. Chairman, we should not move forward with this bill until there are answers to those three issues, at least, that I have brought up. I think it would be more fair and more responsible to the residents and the 50 States and the people if we had answers to those questions before, and the conditions of statehood, rather than doing it before we have even gotten to that point.

So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), and I understand that he also gets 1 minute from the gentlelady from New York.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In my opening remarks, I stated the reasons why I had a problem with this procedure, and I did not mention the option that you talked about, association.

I just wonder if the gentleman knows or maybe can help me, where did that come from?

If the gentleman would yield, this is a point because my argument was, and I stated three other issues, we ought to know what we are doing because it has been suggested that this is not a statehood bill. But I have responded to at least that remark by saying it may not be a strict statehood bill, but it certainly gives blessing to an outcome on which we don't know what that outcome is. If it becomes association, then what do we do?

I just want to say that I think the gentleman makes a good point because the bottom line in all of this is there are too many unanswered questions on a process where we are blessing an outcome to make a determination whether we should have another, add to our Union the 51st State. I think that is serious, and I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and I understand the gentleman from Puerto Rico will yield him 1 minute as well.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Pence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as we conclude general debate, I want to make one point very, very clear. And that point is that we in Congress on a bipartisan basis welcomed the citizens of Puerto Rico to communicate to us their wishes. But, Mr. Chairman, this is not the right process for that.

I recognize this is not a vote on statehood. I never alluded to that. But, Mr. Chairman, we are setting, I think, a precedent where we are asking a territory of the United States if they want statehood. Looking back in the history, I found it pretty murky whether that even happened. What happened generally, and certainly in a vast majority of the 50 States that make up this great Union, is that they had a plebiscite and they decided they wanted to join this country, and then they asked the Congress to respond. We are doing this backwards.

There have been three votes in the history of this last century of Puerto Ricans, and in every case, in every case they did not choose statehood. So I don't know why we should be part of a process that from my point of view tilts the playing field in favor of statehood when in the past that hasn't been the case. The citizens of Puerto Rico right now, as I made in my opening remarks, can have a plebiscite. They can decide. They can decide by a statewide vote, they can have a constitutional convention, as my good friend from Illinois pointed out. There are a variety of ways for them to do that. We should allow them to do that.

Now, it's difficult. It's a difficult process. We all know that. Self-government is hard. But for goodness sakes, we shouldn't be party to what I believe is a process that is cinched in one way.

So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.