Renewable Energy Expansion Act of 2010

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 rise to offer my amendment.

Well, here we go again. They say this is a bill. The chairman of Natural Resources says this is a bill to make sure that the people of Puerto Rico are able to define their future and do it in a free, objective manner. Really? Well, the last time they had a plebiscite in Puerto Rico, guess which option won? None of the above. Guess which option they exclude? The winning option in the last plebiscite. So who's kidding who in this place?

They have this thing rigged from the beginning to the end. If not, if they were so faithful to the wishes, to the will, to the passion of the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, why aren't they including the very option that won? They say they respect the decision of American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico and we should give them an opportunity to express themselves freely in a referendum. Guess what? They did. And yet we reject the very option that they chose for themselves.

What kind of democracy is that? I don't know what kind of democracy that is in other States, but I know how I feel about it. None-of-the- above, for me, offers this wonderful opportunity to the people of Puerto Rico.

Just so that we understand, because everybody says things, I want to read this. This is what the Democrats say about my amendment--my own party: you mislead voters into thinking there is a legally better alternative to Puerto Rico's political status other than an independent state or a sovereignty. Me? Me? I'm misleading people? What is the last option that won, adopted by the government of Puerto Rico, and voted on in Puerto Rico?

Announcement by the Chair

I know it's hard, but the truth is the truth.

Announcement by the Chair

The truth is that the last time one of the alternatives was exactly what I offer. If you really believe and you really trust and you really respect the judgment of the people of Puerto Rico, then include it as they included it when they were able to do it. If you say you're not imposing your will on them, then give them the option when they had the ability to choose the different options. I'm not asking for anything else other than that because I think that it is important and fundamental that we check into the history books.

Notice, no one, no one will contradict the fact that ``none of the above'' was the one that won, that that was one of the offers. And then they say that I mislead. I don't mislead anybody. The fact is, people say I'm doing this and that. That's okay. People like me, who defend the sovereign rights of the people of Puerto Rico, you know what happens to them in Puerto Rico? They get files on them by the Government of Puerto Rico. They get jailed. They are made sure they lose their jobs. They get sanctioned.

Everybody always says, Oh, why aren't there more people that believe in Puerto Rican independence? There's a lot of people that believe in Puerto Rican independence. More of them don't show themselves because when they do, you know what happens? Those that support other alternatives lock them up. Let me tell you something. Careful.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

I thank the Chair.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

I yield myself 1 additional minute, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make this abundantly clear to everyone, and I know that Mr. Pierluisi, the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico who used to be the attorney general in Puerto Rico, understands this to be true. And if not, I would like him to step up and just say, Luis, you've got it wrong. Please tell me that.

This is what happened in 1998: ``None of the above'' was the option included in the 1998 plebiscite by the very sponsor, by the very party that the proponent of the legislation that comes before us today, Mr. Pierluisi's party. They controlled the Governorship. They controlled the House. They controlled the Senate. They set up the parameters, and they included it. Yesterday they come and say to me that I am being misleading about what is going on. And more than that, it's the option that won.

I also say fundamentally that one of the reasons I thought it was a good option was because I thought that it wasn't fair the way it was designed and the way it was construed. So I said, You know, I don't like the construction, so you should always give the people--especially people seeking self-determination--the option to say to us, the Congress, We didn't like the way you designed it, so we reject your proposal.

So let me use the last 30 seconds with this: I want you to look at this bill, and you are going to find a section that says that over 1 million Puerto Ricans born on the island of Puerto Rico that live in the United States--not in Puerto Rico--that live in the United States are guaranteed a ballot. What does that say to you?

There is a reason they speak Spanish, ladies and gentlemen. There's a reason they love the Puerto Rican flag. There's a reason they go to the Puerto Rican Day--there's a reason. It's okay. They have a passion for their culture, for their language, for who they are and their identity. And it is affirmed by the very proponent of this legislation, who understands that they are nationals--not of Puerto Rico, which you do not represent. But you are allowing them to participate in this process because you recognize they have an inherent right to participate in the future of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Velazquez.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah.

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes of my time.

I thank Mr. Chaffetz and I thank the gentlelady from New York for their comments.

Why do I propose this? Because we're getting hoodwinked again. That's all that's happening here. You know what they're going to do? I'm telling you, this is just like those derivatives that they've got at Goldman Sachs. You don't know what's in it. Look into it, because it's going to blow up on you later on.

Let me tell you why. Here's what it says on page 5. It says, ``English ballots--the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission shall ensure that all ballots used for any plebiscite held under this act include the full content of the ballot printed in English.'' That's all it says.

Now, you know why they do that; to give you the misunderstanding, right, the false sense of confidence that people are actually going to go, and there's going to be a campaign, and it's going to be conducted in English, and the people can go and take an English ballot. The fact is that the ballots in Puerto Rico are printed in Spanish. The fact is--okay, let me give you another one.

There are, like, four big newspapers--well, there were four, but the one in English went bankrupt. The ones that thrive are the ones in Spanish. Did you ever turn the TV on in Puerto Rico? Go down there. There are, like, three or four really Puerto Rican stations. As a matter of fact, public TV in Puerto Rico is in Spanish. The news is in Spanish, and we help provide some of the funding through our contributions--not the Congress of the United States necessarily.

The fact is that I am here to affirm, to affirm, and I hope that this Congress recognizes that the people of Puerto Rico are a nation. They have a language. We should respect that language, and that language is Spanish. And as we move forward, the ballots, in order for them to understand this process, should be in Spanish.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How many more speakers does the gentleman have remaining?

Well, it's very clear that every time we have an amendment, they want to, like, finish it up. But that's okay. It's been unfair from the very beginning, so what's a little more unfairness.

The fact is, I was a schoolteacher there. I was an elementary schoolteacher for 2 years in Puerto Rico. Do you know how much time the children in the public school system--which we support, taxpayers of the United States support. Do you know how much time during the day they speak in English? One class out of six. You know how I know? I spent 50 minutes a day teaching them English for almost 2 years. And you know what, the students used to walk in, and they used to say, ``Oh, Mr. Ingles.'' It was like the math class. It was like the biology class. It was like the class they didn't want to take.

But you know something, that doesn't mean that they necessarily don't love this country. It's just that they affirm who they are, and we should respect that. They're Puerto Ricans, a colony of Spain, and have Spanish as their predominant language. Let's respect that cultural linguistic integrity in Puerto Rico.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I am happy the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) brought this amendment up. I think it should be soundly defeated, but I am happy he brought it because it just demonstrates the imperialist nature. Here we are in the empire, the Congress of the United States, plenary powers over Puerto Rico, dictating what language they have to use.

You know what, it's amazing, but I'm not surprised, Mr. Burton, because I understand the people of Indiana are still a little angry at the people of Puerto Rico when they arrested Bobby Knight. Bobby Knight got arrested in Puerto Rico. I think this is an important story to tell you. He got arrested in Puerto Rico. There were Pan American games, and the basketball team from the United States was competing against the basketball team from Cuba, and Bobby Knight went into a rage because all of the fans in the stadium in Puerto Rico, all American citizens, were clapping and cheering for the Cuban team and not the American team. So he said to himself: What's wrong with these people? And he threw a chair, as he likes to do, and he got arrested. There is an arrest warrant, and I don't know, maybe Mr. Pierluisi can tell us if the arrest warrant is still valid and out there since he was the attorney general. It just tells you they're a nation, they're a people, and they affirm who they are in every instance.

I thank the gentlelady.

Well, let's have a little talk here. There's a difference: here's citizenship, here's nationality, here's citizenship, here's nationality. They should not be confused. Ask the people in Ireland; they were subjects of the Queen; therefore, they were citizens. But they were always Irish. Ask the people of Ukraine. They may have been subjects of the Soviet Union and citizens of the Soviet Union and have a passport, but they never stopped being Ukrainian, they never stopped being Lithuanian. Look what happened in Yugoslavia once you got rid of Tito. We all saw everybody engage in their national pride. That's what we do, too: we assert it.

As a matter of fact, the very proponents of this legislation affirm that I'm right, they recognize it; otherwise, why would you allow people outside of the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico to vote and to determine its future unless you invested in them, unless they inherently had in themselves the nationality of Puerto Rican?

The gentleman from Puerto Rico says separation from ethnicity. I'm not an ethnic Puerto Rican. I might be a lot more Puerto Rican than some Puerto Ricans are. I suggest the gentleman come to my city of Chicago. In the Puerto Rican community there are many American flags, but there are two huge Puerto Rican flags. Don't divide the Puerto Rican nation; it is a nation of people. It may decide that it wants to incorporate itself into the United States of America, but it always is a nation of people with the inalienable right to independence. Don't divide our community.

If you look at my birth certificate, it says Puerto Rico twice on it--mom born in Puerto Rico, dad born in Puerto Rico. Then it says Chicago, Illinois. Nine months earlier, I would have been in Puerto Rico, so I'm separated by 9 months. And yet every fabric of who I am has a relationship to that wonderful, beautiful island: its music, its artistry, its poetry, its patriots. As a matter of fact, one of the most beautiful songs ever written about Puerto Rico was written in the United States of America and the longing for returning to that island.

Just think a moment, just think, think of the exodus of Puerto Ricans that left Puerto Rico in the 1950s during Operation Bootstrap. What did they do? Did they come to the United States and say, oh, great, we're in the United States; we're going to stay here forever and die here? No. The longing was to return one day to that island. Allow them the vote on the future of that island.

I thank the gentlewoman. We have been working very closely together.

Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderfully crafted amendment, but I think that it is very important that the Congress respects the self- determination of the people of Puerto Rico to choose their future relationship with the United States or without the United States but to decide their future relationship.

This is the key pledge: Congress pledges not to dissuade, to influence, or to dictate a status option to the people of Puerto Rico.

Look, in my first election in Puerto Rico, I represented the Puerto Rican Independence Party. I was 19 years old in San Sebastian del Pepino. I was a delegate for that party until the first election. There was one vote for the Puerto Rican Independence Party in my polling place, what they call ``Integro''--right?--just for independence. That was mine at that point.

I went to the university. I used to sell Claridad when I was at the university, and I would sell it to others. I've been a proponent of Puerto Rican independence. I got a nice, little carpeta, too--right?-- and I haven't called the FBI yet to see what long list of things they've written down about me and who I've associated with, but let me tell you something:

The gentleman from Puerto Rico knows that everything is not all fair and square in Puerto Rico. There is an adage in Puerto Rico--right?-- which is

don't get together with those people or you will be fingered. Do you know what? 1.8 million pages. You know, my dad was right. They had figured us out. They had said who we were. Do you know what would happen? You couldn't get a job. You couldn't be a teacher. You couldn't be anybody prominent in the society of Puerto Rico.

So I am here to say, for all of those who fought for the independence of Puerto Rico and for its right to join as a sovereign nation in the world of nations, don't do this. Don't dictate.

Please note that although I have always been an advocate, I have never come before this Congress to dictate my opinion, to dictate an outcome which benefits me. Let me tell you something. You think you've got a definition for the commonwealth that you can destroy? I have got a definition for independence that I can sell also. But I think it would be wrong to do it. I think it would be unfair to do it.

What the gentlewoman from New York is simply doing here is saying return this process to the people of Puerto Rico.

As I come up here every time, ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers,'' ``Founding Fathers.'' Then they ask you who is your favorite Founding Father? And no one can name one.

Let me tell you something about the Founding Fathers. They had a Constitutional Convention. Let's allow the spirit of the Founding Fathers to act in Puerto Rico.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I just want to make a couple of comments before we end this debate, as we will very, very soon.

I know that everybody thinks this is about self-determination. If it were truly about self-determination, why are the other two parties in Puerto Rico opposed to the bill? Why is it that all those who believe in independence are opposed to the bill? Why are those that believe in commonwealth opposed to the bill? If there is such consensus, if the gentleman truly represents the will of the people of Puerto Rico, why are the other two parties opposed to the bill? And that's a very important question that we ask ourselves.

Secondly, Mr. Pierluisi acknowledged, just so that we have it all, in the Puerto Rican media, that he didn't seek the opinions of the opposition party with regards to this bill because it would have been, according to him, una perdida de tiempo. That means ``a waste of time.''

Now, all I want to say is it isn't a waste of time. It is valuable. And that's why I am so happy that you are doing what you're doing because I think we can all gather around the gentlewoman Velazquez and support her amendment.

Buscar consenso no es una perdida de tiempo. To seek consensus is not a waste of time.

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

Let me just say that the gentleman from West Virginia, my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Natural Resources, is right. This is, Mr. Chairman, about process. It's about the fact that this is a flawed process. Not only was this bill drafted unilaterally, but it was prepared in a biased manner, with a predetermined outcome in mind.

Let us be clear. This legislation is designed to push the statehood agenda, regardless of whether that agenda is the best solution for the island or even among the people. The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee also mentioned that four plebiscites have been held in Puerto Rico. Yes, he is correct. In the past three plebiscites, the men and women of Puerto Rico have consistently voted in favor of Commonwealth status and against statehood.

I tell you that this legislation has no business being on the floor today. It raises a host of questions. It has zero probability of becoming law. However, it does place Members in the awkward position of explaining why they are meddling in Puerto Rico when a request from Puerto Rico has not even been made.

There are economic issues that we must address first. The President has ordered his White House Task Force on Puerto Rico to advise him and Congress on policies and initiatives that promote job creation, education, clean energy, and health care. Instead of dealing first with the very real concerns of how the people of Puerto Rico survive day by day, we are telling them our priority is to debate a status bill that will not become law. This is a disgrace. It is baffling that the statehood question, which lost in 1967, 1993, and again in 1998, is now allowed to scheme its way to victory. It is at the urging of this losing side that House Members have cosponsored a bill that would push for yet another electoral process. Except this time, the proposal that was previously rejected has been put in a privileged position. Those who drafted

this legislation will exclude Commonwealth status in the planned plebiscite by developing a shell game--with a first-round process to legitimize it.

The process that enabled the creation of the Commonwealth was adopted by Congress. The Puerto Rico Constitution was ratified by Congress. This form of government has been upheld by our U.S. courts. That is why it's so appalling, deceitful, and shameful that the people of Puerto Rico will be denied this option. No matter how much statehood supporters complain about Commonwealth, it's the law of the land.

Congress should not be in the business of picking winners and losers for this kind of referendum. It is not our job to create artificial conditions that will enable statehood to win a popular vote in Puerto Rico. Becoming a State of the Union is something that people must embrace knowingly, voluntarily, and openly. If the people of Puerto Rico want to become a State, the statehood option should stand on its own. Why are you so afraid? There should be no need to hide behind process or petty politics.

In a matter so fundamentally important to over 4 million Puerto Ricans, you would think that a public hearing could have been convened to listen to their views. But, no. The Committee on Natural Resources and this Congress know better than the people of Puerto Rico. It is, after all, their future that it is at stake. It is an outrage that a congressional hearing on the status issue has not been held in Puerto Rico since the 1990s. As many know, I have advocated for a constitutional convention to begin the process of determining Puerto Rico's status. Certainly, this is not the only option for going forward. But a sham of a process is definitely not a valid democratic option for choosing Puerto Rico's future.

Mr. Chairman, the concept of self-determination is fundamental to democracy. Sadly, H.R. 2499 turns its back on this very principle. We must not allow politics to undermine our democratic values nor be swayed by arguments that make no sense. If you truly want to honor the contributions of Puerto Ricans and the fabric of the Puerto Rican community, vote ``no'' on this bill. Stand up for what is truly right. Choose principles over politics. Let Puerto Ricans decide their own destiny without undue--undue--congressional demands. Vote ``no'' on

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on every side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I just want to ask the gentleman from California a question: So, basically, in listening to your argument, you are clearly stating that this is a pro-statehood bill, aren't you?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there is a reason why two of the three main political parties in Puerto Rico are opposed to this bill. They have been shut out of the legislative process. That is the reason. Here we are facing one of the largest deficits in the history of this country because we have been paying for two wars where we are committed to promote democracy, and yet in our own backyard we are denying 8 million Puerto Rican Americans the right to self-determination.

As I stated before and I state it again, this is shameful and it is a disgrace. So let me just say that this bill is not ready for prime time. Let's treat Puerto Ricans with the same respect as we did to Alaskans, Hawaii, and other States. They decided by themselves what was better for them. This bill doesn't do that. For all these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a commendable effort to try and improve a deeply flawed piece of legislation, and I really thank the gentlewoman for being so committed to providing for a process of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. Elections are only democratic if the people are not blocked from choosing between all the options potentially available to them. One of the many shortcomings of this bill is that under the scheme it establishes, the second ballot will not include commonwealth as an option for voters.

Again, because what they want is for the people of Puerto Rico to vote for statehood instead of providing a fair, democratic process. That is undemocratic. It is un-American. That defies imagination. That is essentially telling the people of Puerto Rico that the system of government under which they currently live is not even an option for them to consider.

This approach ignores the fact that the Commonwealth is what the majority of the people of Puerto Rico have selected in the last three previous popular votes. The amendment offered by the gentlelady will take a good first step forward, and I am wholeheartedly in support of that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment, and it is very important that Congress needs to be certain that the people of Puerto Rico understand what is at stake and the options before them. This amendment will make sure that the ballots for these processes are available in both Spanish and English. Through this amendment, Puerto Rico's overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking population will be able to understand the ballot and exercise their vote. Those who reside on the island but are not fluent in Spanish will still have the opportunity to cast their ballot. They simply need to request one in English.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it will provide for everyone to understand such an important process that is going to have such an incredible impact on the many people who live in Puerto Rico and those who do not live in Puerto Rico. So I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, today the nation of Puerto Rico is 8 million people strong; 4 million reside on islands of Puerto Rico and 4 million live in the United States.

From Florida to New York City to Chicago to California, and everywhere in between, there are Puerto Rican communities across our Nation. Those Puerto Ricans who have been born in the United States are no less Puerto Rican than the ones that reside on the island. All of us, regardless of where we were born or raised, have a deep and abiding connection with our cultural home.

Puerto Ricans raised on the mainland often speak Spanish. They are taught about their culture, history, and where they come from. There are Puerto Rico Day parades in New York City, Chicago, Orlando, Hartford, and cities across this land. Regardless of where they were born, all Puerto Ricans are deeply vested in the political future of the island. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, but that does not make me more Puerto Rican than Mr. Gutierrez.

Clearly, there is an air bridge between the United States and Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have relatives and family members living in Puerto Rico. And those Puerto Ricans living in the States possess their own sense of identity, which is shaped by and tied to Puerto Rico.

This amendment would allow Puerto Ricans living on the mainland to participate in the plebiscite that is called for under the bill. Importantly, the amendment requires that those wishing to vote be able to prove, by birth certificate, that they have at least one parent born in Puerto Rico. This will provide a safeguard against voter fraud while ensuring that we do not disenfranchise Puerto Ricans living in the States from this process.

Mr. Chairman, Puerto Ricans living on the mainland are no less Puerto Rican than those born and raised on the islands. We should not deny them a voice or a vote as this process, which is so important to the Puerto Rican nation, moves forward. These Puerto Ricans cannot be denied their right of self-determination.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a strong believer that the people are smart enough to make tough decisions if they are presented with all the facts clearly and objectively. This legislation does not provide a transparent process of the choices available to Puerto Rico. That is not democracy by any definition.

A true system of democracy does not preclude certain options from a ballot, nor does it structure votes in a way to manipulate an electorate. Unfortunately, as we all know, this legislation structures the votes in a way that will prevent a commonwealth option from receiving fair consideration.

The process that allowed for the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was adopted by Congress. It is a legitimate form of government that is accepted by millions. I, therefore, find it appalling that this Congress will consider precluding a commonwealth as an option for the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, joining our Union as a new State is not a step that should result from electoral tricks or engineering. Joining the United States of America must be a decision that a people undertake deliberately, knowingly, and voluntarily. If the people of Puerto Rico wish to become a State, that option should be able to prevail against all other choices. The people should affirm, in a single vote, that they wish to move in that direction. They should not be presented with a series of false choices that are rigged to force the electorate into choosing statehood.

Under this amendment, there would be an opportunity for a real vote, with all the options on the table. This

amendment eliminates the first round vote and adds commonwealth as a choice for voters. It also provides for a runoff process if no option receives a majority of votes.

If the supporters of statehood and the authors of this bill truly believe that they have the will of the people on their side, then this amendment should cause them no concern. All this amendment will do is provide a chance for the people to vote on the future of the island with all the options before them, including commonwealth. To effectively preclude commonwealth from this process is to deny the Puerto Rican people a true right to self-determination.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

The issue here is not if the people of Puerto Rico can vote or not in Presidential elections. The issue here is a true, transparent, democratic process for the Puerto Rican people to participate in a referendum without imposing statehood.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will simply say that the authors of this bill are not afraid of having the people of Puerto Rico freely express themselves in a process that is democratic and that is transparent. They should support this amendment. Yet, if they are afraid that the only way they can get a simple majority that supports statehood is by denying the people of Puerto Rico the choice to vote for commonwealth, they know that history is on the side of the people of Puerto Rico. Repeatedly, every time plebiscites have been conducted in Puerto Rico, the commonwealth status has won, and statehood has been defeated. That is why they are so afraid, and that is why they are denying the right of the people of Puerto Rico to true self- determination.

I urge my colleagues to support and to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, self-determination is a basic concept in a democracy. The ability of a people to choose their own national grouping without undue influence from another country is rightly recognized as a core element of freedom and liberty. Today, sadly, we are debating legislation that turns its back on this principle.

Perhaps what is most unfortunate is that what we are debating today involves imposing ideas from the outside onto the island. It seems to me, if we wish to keep faith with the democratic tradition of self- determination, then we will look for the guide to Puerto Rico's future, not in the House of Congress and not in Washington, D.C., but in Puerto Rico.

The amendment that I am offering will honor the concept of self- determination. This amendment empowers the people of Puerto Rico to submit their own proposal for moving forward. The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that we should not proceed until we have heard from those most affected by this debate, the Puerto Rican people. The residents of Puerto Rico should exercise freely and without congressional interference. The right to self-determination and this amendment recognize their rights. Rather than having Congress approve a bill that says to the Puerto Rican people that their relationship with the United States must change, this amendment sends a different message. It says to the Puerto Rican nation: We trust you to decide your future.

If they envision a better alternative than the status quo, then let them come to Congress and tell us. That is true self-determination. That is a process that will be viewed as legitimate by all parties in Puerto Rico, and it is a far cry from a bill that forces the Puerto Rican people to take a series of sham votes which are aimed at achieving a predetermined outcome.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to honor the democratic tradition of self-determination. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in representation of the people of Puerto Rico. In fact, I am the only elected representative of the people of Puerto Rico in this Congress. In such capacity, I introduced

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

As I was saying, during a late night patrol behind enemy lines, soldiers from Puerto Rico, Utah, Georgia watch each others' backs. Any differences in culture or language mean nothing. I went to Afghanistan recently to visit our troops in Afghanistan. I know what we're talking about. What matters is that the flag on their uniform is the same.

As I have said many times before, I support statehood because I believe the people of Puerto Rico have earned that right, should they choose to exercise it, to become full and equal citizens of the United States. But this is not a statehood bill. And that's why, with all due respect to the gentleman from Washington State, we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

The time and the day that Puerto Rico, the majority of the people request for statehood, you will have ample time to debate it, to deal with it, to impose a transitional period, whatever this Congress or a future Congress might want to do.

I was elected to represent all of the people of Puerto Rico, including those whose vision for the island's future differs from my own.

I yield myself 15 additional seconds.

The intention of H.R. 2499 is to sponsor a fair process of self- determination in Puerto Rico, not to predetermine the outcome of that process. I have to say, in the 21st century, it is about time that this Congress, at the very least, ask the 4 million American citizens if they want to continue having the second-class citizenship they're earning and they're having today.

Vote in support of H.R. 4599.

I yield the gentleman from Alaska 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

It is time. It is time for this Congress to hear from the people of Puerto Rico. A lot has been said about this process of self-determination. And what is self-determination? It is to allow the people of Puerto Rico to express their wishes on their political destiny. H.R. 2499 does exactly that. The only possible options that the people of Puerto Rico have concerning the subject matter are the following: remaining as a territory, which is called a Commonwealth, but the label does not change the status. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth, yet it is a State. Puerto Rico is a territory. And there is a clause in the United States Constitution that provides and has so been interpreted by the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, that this Congress has plenary powers over the territories, including Puerto Rico. And we do not fail to exercise them on a daily basis, for better or worse, to the people of Puerto Rico, who do not have voting representation in this Congress, who do not vote for the President, and who do not participate in Federal programs on an equal basis with their fellow citizens in the States. That is one of the choices. And this bill, this plebiscite, the plebiscite in H.R. 2499, provides for that. If the people want to remain under the current status, they can, like they should be.

Now if the people of Puerto Rico say we no longer want to be a territory of the United States, we should know that, all Members of Congress. This bill then asks them their choice among the only three options that are accepted under U.S. and international law: statehood, independence, and there has been some talk about free association.

Let me tell you something. I agree with Congressman Serrano. Libre asociacion is that term in Spanish. In Puerto Rico everybody knows what libre asociacion is. In fact, there is a faction within one of our main parties that advocates for that. And what is that? Simple; what Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau already have--an association between Puerto Rico and the U.S. as sovereign nations that is not a territory of the United States. That option is included. So all the options are there. It is only fair to ask the people of Puerto Rico to express themselves in a way that is not binding on this Congress.

We will always have, the Congress will always have the last word on this topic, as it should be. So that's why I have put forth this bill before this Congress on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico as the only elected Representative

of the people of Puerto Rico, and I ask for your support. Vote for H.R. 2499.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. The reason is rather straightforward. In a democracy, the majority rules. The threshold question, the first question that H.R. 2499 poses, is precisely to determine whether the majority of the people residing in Puerto Rico, the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, want to remain as a territory. Once the majority speaks, we will abide by that. If the majority says they want change, they do not want to continue being a territory, called a commonwealth as it is, then it is only fair to ask a second question. Choose among the only available alternatives. The results will speak for themselves.

Some here seem to be convinced that the result will be that the people of Puerto Rico will choose statehood. It remains to be seen. We don't know the percentage. We don't know what other percentages we will have on the first vote, on the second vote. Let's allow the people of Puerto Rico to express themselves. It is only fair. And the Congress will have the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise in opposition because some of my colleagues here have been talking about one term, ``free association,'' being an ambiguous term. Well, there cannot be anything more ambiguous than ``none of the above'' when you know that all the options that are available are the four options that we have been talking about.

The first option is for Puerto Rico to continue being a territory, and we all know what a territory is. Our Constitution provides for such. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory. That is an option. And there are only three other possible options as a matter of settled U.S. law and international law: independence, statehood, and free association. It serves no purpose, no real purpose to include a ``none of the above'' option when those are the options that we all know exist for the people of Puerto Rico.

If we want to effectuate self-determination, if we want to facilitate self-determination, if we want to give a voice to Puerto Rico, to the people of Puerto Rico, with a meaningful purpose, we cannot include a ``none of the above'' option. That was, indeed, the result of the last plebiscite that was done in Puerto Rico, which did not follow the bill that this House approved or the Senate failed to act upon. It added this ``none of the above'' option, and what happened is, to this day, nobody can understand what that means. It served no purpose. That's why I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard here, and it is unfortunate, some colleagues talk about this being rigged, using terms of that nature. And I can take it because I know that this is a fair bill.

Now I just heard that somehow we are opposing this amendment because of the way that this bill is drafted. Let me say for the record of this House that the language that provides for having the ballots in both Spanish and English was offered in committee, in the Committee of Natural Resources at the markup by Mr. Henry Brown from South Carolina who belongs to the Republican Party. And we voted on it.

The reason I am opposing this amendment is it is totally unnecessary. As a matter of local law in Puerto Rico, we need to provide the ballots in both English and Spanish, and that is what we are doing. We are just being fair. This amendment requires as an alternative that now we need to print separate ballots in English and force those who feel more comfortable with the English language to request them. It is not necessary. We oppose it. I oppose it. And that's all I'll say. I needn't say anymore.

I rise in support of this amendment. It is a sensible

amendment. It basically provides that whatever legal requirements apply in the States will apply in Puerto Rico on this issue.

At the same time, it expresses a sense of Congress that we should improve the teaching of English in Puerto Rico. I am all for that. Ninety percent of the parents in Puerto Rico want to improve the teaching of English in Puerto Rico to their children. I have two bills pending before this Congress seeking additional funding, one, and the other creating a teacher exchange program so that we have more English teachers in Puerto Rico.

This is not an issue. We have two official languages in Puerto Rico, English and Spanish, the same way Hawaii has two official languages. We want all of our children to be fluent in English and to facilitate the government processes in Puerto Rico to the extent necessary so any English speakers will be well served.

So I support the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Indiana as well as the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The bill before us is a product of careful deliberation. We worked hard in reaching the right and correct balance in terms of determining who should be eligible to vote in the plebiscites provided for in the bill.

Before reporting it, the committee considered, as we had in previous Puerto Rico status bills, which voters should be participating, and we had to strike a balance. The bill makes both

residents of Puerto Rico who are otherwise eligible to vote under Puerto Rico electoral law and U.S. citizens who were born in Puerto Rico but who may not reside in the territory at the time of the plebiscite eligible to vote.

The committee recognized that a substantial number of individuals born in Puerto Rico but not currently residing there hope to return to live in Puerto Rico one day. Accordingly, they can be said to have a practical stake in helping to determine Puerto Rico's future political status. Such argument does not hold, though, for those who are of Puerto Rican descent but who were born outside of the territory, which the pending amendment would allow. The bill chooses place of birth rather than ethnic identity as the eligibility criteria. I urge this criterion to be maintained and that this amendment be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

In listening to the gentleman from Illinois, I keep hearing that he wants Puerto Rico to become independent, that he sees Puerto Rico as a nation. So be it. That's a dignified status, and that is one of the options that this bill provides for.

In crafting the bill, we tried to be as inclusive as we could, recognizing that Puerto Ricans, people born in Puerto Rico, might be interested in participating in this plebiscite, might want to return to Puerto Rico; and for the purpose of being as fair and as democratic as we could, we drew the line on requiring birth in Puerto Rico. More than that, we think it would be too encompassing and not necessary.

So I oppose this amendment. I believe that the current bill is fair; it might not be perfect, like any piece of legislation. You draw lines when you're legislating, but this is a reasonable line.

I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York.

This amendment would replace the plebiscite process authorized by the bill with an entirely new process, including a runoff with a problematic none-of-the-above option, which is unsound, confusing, and unlikely to produce a clear expression of the voters' views on the status question.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. The amendment would delete the two-step process authorized by the bill, and it would replace it with a one-step process that uses the term ``commonwealth'' to denote Puerto Rico's current status.

As I said before, the term ``commonwealth'' is the legal name. It is the title given to the territory of Puerto Rico. Including the term when giving the people of Puerto Rico an option is confusing in and of itself, particularly because it could imply that it is more than what it is. This has been debated long enough. A territory is a territory is a territory. Call it whatever you may.

By limiting the plebiscites I authorize to one, the amendment fails to accomplish one of the primary purposes

of the bill: to determine whether the people of Puerto Rico consent to an arrangement that, whatever its other merits, does not provide them with self-government at the national level. The amendment includes a runoff process that provides for a none-of-the-above option. By including this option, the amendment undermines the purpose of the legislation, which is to enable a fair and informed process of self- determination for the people of Puerto Rico. ``None of the above'' is not a valid status. The last plebiscite provided that, and to this day, we cannot even interpret it. Including it on any ballot misleads voters into thinking that there is a possible alternative to the three available options.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York.

This amendment is in the nature of a substitute and seeks to postpone an informed self-determination process along the viable status options in Puerto Rico. Postpone. Delay.

We've waited long enough. We have been waiting for 112 years.

In addition, it basically opts out. This is an opt-out. Congress is basically saying I'm not going to deal with this. Easy for Congress to do, but it is not the right thing.

Congress should be engaged in this process like it has never done before. Why? There are 4 million American citizens living in that territory, and they are being discriminated against every day in legislation that is pending before the Congress. If they want to live under those conditions, so be it. They should tell this Congress. But if they want a different status, nonterritorial, they should be given the chance also to express themselves along those lines. And the options are clear.

The gentleman from Illinois, it looks like he favors one of those options, independence for Puerto Rico. He keeps talking about Puerto Rico's being a nation and so on. I respect that. If that's the will of the majority of the people of Puerto Rico, I am sure this Congress will respect it as well. But there are two other options. Yes, free association, it has been done before, and in Puerto Rico, people know very well what free association is all about. And the other one is statehood. There has been lots of talk about statehood here. And what I tell to all those who have raised concerns about the potential admission of Puerto Rico as a State is that we're not there yet. When we get there, then we will address it. But at least this bill allows the people of Puerto Rico to express their will. What is more democratic than that? What is fairer than that? Nothing. To simply say we're not going to get involved in this, solve it among yourselves, easy way out, but that's not fair. We've waited long enough.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the great State of West Virginia in this body, a State that was born amidst civil conflict in the middle of a war. It is said that West Virginia is the only State to be formed by seceding from a Confederate State during the Civil War. In fact, the western counties stayed loyal to the Union, while Tidewater seceded from it.

Puerto Rico also joined the American family as a result of war. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, the island was invaded by the United States and was ceded by Spain to our country under the Treaty of Paris. The island's century-long history within the American family has been significant. Puerto Rico was one of the first areas outside the continental United States where the American flag was raised.

To the United States, it marked a milestone in our own political development. When once our Union of States was comprised of renegade English colonies, we then stepped into a role that we previously had fought against. Given our own experience, would anyone have imagined that our new colony would be disenfranchised and kept unequal in our own political framework? Our commitment to Puerto Rico's advancement under the 1898 Treaty of Paris should be our judge.

If our measure of success is today's Puerto Rico, then I state Puerto Rico has done well by the United States. It is a showcase of democracy in the Caribbean. Having some of the highest voter turnout rates in our Nation, Puerto Rico shames many of our own States with its energy and enthusiasm in electing its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in the Caribbean and considered a home away from home for many mainland Fortune 500 companies.

Equal in importance to Puerto Rico's political and economic prowess is the island's contributions to our own social fabric. Every aspect of American art, music, theater, and sport has been influenced by Puerto Rico's own culture and its people. And beyond such contributions, there remains Puerto Rico's patriotism, beginning in World War I when thousands of Puerto Ricans served in the U.S. military. There is no doubt that many more thousands are currently serving in our Armed Forces, fighting our wars, and dying for our country.

To the families who have lost a husband, a father, a daughter or son in our wars, I take this moment, as we all do, to salute you. We can debate political status, but what is not subject of debate is the patriotism of the people of Puerto Rico.

We are here today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives because, in spite of what we have gained from each other, there has been no ultimate achievement in Puerto Rico's political status, which really is the greatest commitment the U.S. has to all of our territories.

Since the establishment of the current Commonwealth status in 1952, four popular votes have been held on the status of Puerto Rico in three plebiscites and one referendum, but none of them were sanctioned by this body, the Congress of the United States.

Going back just to the 1970s, at least 40 separate measures have been introduced in Congress to resolve or clarify Puerto Rico political status. In addition, Congress has held at least 12 hearings, and four measures have received either House or Senate action.

During the last Congress, the Bush administration issued the President's Task Force Report on Puerto Rico's Status which served as the basis for the legislation before us today; a task force, I would point out, that was initiated by the Clinton administration and concluded by the Bush administration.

Indeed, the entire exercise has been bipartisan. The measure before us today is sponsored by the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat. It is strongly supported by a former colleague and current Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Luis Fortuno, a Republican. And it was reported out of our Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 30-8.

With this history before us, I join those who say it is time for Congress to provide the people of Puerto Rico with an unambiguous path toward permanently resolving its political status that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

When our Committee on Natural Resources considered similar legislation in the last Congress, we exhaustively examined the question of the constitutionality of the various status options available under the Constitution. And we continued that process during the current Congress. What emerged from that process was a clear consensus that settled on the permanent status options that are reflected in the bill before this body today.

The Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico is to be congratulated for carefully crafting a bill which seeks to authorize a fair, impartial, and democratic process for self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. The pending measure is straightforward. It authorizes a plebiscite in which the two voting options are presented: number one, present political status; or number two, a different political status. If option two prevails, then a second plebiscite would be conducted in which three options are presented: independence, free association with the United States, or statehood. Puerto Rico would then certify the results to the President and the Congress.

Let me be very clear on this point. Nothing in this legislation prejudges the result of these plebiscites. Nothing in this legislation prejudges the result of these plebiscites. And voting for this legislation does not constitute a vote for the status quo, statehood, independence, or free association.

The bill is about a process, and depending upon what occurs during that process, it will be up to a future Congress to ultimately decide Puerto Rico's status.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of claims have been made by previous speakers about why not have a direct vote on statehood, yes or no, like Hawaii and Alaska did. I think it's worth clarifying here that those States were already incorporated territories--and the Representative from Alaska can speak to this better than I can--meaning that it was constitutionally clear that they would eventually become States. Puerto Rico is unincorporated, meaning it can become a nation as well as a State.

The plebiscites would determine if Puerto Ricans wanted to pursue nationhood or statehood. A number of Puerto Ricans, as we all know, want statehood; some, independence; some, free association with the U.S., such as the U.S. has with Palau and two other areas. It is unclear what the second largest group of Puerto Ricans, those who vote for the Commonwealth Party, want among the real options of continued territory status, free association, independence, and statehood.

Another claim that my ranking member and good friend Mr. Hastings made was that the Congress of the United States would be reduced in seats if Puerto Rico were granted statehood. I'm going to quote directly from a CRS report that was done on this issue when it said that, New States usually resulted in additions to the size of the House of Representatives in the 19th and early 20th century. The exceptions to this general rule occurred when States were formed from other States--Maine, Kentucky, and my home State of West Virginia, as I have referenced already. These State Representatives came from the allocation of Representatives of the States from which the new ones had been formed.

So I don't think the assertion that the number of Members of Congress in its totality would be reduced, with the addition, if that were to be the outcome of Puerto Rico being a State were to occur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi), the sponsor of this legislation and truly the driving force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield the balance of my time to the people's representative from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pedro Pierluisi.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill was carefully crafted to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to inform Congress for the first time ever whether they want to continue with their current temporary status, Commonwealth, or move to a permanent status: statehood, independence, or free association. This amendment would subvert this effort by including a choice to continue the island's present status among the options provided for in the bill's second plebiscite. Adoption of this amendment will contradict the bill's intent and make it less likely that the people of Puerto Rico would seek a permanent nonterritorial status.

Debate over Puerto Rico's status continues to be the central issue in politics on the island. The fairest and simplest way, we believe, to address this concern is to let Puerto Ricans choose to either retain their present status, as the underlying bill does; or, if they don't want to, allow them to elect to become a state, an independent country, or a free nation with association with the U.S. Allowing the choice of retaining their current status after it was rejected in the first plebiscite, as this amendment would do, only serves to confuse the process and would likely cause an inconclusive outcome.

I, therefore, urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico to close on our side, let me just address one issue the gentlelady from North Carolina raised about us having other issues that she alluded to which are more important than this issue to address in Congress, like jobs, the economy, et cetera; therefore, why are we considering this legislation. That may be true.

Certainly, jobs and the economy are very important to every one of our districts. But I think it should be worth pointing out here that it's most unfortunate that we can't get the type of bipartisan support--as much bipartisan support from the other side on those issues of jobs and the economy as we do on this particular piece of legislation.

I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as was the case with the Foxx amendment, this amendment would also add a fourth option to the second ballot in the two-stage plebiscite process. I urge defeat of this amendment as well,

largely along the same lines as the earlier amendment.

``None of the above'' is the ultimate and unnecessary escape clause. The proposal for its inclusion on the ballot suggests that there exists some other option for permanently resolving Puerto Rico's status in a manner compatible with the U.S. Constitution beyond the three options of independence, sovereignty in association with the United States, or statehood. Such a belief defies the conclusions of the international community, the courts, and the executive branch.

There is no other viable option than the three to be presented on the second ballot as provided for in the underlying bill. Thus, this ``none of the above'' amendment is not about progress, but rather inconclusiveness. Self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico should no longer be thwarted by inconclusiveness nor held captive to any pursuit for a status change not deemed viable under the U.S. Constitution or international law.

I urge defeat of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the people's representative from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. Chairman, the pending amendment would strike the requirement from the bill that a ballot include the full content of the ballot printed in English. Instead, the amendment requires ballots to be printed in Spanish. An English ballot could be obtained only by the request of a voter.

The underlying bill strikes the right balance. We did address this issue during our full committee consideration of this legislation, and the underlying bill gives rise to the printing of a unified ballot. The amendment before us undoes that balance that we struck in the full committee in consideration of this issue, and it puts the onus on an English-proficient or otherwise English ballot-preferring voter to request such a ballot.

In my opinion, this would add tremendously to the administrative processing of the ballots; it would complicate the process, and it would add cost. It would be a tremendous cost addition to the process as well, and I would, therefore, urge the defeat of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just have one concluding speaker.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does nothing to further the goal of H.R. 2499, which is to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a federally recognized process to allow them to freely express their wishes regarding their future political status in a congressionally recognized referendum.

The amendment recognizes that Puerto Rico can conduct a plebiscite on whether to conduct a plebiscite on a status option or options, and it calls on Congress to ``respectfully postpone consideration'' of the issue until it receives a proposal for revision of the current U.S.- Puerto Rican relationship voted for by Puerto Ricans.

We are all aware of the fact that Puerto Rico can conduct its own plebiscites. There is no disputing this fact. In fact, they have done so multiple times in the past, most recently in 1998, but because some of those were local referenda, which included definitions of the various status choices that were inaccurate and likely not to be supported by Congress, the results were inclusive, which brings us to the need of the bill pending before us.

We have an obligation to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a process that, more likely than not, will lead to a final resolution of the question of their political status, a question with which we have been grappling for more than a century. The amendment of the gentlewoman fails this test, and, for this reason, it should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

First, Mr. Chairman, just a correction. The gentleman from Washington stated that the previous amendment passed by voice vote. We have a rollcall order on that; so I just wanted to correct that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We do have a rollcall vote scheduled on that.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this amendment is unnecessary, and really it masquerades a whole debate on English, and let me explain why. This amendment has essentially three components, and I will paraphrase what those components are. They talk about all ballots used in the plebiscite must be in English, number one. Number two, prospective voters are informed that the official language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply to Puerto Rico. And number three, it has a sense of Congress that it is in the best interest to promote English.

Now let me address each of those issues but let me suggest that I believe this amendment is offered to only deny a straight up-or-down vote on the issue of English as the official language.

First of all, the language that my good friend from Indiana read in support of this amendment is already in the bill. It is on page 5. It says that the plebiscite will be carried out in English. So we don't need that because it is already in the bill.

The second provision is really meaningless. That is the one that talks about Federal language requirements. We know there is no Federal requirement in this country as to English, even though 30 States have adopted that. There is no official one from the United States. There should be, but there isn't.

Finally, I will concede at least a little point. The sense of Congress language really has no statutory effect, but I will concede this: It is at least timely. Why do I say that, because just 3 days ago the Secretary of Education in Puerto Rico said: ``English is taught in Puerto Rico as if it were a foreign language.''

In the 2005 Census, 85 percent of Puerto Ricans said they had very little knowledge of English. As a practical matter, in the Commonwealth legislature, and in its courts and classes in public schools, Spanish is the primary language. So there is nothing in this amendment that will change that. What should have happened and didn't happen is the Rules Committee denied a straight up-or-down vote on English as official language. That was embodied in Mr. Broun of Georgia's amendment. But unfortunately we were denied the opportunity because this is a structured rule to at least have a debate on that. If the intent of the Rules Committee is to say this is the one we should have, I totally disagree with that. So for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Chairman, I have 1 minute left and I have the right to close; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I yield myself the balance of my time, which is 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the pertinent part of this amendment is already in the bill, and that speaks to the ballot; the other two are really meaningless. Frankly, this amendment does not even need to be considered today; but if it's a cover, then it's a cover, and let's call it what it is.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, the debate here has centered largely on the procedure by which citizens of Puerto Rico should, if they desire, become a State. I am of the opinion and what this amendment does is to state very specifically that the citizens of Puerto Rico have within their power to make that determination. I think that is the proper way to go.

But I also believe that the amendment that just passed by a voice vote, the Velazquez amendment, accomplishes the same thing. So I don't want to be redundant, and in a moment, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask if I can have this amendment withdrawn.

But before I do that, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Will the gentleman yield?

I understand that. The chairman said that the amendment passed.

But there will be a rollcall vote.