Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2499) to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico.

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.

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.

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, 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'd like to, first of all, thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The underlying legislation, H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, is a fair and appropriate way for the people of Puerto Rico to express themselves at the ballot box regarding the critical issue of their permanent status. The legislation would allow a plebiscite whereby the people of Puerto Rico will decide whether to maintain their current political status or have a different status. If a majority favors a different status, the Government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to conduct a second plebiscite among three nonterritorial status options recognized under United States and international law: independence, United States statehood, or sovereignty in association with the United States. They would, obviously, have to be worked out between sovereign Puerto Rico and sovereign United States.

The legislation does not dictate an outcome for the people of Puerto Rico. Congress will not take sides by voting for this legislation. Congress will only be asking the Puerto Rican people to vote on the issue of their permanent status. This process is absolutely respectful of the Puerto Rican people's right to decide their future status.

I wish to commend Resident Commissioner Pierluisi and my dear friend and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, for extraordinary leadership on this issue. Both of them have earned the admiration of both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress and deserve commendation for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some Members of Congress have concerns that the results of the election would be automatically implemented. I was discussing with my colleague, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, some falsehoods that are being said on radio and other media that the vote today is one that would set up a process that would automatically be implemented. That is not the case. The results of the plebiscites are nonbinding on Congress. So in order for the results to be put into effect, whatever the results of the referendum would be, Congress would need to debate again and, again, pass legislation. In other words, new legislation.

My position with regard to the status of Puerto Rico is that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to decide the political and legal status of their wonderful island through a fair, neutral, as well as federally recognized, plebiscite. I have ultimate admiration for the people of Puerto Rico. They are a wonderful people. If the people of Puerto Rico ultimately vote to request admission to the United States of America as a State of the American Union, there will be no stronger defender of their right to be the 51st American State than me. If they vote to remain in their current status, there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. And if they vote for independence, there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. This legislation is a self-determination vehicle, and I support self- determination. I support democracy everywhere. The Puerto Rican people should be able to decide their permanent status themselves.

The House last addressed this issue in 1998. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that I had the honor of chairing that debate in the House when H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, after much leadership and advocacy by Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo, was brought to the floor under a Republican majority.

I was a member of the Rules Committee at that time, and I am proud to say that our majority, the Republican majority, allowed that bill to proceed under an open rule, a rule that allows Members from both parties to have their amendments to the legislation debated on the House floor without having to get approval from the Rules Committee. This is an important issue, and if there's ever been legislation that deserves an open debate process, it's this legislation.

I remind the House of the process that we used when we were the majority because today the current majority has decided to restrict debate on this issue, on this very same issue that we allowed an open debate process on in 1998. And not only on this legislation, but on every piece of legislation brought before this Congress. This majority has not allowed any open rules, any open debate process in over 2\1/2\ years. Since they regained the majority, they have allowed only one open rule, apart from appropriations bills. And even on appropriations bills, they have restricted debate.

Now I disagree with some of the amendments that were presented before the Rules Committee yesterday, and if, by chance, the majority would have allowed their consideration by the full Congress, I would have voted against those amendments. I may have even debated against those amendments. But just because I disagree with amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee, asking the Rules Committee to allow consideration by the full House does not mean that I believe that those Members of the House do not deserve the right to be heard. I believe the House should be allowed to work its will.

Now, unlike the current majority, I believe in open debate. Let amendments stand or fall on their merits. Just about every week I have the honor to come to the floor of this House to help manage rules debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time I come to the floor, I criticize the current majority for systematically blocking open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill that we consider. Even on appropriations bills, which have long been brought to the floor under a tradition of open rules, they blocked debate. Today they could have easily upheld the tradition set by the Republican majority to allow an open debate on the extremely important issue of Puerto Rico's political status; yet the current majority, they can't bear to do something so abhorrent to them, to permit an open debate process. They cling, Mr. Speaker, they cling to their modus operandi, restricting debate, restricting debate. So they've done so again today.

Now, that doesn't negate the historic nature of what the Congress of the United States is doing today. Today whatever the outcome of this legislation, Congress will send its greeting,

its support and admiration for the wonderful people of ``La Isla del Encanto,'' Puerto Rico.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my dear friend and colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I would have opposed amendments like Dr. Broun's on the floor, but I think that everyone should have an opportunity to be heard, even with ideas that I think are premature, because I don't know how the people of Puerto Rico are going to vote. So it's premature to say at this stage, okay, you have to speak this language or the other language because you're going to vote this way or the other way. No. No. All this does is start a process that will allow the people of Puerto Rico to speak. And it's the first time that there has been a federally authorized referendum for the people of Puerto Rico, and I think it's fair.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I support the historic underlying legislation being brought to the floor today. Again, I commend Mr. Pierluisi and Governor Fortuno.

In order to rightly return, however, to the open rule precedent set by the Republicans in 1998, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider the Puerto Rico Democracy Act under an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.