Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8393) to enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1519 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1519, providing for consideration of H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since the Jones- Shafroth Act of 1917. That is over 100 years the Puerto Rican people have been Americans. Yet, for those 100 years and more--in fact, going all the way back to the United States' annexation of the island in 1898--the U.S. Government has not guaranteed our fellow citizens on Puerto Rico the full and equal rights of citizens on the mainland.

Puerto Rico has faced multilayered crises rooted in this century-long policy, crises that have been compounded in recent years by natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and migration.

Puerto Rico's current status prevents the island from enjoying full democracy at the national level. Puerto Rico's Delegate to Congress has limited voting rights, and the Puerto Rican people cannot vote in U.S. Presidential elections, even though the U.S. Government enacts and enforces their national laws and residents pay Federal taxes.

Puerto Rico also cannot set its own monetary trade or immigration policy. They are unable to join international organizations or enter into international agreements, highlighting the complicated implications of the island's current status as a territory.

Puerto Rico's status also limits the island economically. For example, in

granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt in 2016, Congress established an oversight and management board that had the power to override decisions of the Governor and legislature of Puerto Rico.

Look, it is time Congress recognizes that Puerto Rico has no interest in being a colony, just as we in the United States should have no interest in being a colonizing power in the year 2022.

We are here today to consider a rule that would bring H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, to the floor.

This bill details the transition to and the implementation of a nonterritory status for Puerto Rico, finally giving the people of Puerto Rico a choice to determine their own status. It tasks the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission to carry out a nonpartisan campaign to educate and inform voters before holding a referendum for Puerto Ricans to decide between statehood, independence, or independence followed by free association with the United States.

I am proud to represent a vibrant Puerto Rican community in central Massachusetts, and many of my Puerto Rican constituents have family members still living on the island. Their family members, just like Americans on the mainland, deserve the right to self-determination. They ought to have an opportunity to carve their own path and build the future that they want.

The Puerto Rico Status Act is the result of serious negotiation and careful compromise to clarify available status options and ensure a productive process.

I am grateful to Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman Velazquez, and Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, for all the work that they have done to get us to this point.

Ultimately, the people of Puerto Rico must decide on the island status, and it is up to us in Congress to help facilitate that process.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This shouldn't be controversial. We are not deciding the fate of Puerto Rico. We are setting a process in place so that the people who live on the island can make that decision.

Listening to my colleague's speech, as he mentions Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, you would never know that this compromise was actually written in conjunction with the Republican--let me repeat that--with the Republican Delegate from Puerto Rico.

So I don't understand what the big fuss is about.

But if my friend believes that the people of Puerto Rico should decide their future, then he should support this bill which will set in place a process so they can determine their future. If the gentleman doesn't, if he continues to believe that we should act like a colonizer, then vote ``no'' on the bill. But this is the commonsense thing to do.

One other thing we heard him say, they are taxpayer-funded elections. All of our elections proceed with the support of taxpayer funds. I don't understand what that is all about. But the bottom line is that people of Puerto Rico do pay taxes.

In any event, this really is about self-determination, and it is that simple. I hope that my colleagues will not only support the rule but also the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will close.

Madam Speaker, I don't even know where to start in response to all of that.

Let me, first of all, inform Members about what the legislative history of the bill that we want to bring to the floor is because if you listen to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, you would think that it just came out of nowhere.

On July 15, 2022, Chairman Grijalva introduced H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, with original cosponsors Chairwoman Velazquez, Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon--I will remind my friend, again, that she is a Republican Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico--and Representative Darren Soto of Florida.

The Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on April 14, 2021, titled: ``Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing on Puerto Rico Political Status,'' and a hearing on June 16, 2021, titled: ``Office of Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing.''

On July 20, 2022, the full committee met and held a markup of the bill and favorably reported it with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a vote of 25-20 with Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon joining the majority. So the idea that somehow nobody has been talking about this doesn't reflect what the legislative history is.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an AP article from June 4, 2022, titled: ``Puerto Ricans speak out on U.S. territory's political status.''

Puerto Ricans Speak Out on US Territory's Political Status

(By Danica Coto)

San Juan, PR (AP).--Hundreds of Puerto Ricans crowded into

a convention center Saturday where federal legislators held a

public hearing to decide the future of the island's political

status as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from

hurricanes, earthquakes and a deep economic crisis.

One by one, dozens of people ranging from politicians to

retirees to young people leaned into a microphone and spoke

against the island's current territorial status, which

recognizes its people as U.S. citizens but does not allow

them to vote in presidential elections, denies them certain

federal benefits and allows them one representative in

Congress with limited voting powers.

The hearing comes two weeks after a group of Democratic

congress members including the House majority leader and one

Republican proposed what would be the first-ever binding

plebiscite that would offer voters in Puerto Rico three

options: statehood, independence or independence with free

association, whose terms would be defined following

negotiations.

Congress would have to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state

if voters so choose it, but the proposal is not expected to

survive in the Senate, where Republicans have long opposed

statehood.

``Everyone, even congress people themselves, know that the

possibilities of this becoming law are minimal and maybe non-

existent, but it doesn't stop being important,'' former

Puerto Rico governor Anibal Acevedo Vila told The Associated

Press.

About an hour into the hearing, a small group of people

including a former gubernatorial candidate who supports

independence burst into the ballroom, pointed fingers at the

panel of U.S. legislators and yelled, ``120 years of

colonialism!''

The majority of the audience booed the group and yelled at

them to leave as U.S. lawmakers called for calm. ``Democracy

is not always pretty, but it's necessary,'' said Rep. Raul

Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the U.S. House of Natural

Resources Committee, which oversees affairs in U.S.

territories.

The proposal of a binding plebiscite--a measure that has

not yet been introduced in committee--has frustrated some on

an island that already has held seven unilateral, nonbinding

referendums on its political status, with no overwhelming

majority emerging. The last referendum was held in November

2020, with 53 percent of votes for statehood and 47 percent

against, with only a little more than half of registered

voters participating.

Luis Herrero, a political consultant, said during the

hearing that even if enough people support statehood, there

are not enough votes in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a

state: ``Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Since 1898,

Puerto Rican statehood has been a mirage, lip service to

score cheap political points or to raise a few dollars for a

campaign.''

Saturday's hearing comes amid ongoing discontent with

Puerto Rico's current political status, with the U.S. Supreme

Court further angering many in April after upholding the

differential treatment of residents of Puerto Rico. In an 8-1

vote, the court ruled that making Puerto Ricans ineligible

for the Supplemental Security Income program, which offers

benefits to blind, disabled and older Americans, did not

unconstitutionally discriminate against them.

As a result, many of those who spoke at Saturday's public

hearing welcomed the proposed binding plebiscite.

``We finally see the light at the end of the tunnel,'' said

Victor Perez, a U.S. military veteran who lamented the

current political status. ``Even after all our service and

sacrifice, we come back home and we are denied full voting

rights and equality. . . . We cannot vote for our president,

our commander in chief,

(but) they send us to war.''

Grijalva said the testimonies given Saturday will help him

and other legislators revise the proposed measure, which he

said is a way to make amends. He said he hopes it will go to

the House floor by August. If eventually approved, it would

be held on Nov. 5, 2023.

Acevedo, the former governor, said he hasn't lost hope

despite numerous attempts throughout the decades to change

the political status of Puerto Rico, which became a U.S.

territory in 1898 following the SpanishAmerican War.

``A solution to this problem of more than 120 years has to

happen at some point,'' he said. ``When will conditions allow

for it? That's unpredictable.''

Madam Speaker, it is clear something needs to change. Puerto Ricans don't want to continue under the island's territorial status for many reasons--namely because while the status recognizes its people as U.S. citizens, it doesn't allow them to vote in Presidential elections, denies them certain crucial Federal benefits, and limits their congressional Representative's voting power.

The Puerto Rico Status Act is a good solution that will allow Puerto Ricans to decide themselves what the next steps should be. We should give them that opportunity.

The gentleman talked about process in terms of how this House is being operated. Let me remind the gentleman--and let me remind all my colleagues--that the last time the Republicans were in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House--they controlled everything, and I mean everything--the last time they did that, do you know what they did?

They shut the government down and walked away. That is not responsible governing. That was unconscionable.

And leading up to that government shutdown in the Rules Committee we had an emergency meeting, on what?

Cheese.

Don't even ask me to explain that, but that is what they did. They had an emergency meeting in the Rules Committee, and it was a meeting on cheese.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a HuffPost article titled: ``House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting On Cheese As Shutdown Approached.''

[From HuffPost, Dec. 22, 2018]

House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting on Cheese as Shutdown

Approached

(By Amy Russo)

As the federal government was heading for a shutdown Friday

night, House Republicans called an emergency meeting.

Plot twist: it was about cheese.

During her broadcast that evening, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow

appeared astonished while reporting on the gathering, which

was arranged so that lawmakers could discuss the Curd Act, a

proposal to allow some cheeses to be advertised as

``natural'' despite having artificial ingredients.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was clearly irked, feeling the

timing was pretty inconvenient.

``This is an emergency meeting that we're having here and

I've seen some surreal things around this place, but this is

really something,'' McGovern said. ``Vital parts of our

government are about to shut down in just a few hours, and

the Republicans have called an emergency meeting on cheese.''

Venting his frustration with Republicans in the room,

McGovern wondered whether his colleagues had thought about

how the meeting would look to the public, which would soon be

faced with the third shutdown of the year.

``I mean, has anybody considered how ridiculous this is or

how bad the optics are as the American people are watching

what's going on here?'' he asked. ``By all means, if you

think the most important thing we have to discuss right now

is cheese, I'll let you have at it.''

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) eventually jumped in to defend

the meeting, calling the cheese bill ``important to small

business,'' then eventually segueing into the issue of

funding for the southern border wall, the key matter that

prompted the shutdown.

``We are being overrun on our southern border,'' Sessions

declared.

That's when McGovern piped up, appearing confused, asking,

``There's no wall in this bill, right?''

``It is important,'' Sessions argued back, clarifying that

he was ``not talking about the wall of cheese.''

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues seem to be confused about why we are moving quickly here.

Let me explain that simply in the last few hours that they were in charge, as I said, they called an emergency meeting on cheese. Don't get me wrong. I love cheese just as much as everybody else in this Chamber does. But I think the systematic disenfranchisement of millions of American citizens is a little bit more important than cheese. Maybe my Republican colleagues disagree.

I also point out that this is not the last day of this Congress. We will be here to complete our business on an omnibus appropriations bill. But I want the American people to understand how my Republican friends have acted in these last few days. We are still trying to work out the details of this government spending bill. We are working with Republicans and trying to come up with some sort of an accommodation. We need a little bit more time.

What we voted on yesterday was a continuing resolution to keep the government running a few more days so we don't have a shutdown and to work out the details. It is not the final package. Lots of stuff still remains to be figured out.

But what we said is that we need to pass a short-term continuing resolution for a few days so that we can work out those details and so we don't shut the government down and cause all kinds of chaos because we know what government shutdowns do.

I think it is really interesting for people to understand that 201 Republicans voted to shut the government down. If they succeeded, then the government would shut down tomorrow. They voted to shut the government down--

Who does that?

What are they thinking?

All because there is a small group of people here in the

House whose allegiance to Trump and the hard-line rightwing

fringe of the Republican Party say they don't want to have

any kind of deal. They don't want to govern. They would

rather shut the government down costing the economy billions

and billions of dollars, causing all kinds of uncertainty,

and hurting the American people.

They did that before. If they had their way, then the government would be shut down tomorrow. Talk about irresponsible.

So I also should point out that every Democrat--215 Democrats--who voted yesterday voted to keep the government running. So apparently, Members of the Republican Party do not think they are responsible for governing. They vote ``no'' on everything--on everything--and they criticize us for the way we do the job that they won't do.

We heard the gentleman criticize President Biden for dealing with the drug crisis at the border, for actually seizing fentanyl. He is getting criticized because we are seizing it at the border.

Really?

Madam Speaker, this is simple. The legislation that this rule will bring to the floor gives the people of Puerto Rico a choice--one that they deserve--to determine their status. It is past time we provide them this opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of relationship they want with the United States moving forward.

So that is what this rule will do. It will bring that bill to the floor.

Before I close, Madam Speaker, I would just, again, urge my Republican friends: stand up to the Freedom Caucus, stand up to the hard-line rightwing in your conference who says ``no'' to everything. Put the American people first. Put people over politics.

That is something that I think is not an unreasonable request.

The idea that over 200 of my friends voted to shut the government down yesterday?

Give me a break.

So we are going to do our work, and we are going to pass this bill today. We are going to get to an agreement on an omnibus bill that will help the American people. That will be next week. And we are going to do our job because we believe our job is to govern. That is the responsible thing to do, not shut the government down. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Madam Speaker, introduced in July 2022, H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, would authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to occur on November 5, 2023, and it would dictate to the voters of Puerto Rico three and only three choices: independence, sovereignty and free association, or statehood. If no one option receives a majority vote, there will be a runoff on March 3, 2024.

I cannot support this measure because of process concerns and wide- ranging policy changes that involve the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, along with several

other House committees that haven't even seen this bill.

The Committee on Natural Resources has not held a hearing on this bill, nor have the other committees with expertise on complex issues of U.S. citizenship, taxation and entitlement programs, foreign policy, and many other matters. None of them have been given an opportunity to openly consider, debate, and amend this bill.

The question of Puerto Rico's political status is a life-altering decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Just as we would expect the people of Puerto Rico to deliberate its questions, understand its consequences, and accept responsibility for the choice, so should Congress.

These issues are far too important for this body to act without proper deliberation. Because of the hasty and secretive process that was used to develop this bill, it contains many concerning and unresolved issues.

The bill contradicts itself, offering Puerto Rico the promise of independence while prescribing actions that should be taken by the newly sovereign nation. How can you be independent yet have another nation dictate what your actions will be?

It promises the trappings of U.S. citizenship without the responsibilities of being a part of the United States.

It is unfortunate that we are here considering this legislation on the House floor after the majority has held backroom negotiations instead of open, transparent hearings and markups. A regular and open legislative process would have allowed Members of this body and the people of Puerto Rico--more than 3 million United States citizens--to fully assess what this bill proposes and what it means for this and future generations.

In fact, the majority made changes to the bill that had even less consideration than the version ordered to be reported by the Committee on Natural Resources in July, cutting backroom deals as recently as this week.

We learned this bill would be on the floor even before we had the text from the Rules Committee. We didn't even know what we would be debating when we learned this bill would be on the floor.

Madam Speaker, there is a favorite Latin expression of mine. It is lux et veritas. It means light and truth. This body, this Congress, and this Federal Government could use a lot more light and truth.

You see, without light, when you are in the darkness, you don't know what truth is. If you don't know what truth is, then you make bad policy decisions.

Unfortunately, the lack of transparency seems to be par for the course in Congress anymore. This bill should have been debated. It should have had light shone on it.

This is just bad policy. I don't see how anybody could read this bill and think that there are not problems with it, that there is not a lack of logic. There is incoherence in the text of the bill, and it is taking us to a position where we would make bad decisions.

Here we are, just a week after this Chamber was left guessing what would be in the final NDAA and while we are currently guessing what will be in a last-minute omnibus spending bill that will, no doubt, be rolled out in the dark of night. This is another example of what is so broken about this process, what is so broken about the way this majority has led.

If this majority were interested in helping Puerto Rico, we would be advancing legislation to address the reliability of the island's energy grid, ensure its fiscal solvency, repair its infrastructure, or meet any of the other tangible needs for the people of Puerto Rico.

We should be treating these U.S. citizens with respect and letting a full and robust legislative process in the light of day take place to address the status question and the many implications for the people of Puerto Rico and for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8393, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to be as crystal clear as I can. I think this is not only my position, but I believe it is the position of everyone in the minority--the whole Republican Conference and I would hope it would be the position of all of the Democratic Caucus--that America is not a symbol of darkness.

America is still a shining city on a hill. America offers more hope and more protections for freedom than anybody in the history of the world has offered and will continue to offer that. A country that is founded on the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be considered a country that is a symbol of darkness.

I heard a lot of talk about colonialism. But passing a bill that tells a sovereign nation what its laws should be sounds a lot like colonialism to me.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman, the leader of the Democratic Party, for his remarks. I agree with many things that he said. I think all of us would agree with many of the things that he stated. I was with him right up there until the part about using D.C. statehood as a metaphor with Puerto Rican statehood. If the gentleman wanted to talk about the residents of D.C., we can talk about taking those residential neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods in D.C. and putting them back with the State of Maryland if that is an issue. D.C. statehood is totally different from Puerto Rican statehood, and it shouldn't even be brought into this discussion.

The gentleman talked about the inherent right to self-determination. He said it is something that shouldn't be dictated by the Congress of the U.S. to the people of Puerto Rico. He said the decision belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. Their destiny belongs to them. I think we would all agree with that in principle, but that is not what this bill says.

Section 102 talking about the independence option. I am reading directly from the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 101 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''

We all agree that should happen, but if they are an independent nation, what right do we have to tell them that? It says it shall include: ``Due process and equal protection under the law; freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion; the rights of the accused; any other economic, social, and cultural rights as the constitutional convention may deem appropriate and necessary; and provisions to ensure that no individual born in the nation of Puerto Rico shall be stateless at birth.''

I don't disagree with that, but if they vote for independence, what right do we have to dictate to them how they write their constitution and what is included in it?

The other option of free association, section 202 of the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 201 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees

the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''

Again, if they have the sovereignty under a free association, what right does Congress have to dictate what their constitution will say? The leader's words that their destiny shouldn't be dictated by the U.S. Congress. Their destiny belongs to them. Yet, this bill tells them what they shall do if they vote for either of those options.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

If there is one thing that I think has come out in this discussion is that there are problems with this bill. It is not a ``perfect piece of legislation.'' It needs work done on it.

But we have to look at what the bill says. The way this bill is written, if it were to pass today, if it passes out of this House and it went through the process in the Senate, signed by the President, then we have abrogated all of our responsibilities and authority, because it doesn't come back to Congress for any kind of approval.

So both sides have agreed, in a bipartisan manner, that this bill has problems, yet we are voting on it today to

say, with problems, that is okay; we are just going to go ahead and move it through the process, even though we have all recognized that there are problems with the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Our neighbors in Puerto Rico are American citizens. They are afforded the protections under the Constitution of the United States. I am from Arkansas. Arkansas was a territory at one time. There is a process for becoming a State.

The American citizens in Puerto Rico deserve the respect to have a process that has actually been thought out, that has been debated, and that gives them an opportunity to enter statehood in a way that is more common to the way other States have entered. This bill is not that. This bill has serious problems with it.

We are right here at the end of Congress. To me, this just looks like a political ploy as we are waiting to pass a massive spending bill before we go home for Christmas and start the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, in closing, it is obvious there is bipartisan support for Puerto Rican self-determination. That is not the issue. The issue is the process, and this is a bad process.

If this is so important to the majority, then I ask: Why today? Why today?

Less than 20 days before this Congress ends and Democrats transition to the minority, why bring this bill today?

Was there not time in the past 4 years to have hearings on this bill, to have other committees look at this bill?

But yesterday, we get notice of an emergency Rules Committee meeting to consider this bill that all of a sudden is so important, but it wasn't important, certainly not in this Congress. We didn't have a hearing on this bill. We had a markup, a markup without a hearing.

The committee spent more time talking about big cats. We had hearings on big cats, then we talked about Puerto Rican status. There are 10,000 big cats in the United States, and there are over 3 million Puerto Rican citizens.

That is why we are not supporting this bill today, and that is why it is disingenuous to bring it to the House less than 20 days before the end of this Congress when both sides have agreed that there are problems with the bill, problems that need to be worked out, but there is no recourse in this bill for Congress to have a second look at it.

We can't control the Senate, but I doubt very seriously the Senate is going to be taking up this bill. So that leads me to conclude that what we are doing here at the end of December, discussing Puerto Rican status, is simply just a political ploy on the backs of the

Puerto Rican citizens of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1519, I call up the bill (H.R. 8393) to enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8393.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8393, legislation I was proud to introduce along with my colleagues, Representatives Nydia Velazquez and Darren Soto, Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez- Colon, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, to resolve Puerto Rico's territorial status.

This bill being on the floor today was far from assured. There were many times over the past several weeks when it appeared there wasn't any hope of ever bringing this bill to the floor. In fact, my colleagues and I were negotiating final changes as recently as 24 hours ago.

But with the prodding of Leader Hoyer, we persevered. In spite of opposition to the historic nature of what we are about to accomplish, we persevered.

I commend and congratulate my colleagues who put aside their philosophical differences and worked to arrive at a compromise that we can all support.

Last year, the Natural Resources Committee held two legislative hearings where Puerto Rican-elected government officials, legal and human rights experts, and residents offered testimony and feedback to the committee on the details of those bills.

Those bills that we were discussing were two bills, one dealing primarily with statehood status and the other one seeking a self- determination path. Those two bills were diametrically opposed, and until the negotiations began, little progress was seen moving the question of status forward.

The Puerto Rico Status Act combines important elements of these two bills to present a compromise that also incorporates input from the full range of voices among Puerto Rico's status debate and that would be supported by a majority of Members of Congress. That is the bill that we bring forward today.

We had in-person public hearings, including with over 100 individuals who shared comments and suggestions on the text with the delegation at our public forum in Puerto Rico. In addition to these in-person opportunities for public input, we also published the draft text on POPVOX, an online submission tool that members of the public used to share more than 100 comments, all of which were reviewed and considered while developing the final language.

The Puerto Rico Status Act is, therefore, the product of a participatory and informed process. It incorporates expertise and knowledge from a wide range of stakeholders who have grappled with the dilemma of Puerto Rico's second-class political status for many years.

Finding a resolution to Puerto Rico's political status has been elusive and difficult, and it has been that way for a long time. Recent efforts to resolve the issue began in 1991 with competing bills introduced in the House and Senate, followed by legislation sponsored by our former colleague Don Young in 1998, and finally the Puerto Rico Democracy Act in 2010, sponsored by then-Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner and current Governor Pierluisi.

While each of those previous bills passed the House, as we hope our bill will today, as well, they ultimately failed because they did not possess the necessary elements to end the colonial status of the island through a fair and informed process.

In becoming chair of the Natural Resources Committee, I made the issue of resolving Puerto Rico's political status a priority. It is crucial to me that any proposal from Congress to decolonize Puerto Rico be informed and led by Puerto Ricans.

As a non-Puerto Rican, I cannot claim the experience of Puerto Ricans who have fought for equality and autonomy for their island for so many years. However, as someone of Mexican descent and indigenous ancestry, I feel a sense of solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico in that enduring struggle. We continue to strive for equality and preserve our traditions, as we all do that, and that struggle is a shared experience among marginalized and disenfranchised people in this country and in Puerto Rico.

I am proud to be discussing a piece of legislation, a proposal, today that assists the people of Puerto Rico to directly be involved in determining their political future.

In recent years, we have seen all too painfully that the current colonial territory status is no longer viable and is incapable of providing either adequate political or economic benefits to the people of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico's current status is what impedes its economic development. PROMESA and its financial oversight and management board, the shortcomings of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, or PREPA, and the inadequate Federal response under the previous administration to disasters like Hurricane Maria and the COVID-19 pandemic, these are all products of the current territorial status.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have only further clarified that, as a territory, Puerto Rico lacks the same constitutional protections and rights as in the 50 States.

This bill would finally stop offering the problem as a continued solution and would let the people of Puerto Rico choose a nonterritory, noncolonial status for themselves.

I am extremely grateful to all the political and community leaders, residents, and staff who worked to produce this compromise and contributed to this bill.

I thank House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; the Governor of Puerto Rico, Pedro Pierluisi; Representatives Velazquez, Soto, and Ocasio- Cortez; and Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon for their leadership and dedication throughout a difficult but very necessary process.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the only point of darkness that I can see is the greatest democracy on Earth, the United States of America, and what this bill does is provides some light and consistency to that great democracy by saying you must rid yourself of this colonial legacy. Our great Nation should not be a colonial holder of other countries and other futures. This is an opportunity to break from that and to encourage democracy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). As I indicated earlier, my thanks go to her for her work, as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), someone who, with other colleagues, worked through this difficult process and produced the consensus today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez), one of the principals that worked on this consensus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This has been a typical debate on Puerto Rico because the question of status and the question of decolonizing our relationship with the people of the island is a question that causes spirited debate. That is okay, but spirited debate with misinformation and hastily drawn conclusions is not the way to debate. We will leave that for another day.

The important point today is that this did not get parachuted at the last minute. This has been a difficult process for all involved, and, I might add, a bipartisan process, to bring one final resolution regardless of where the clock is in terms of this session. This is the time that this was completed.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of this, and I am urging a ``yes'' vote on the legislation.

There are two fundamental differences between ourselves and the minority on this. The intent of the bill is simple: that there be three options, all requiring a deliberate and informed decision by the people of the island.

The current status is not one of those three options. Why? Because the intent of this legislation is to allow the Puerto Rican people not to be colonized and be a colony. That is the decolonization part of the legislation.

The other part, although it has been the habit lately of people wanting not only to predict outcomes of elections but to guarantee outcomes of elections, contrary to that philosophy, this directs that the people of Puerto Rico make the decision and respect that decision.

Our identity as a Nation is built on the values that we are all here to support and respect. It is built on the rule of law. The people of Puerto Rico, as citizens of this Nation, must be extended the respect and the consideration that, since 1898, we have been the overseer of a colony in this country. We must extend them the opportunity to choose their path forward.

That is all it is. It is democratic; it is fair; and it is overdue.

Madam Speaker, I thank all the Members who worked on this--in particular, Representatives Velazquez, Soto, Gonzalez-Colon, and Ocasio-Cortez--for the difficult periods and times they went through in this process, and obviously Majority Leader Hoyer for his insistence, his prodding, and, on occasion, his calmness to get us to this point.

I thank the staff on our committee: chief counsel, Luis Urbina; deputy chief counsel, Margarita Varela; policy aide, Ivan Robles; staff director, David Watkins; and director of our Office of Insular Affairs, Brian Modeste.

I also thank each and every one on Leader Hoyer's staff: Trent Bauserman and Chris Bowman; also Renata Beca-Barragan on Ms. Velazquez's staff; Gabriella Boffelli on Miss Gonzalez-Colon's staff; and Andrea Valdes on Mr. Soto's staff for their hard work and dedication to getting us to this point today. Sometimes that kind of work is underappreciated. I acknowledge their work and thank them.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have been working on this issue almost all of my career in the Congress of the United States.

The previous gentleman said: Let's do it right.

This does it right. This does it after years and years and years and years and years of consideration.

I hesitate because I agree, I think, almost in whole with the remarks that Mr. Westerman has made. Mr. Westerman is a Member of the Congress that I respect. He and I work on things that we think are very important to mankind, here in this country and around the world, in terms of our global environment.

America is a great nation. It is a generous nation. I have said throughout the world that America is the least acquisitive great power that has existed in the world.

What do I mean by acquisitive?

We did not fight wars to take property and to acquire countries, to do what Putin criminally does today. In fact, what we did in those wars in which we have participated in was to build up countries, and they are now democracies: Germany, Japan, Italy, and other nations which we have occupied for a temporary period of time to make sure they were free and help them be free. This bill is about the Puerto Rican people and their island.

And to redeem a premise that we have argued to all the world ought to be central to their policies. That is the right of peoples to self- determination. The right of peoples to say: This is who I am, and this is the political environment in which I want to live--by free votes, not arms, not force, but by the choice of the people. That is what this legislation does.

Puerto Ricans and people of Puerto Rican descent have had an important place in the American family for over a century. They contribute to American culture. They help protect America's national security. They support the American economy and our shared prosperity.

They are American citizens. We made that decision because that was our decision to make whether we were going to allow them to be American citizens or not. Frankly, whether they have any relationship with us or not is our American Congress' decision. They are today American citizens like all of us.

For far too long, however, the people of Puerto Rico have been excluded from the full promise of American democracy and self- determination that our Nation has always championed. We owe it to our own values, and we owe it to the Puerto Rican people to bring an end to their island's 124-year-old status as a U.S. territory.

Less than us. Less than Maryland. Less than Virginia or Oregon or Texas or Maine or Washington State. Yes, they are citizens but less-- 3\1/2\ million people are less. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all are created equal. Now, not all people ought to be U.S. citizens because of that comment, but all citizens ought to be equal. That

is why I am for D.C. statehood--700,000-plus people. Citizens. Our people.

They are franchised if they move to Maryland and disenfranchised if they move from Maryland to D.C. That is not right. We passed a bill to say that was not right. This is another opportunity to give the people of Puerto Rico the ability to set it right, and we make that decision.

The gentleman is correct. We don't have to give that right to Puerto Ricans, we make that decision, and we ought to make it. That is what this bill is about--making that decision to give our fellow citizens a choice--their choice, not our choice.

The gentlewoman from New York, a wonderful, dear, close friend of mine, she and I have disagreed through the years as to what that choice ought to be. But what we agree on is it is not our choice; it is Puerto Rico's choice. That is why I am proud to bring the Puerto Rico Status Act to the floor today.

This bipartisan legislation would organize and fund a binding, island-wide plebiscite that would allow the people of Puerto Rico to vote among these three options:

Statehood. That would be my option. If I were a Puerto Rican and I were living in Port-au-Prince or wherever I was living, I would vote to be a State. That is not my choice, I don't live there, I am not in Puerto Rico. San Juan--I said Port-au-Prince. San Juan. It ought to be their choice, and that is what this bill does--statehood.

Independence. They have a right to do that. They are either going to be a State or they will have a right to determine their own destiny, their own status, or as the bill also gives them an option to do, be a sovereign State with an association with our country.

Now, that has to be done through agreement because we have to make that decision as well as the Puerto Ricans. That would have to be an agreement between us, and both sides would have to be willing partners to that agreement.

Additionally, it would implement comprehensive, nonpartisan public- education campaigns to help voters understand the implications of each option long before any ballots are cast.

The gentlewoman from New York has made it an essential part of her argument that the people of Puerto Rico have to know what they are voting on and what the consequences of that vote will be. Ms. Ocasio- Cortez has made that same point correctly.

This bipartisan bill also includes a variety of oversight measures to ensure that the election is secure, transparent, and fair.

I have long-believed that Puerto Ricans deserve the right to determine their political destiny. This is not a new concept for me. I don't think it is a new concept for any of us in this Congress. We believe in self-determination of peoples. We believe that dictators cannot impose upon people a government they do not choose. That is bedrock belief for us. That is what this bill is about.

A group of House Members and senior Puerto Rican officials--I am honored that my former colleague and my dear friend is on the floor with us today, Pedro Pierluisi. The Governor has been selected by the people of Puerto Rico.

I am honored to be the friend of and ally of the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico who is the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, who has worked tirelessly with Nydia Velazquez, with the rest of us, in ensuring that the people of Puerto Rico have an honest, fair choice available to them to affect their status, and to reach the long-sought consensus on a path forward for self-determination.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Grijalva. This has been a long and torturous path because the disagreements about how we get to where we want to get are so difficult. Chairman Grijalva deserves great praise from all of us for his patience, for his knowledge, for his wisdom, for his role that he played in trying to bring this to a head. He has done it, it is here on this floor, and he is responsible for that.

Madam Speaker, I thank the members of the Natural Resources Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the staff for the work that they have done--tireless hours and difficult discussions, debates, and so much disharmony from all those, both the diaspora and those in Puerto Rico--strong feelings that had to be brought to bear to reach this consensus.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez; Representative Darren Soto, who is on the floor and perhaps is going to speak after me; Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner that I have spoken of, Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon; and you, Governor.

Madam Speaker, the Governor and I have had the opportunity to work together when you were a Member of this House. We passed a bill that this House passed saying that the Puerto Rican people ought to have a choice, so this is not new. The previous gentleman wasn't here in Congress then--I don't know that, but I don't think he was. This is not new. This has not been done haphazardly. This has been done carefully with difficult efforts made by all parties.

All of the people that I mentioned, I thank for their efforts to reach this historic consensus and action on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico. We are all in agreement that the decision must belong to the people of Puerto Rico alone. Their destiny ought to be up to them.

The Puerto Rican Status Act, of which we will consider in just a few minutes, will give them that choice. They will have that choice only if we vote ``yes.'' If we do not vote ``yes'' today, I fear we may not vote ``yes'' for a very long time. The people of Puerto Rico would be held in a status that I believe the majority of them do not want to be in.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to represent the values of America in this vote. The values that say to us that people have the inherent right to self- determination, not to have it imposed upon them by force or by dictate of the Congress of the United States, but to choose a status of their choosing, of their desire, of their vision. Vote for this status bill, it represents the best of American values. We have a moral responsibility to do so.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act. This is a bill that received an emergency Rules hearing yesterday with just 3 hours' notice, 3 hours for an issue that deserves to be heard through regular order.

H.R. 8393 would authorize a federally sponsored, taxpayer-funded election to be held in Puerto Rico on 5 November 2023. This election would require the voters of Puerto Rico to choose between three status options: independence, sovereignty and free association, or U.S. statehood.

You might notice something missing here. This bill doesn't even give Puerto Ricans the option to preserve their current status as a territory of the United States. So not only do House Democrats want to control how the States run their elections, they now want to control how Puerto Rico runs their elections.

H.R. 8393 even takes things a step further than that. If Puerto Ricans vote to become a sovereign or independent nation, this legislation tells them what they have to include in their new constitution, how they have to ratify their constitution, and how elections for government officers should take place.

My friends across the aisle want to talk about colonial power. What does that sound like?

Further, this bill would completely circumvent congressional authority by not allowing Congress to ratify the option that Puerto Rico ultimately chooses.

The question of Puerto Rico's statehood is a serious topic, one that I am not necessarily opposed to, but it is a topic that deserves a deliberative process with careful consideration and expert input.

There have been numerous hearings on this issue, but there were no hearings on this specific bill. There has been no vetting of legal implications of using this unprecedented, self-executing process to statehood.

This is not a question that should be run through a lameduck Congress on the last day of a scheduled session with less than 24 hours' notice. That is unacceptable.

Again, I am not debating the merits of Puerto Rican statehood, but I am pointing out the glaring problems in this ill-conceived, half-baked legislation that leaves too many questions unanswered.

House Democrats are doing nothing more today than using Puerto Ricans as pawns to score cheap political points with a bill that has zero chance of becoming law.

Let's just be frank and honest about that. This bill has zero chance of becoming law this session of Congress. It is a joke that we are even considering it today.

We owe it to the voters of Puerto Rico to do better than this. They deserve more.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to whether my friend has any additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have already talked about the fact that this bill did not go through regular order. It is even questionable whether the committee that heard this hearing has jurisdiction to consider this bill.

I haven't even touched on the fact that the status options that are called for don't give Puerto Rico the chance to keep its current status. The status quo is totally off limits.

We have also talked about dictating to a sovereign nation what is in their constitution. It also, as I said before, abrogates constitutional authority. This has never been done before.

Also, there is no CBO score on this. We have zero idea how much this is going to cost. This also doesn't take into consideration PROMESA which is the financial oversight and management board that helps Puerto Rico.

A big glaring issue here is citizenship. We haven't had a single hearing on how this would affect citizenship.

So you are in Puerto Rico and born to two U.S. citizens, what happens to your status?

Are you a U.S. citizen or not?

That is not considered in this bill.

So, again, this bill is half-baked. It didn't go through regular order, and it didn't go through proper committees of jurisdiction, yet here we are considering it in a lameduck session.

I am incredibly disappointed by this. I am here just 1 day after this bill was

considered in a hearing that was held in the Rules Committee debating legislation scheduled on, again, the last day of the 117th Congress. Again, this bill has zero chance of becoming law. We are wasting the time of the American people.

I have said it repeatedly, but it requires saying again: we have real crises that this Nation is facing. Our southern border is one great example.

At no time has our southern border been more dangerous and more unstable than right now. This past fiscal year set the record for encounters of illegal immigrants, also a record for migrant deaths, a record for apprehension of suspected terrorists, and a record for seizure of fentanyl at the southern border.

The seizure of fentanyl might sound as if we are doing something good, but we only interdict less than 10 percent of the fentanyl. So if our fentanyl seizures are up, then the amount of fentanyl coming into the United States is, of course, up. Yet with all that, congressional Democrats won't even acknowledge that there is a problem at our southern border. Even the Biden administration won't admit the gravity of the situation.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, has said: ``Our border is secure.''

That is gaslighting. That is gaslighting the American people. President Biden himself has said: ``There are more important things going on.''

He refuses to even visit the southern border. That is gaslighting, and that is also dereliction of duty.

Further, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of funding the government, despite spending most of last year passing trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has done nothing but driven up inflation, driven up our national debt, and has seen real wages decrease for working Americans.

So now we are letting two Senators who won't even be in office next year ram through a massive omnibus spending bill that was written behind closed doors and without the input of House Republicans.

So with today's rule, House Democrats are, once again, refusing to put forward solid legislation that has an actual chance of moving forward and bringing relief to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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