Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the adoption of a constitution by the U.S. Virgin Islands will provide additional autonomy for that territory. However, any constitution that is adopted should not be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as noted by the extensive comment provided by the U.S. Justice Department.

The House therefore should pass Senate Joint Resolution 33 today to state concerns with the Virgin Islands draft Constitution and urge remedying these issues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma has adequately described the purpose of this bill. I am pleased to lend my support to this bill, which will enable the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma to acquire land and put it into productive use at no cost to the taxpayer.

I also appreciate the sponsor, the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the chairman of the committee, for ironing out the minor technical concerns that were brought up in relation to gaming in the original version of the bill. I think those improvements add to this bill. This is a good bill as it has been amended, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico has adequately explained the purpose of H.R. 4445. As long as the pueblos and the State of Mexico are comfortable with this legislation, I have no objection to passing it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill as sponsored by our colleague from Alaska (Mr. Young). It resolves overlapping selections to the same parcels of land that were filed by the State of Alaska and the Bering Straits Native Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. As we learned during the committee hearing on this bill, there is no opposition to its enactment. So I am pleased to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, at this very moment, oil continues to flow into the Gulf of Mexico, and the urgency to address this crisis should not be forgotten or dismissed. It is important that we get to the bottom of the causes of this terrible tragedy. We need to know what went wrong and who did precisely what wrong. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the most immediate priorities.

Those priorities are, first, the leak must be stopped. Second, the oil must

be cleaned up because the livelihood of families and communities all along the gulf coast need help and support, and the well-being of wildlife and the environment must be cared for. And third, BP must be held 100 percent accountable and pay all the costs associated with this disaster.

This bill, as the distinguished chairman said, simply grants subpoena authority to the seven-member commission established and appointed by the President to look into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident, the resulting spill, and the response.

I support this bill and the commission having subpoena power to compel the disclosure of documents and the testimony of witnesses. Congress has passed laws to give subpoena power to similar commissions in the past, and it is fully appropriate to do so here.

To be clear, the authority granted in this bill allowing the commission to issue subpoenas covers BP and the companies involved in the drilling of this well, but it also fully covers the agencies and departments of the Federal Government. Not only must we get to the bottom of what these companies did and the failures that occurred, but we also must know what failures occurred by the government in their regulatory oversight and in responding to this spill.

But there is one concern with the wording of this bill, Madam Speaker, and the impact that it could have in prolonging the work of the commission beyond its 6-month timeframe set out by the President.

The bill allows the Attorney General to object to the commission issuing subpoenas for certain specified situations. Those situations are when criminal investigations and certain civil litigation may be harmed by the taking of testimony. That's understandable, Madam Speaker. Under the wording of the bill, however, the Attorney General must act to make known such an objection to a commission's subpoena ``without unnecessary delay.'' This vague term places no real time frame on the Attorney General to act.

When the commission itself is supposed to complete its work within 180 days of its first meeting, an open-ended delay that could occur due to the inaction of the Attorney General must be highlighted. This is particularly important, Madam Speaker, because the administration has partly justified its deepwater drilling moratorium upon allowing the commission to complete its investigation.

Under the way this bill is drafted, the moratorium--which I might add suffered a serious legal blow yesterday by a Federal judge in Louisiana--could drag on much longer than publicly promised by the President. The economic toll that a prolonged commission and a prolonged deepwater moratorium could have on the economy of the gulf and the jobs of tens of thousands is very, very real. A stricter timeline for the Attorney General to review subpoenas could have prevented such a scenario. This was not done, and there is no opportunity, obviously, to offer amendments to this suspension bill. So Madam Speaker, I raise this as an issue because the Commission and the Attorney General need to be diligent to avoid such a scenario.

This oil spill has unleashed a tragedy on the people and the environment in the gulf, but the Federal Government must not take actions that exacerbate this tragedy by not completing their work in a timely manner. The power to issue subpoenas is necessary to the commission's technical abilities to do their investigative work, but I must point out that questions are being raised about the seven persons selected and appointed by the President to his commission. So Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a selection of three pieces covering the commission.

The first is an Associated Press article entitled, ``Obama Spill Panel Big on Policy, Not Engineering.'' Another news article from The Times-Picayune entitled, ``Oil Spill Commission Coordinator Has Represented Environmental Groups.'' And third, a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled, ``The Antidrilling Commission: The White House choices seem to have made up their minds.''

The questions posed in these pieces and in other venues include: Do the past statements made and positions taken by several commission members in opposition to expanded offshore drilling affect their ability to act fairly and impartially? Will the general lack of engineering expertise among the commission members hinder their ability to fully grasp and get to the bottom of what happened in this accident? Will the absence of any drilling expertise among all seven commission members affect their pace of work or understanding of the matters they are charged with investigating? Will the pro cap-and-trade positions of several commission members transform this from an investigation into what went wrong with this incident into a pitch for a national energy tax? Will the commission's report ultimately be credible to all or be compromised due to the personal perspective of the members that the President appointed? Madam Speaker, only time will answer these questions.

I hope the commission is able to fully and fairly conduct its investigation into this incident and the government's response to it. We do need to know what went wrong so that reforms can be made to ensure American drilling is the safest in the world. We've got to have the facts in order to develop informed, effective solutions to make certain an accident like this never happens again.

So, Madam Speaker, the President's commission isn't the only entity looking into these questions. Congress too has a responsibility, and Congress should act when the facts are known. As subpoena power is necessary for this commission to undertake its work, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

[From the Associated Press]

Obama Spill Panel Big on Policy, Not Engineering

(By Seth Borenstein)

Washington.--The panel appointed by President Barack Obama

to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on

technical expertise but long on talking publicly about

``America's addiction to oil.'' One member has blogged about

it regularly.

Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard's

engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent

engineering background--but it's in optics and physics.

Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in

coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are

praised by other scientists.

The five other commissioners are experts in policy and

management.

The White House said the commission will focus on the

government's ``too cozy'' relationship with the oil industry.

A presidential spokesman said panel members will ``consult

the best minds and subject matter experts'' as they do their

work.

The commission has yet to meet, yet some panel members had

made their views known.

Environmental activist Frances Beinecke on May 27 blogged:

``We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can

blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster

and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame

where it originated: America's addiction to oil.'' And on

June 3, May 27, May 22, May 18, May 4, she called for bans on

drilling offshore and the Arctic.

``Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for

certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the

result of a failed energy policy,'' Beinecke wrote on May 20.

Two other commissioners also have gone public to urge bans

on drilling.

Co-chairman Bob Graham, a Democrat who was Florida governor

and later a senator, led efforts to prevent drilling off his

state's coast. Commissioner Donald Boesch of the University

of Maryland wrote in a Washington Post blog that the federal

government had planned to allow oil drilling off the Virginia

coast and ``that probably will and should be delayed.''

Boesch, who has made scientific assessments of oil spills'

effects on the ecosystem, said usually oil spills are small.

But he added, ``The impacts of the oil and gas extraction

industry (both coastal and offshore) on Gulf Coast wetlands

represent an environmental catastrophe of massive and

underappreciated proportions.''

An expert not on the commission, Granger Morgan, head of

the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie

Mellon University and an Obama campaign contributor, said the

panel should have included more technical expertise and

``folks who aren't sort of already staked out'' on oil

issues.

Jerry Taylor of the libertarian Cato Institute described

the investigation as ``an exercise in political theater where

the findings are preordained by the people put on the

commission.''

When the White House announced the commission, Interior

Secretary Ken Salazar and others made compared it with the

one that investigated the 1986 Challenger accident. This one,

however, doesn't have as many technical experts.

The 13-member board that looked into the first shuttle

accident had seven engineering

and aviation experts and three other scientists. The 2003

board that looked into the Columbia shuttle disaster also had

more than half of the panel with expertise in engineering and

aviation.

Iraj Ersahaghi, who heads the petroleum engineering program

the University of Southern California, reviewed the names of

oil spill commissioners and asked, ``What do they know about

petroleum?''

Ersahaghi said the panel needed to include someone like Bob

Bea, a prominent petroleum engineering professor at the

University of California, Berkeley, who's an expert in

offshore drilling and the management causes of manmade

disasters.

Bea, who's conducting his own investigation into the spill,

told The Associated Press that his 66-member expert group

will serve as a consultant to the commission, at the request

of the panel's co-chairman, William K. Reilly, Environmental

Protection Agency chief under President George H.W. Bush.

Adm. Hal Gehman, who oversaw the Columbia accident panel,

said his advice to future commissions is to include subject

matter experts. His own expertise was management and policy

but said his engineering-oriented colleagues were critical to

sorting through official testimony.

``Don't believe the first story; it's always more

complicated than they (the people testifying) would like you

to believe,'' Gehman said. ``Complex accidents have complex

causes.''

The oil spill commission will not be at a loss for

technical help, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

For one, he said the panel will draw on a technical

analysis that the National Association of Engineering is

performing. Also, members will ``consult the best minds and

subject matter experts in the Gulf, in the private sector, in

think tanks and in the federal government as they conduct

their research.''

That makes sense, said John Marburger, who was science

adviser to President George W. Bush.

``It's not really a technical commission,'' Marburger said.

``It's a commission that's more oriented to understanding the

regulatory and organizational framework, which clearly has a

major bearing on the incident.''

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

At this time, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire again as to how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this commission is necessary so the commission has subpoena power. I think everybody understands that and supports that. But we need to do the three things that I had mentioned earlier. And that is to cap the well, to clean up all of the oil that has spilled out, and to hold BP accountable. Those things I think have very, very strong bipartisan support.

The only issue is what has been addressed a few times at least from my perspective and in print about the objectivity of this commission. And of course, Madam Speaker, we all know that only time will tell when that judgment will be made. But if they work in an objective way, look at the facts, and come to a decision based on the facts rather than a political point of view, I think we'll all be better served by that.

And with that, I urge support of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that Democrat leaders have decided not to allow the House to vote on my amendment to improve the proposed Cobell Indian settlement, a settlement that benefits individual Indians across the country.

The amendment I offered was simple and addressed improvements requested of Congress by individual Indians, tribal leaders, and an association of more than 50 federally recognized tribes in the Northwest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, a settlement on this issue is long overdue, but the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration and the plaintiffs' lawyers can be improved by Congress to benefit individual Indians. And let me explain why.

While most of the Indians will get between a $500 and a $1,000 check, the lead plaintiff could receive $15 million or more as an incentive award. A handful of lawyers could be paid over $100 million, which is almost one-third of the value of the claims that they litigated.

Two months ago, the plaintiffs' attorneys were asked to provide Congress with documents to justify their large fees and expenses. After repeated inquiries, Mr. Speaker, the attorneys have provided no information to this date. Instead of responding with documents to justify how much they should be paid, the attorneys have instead threatened to kill the entire deal if they are denied the ability to get the $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize this. Every dollar paid to the lawyers is a dollar taken out of the pockets of individual Indians. My amendment caps attorneys' fees at $50 million, and by doing so, it reduces the payments to lawyers to increase payments to individual Indians. My amendment would also benefit individual Indians by correcting several other flaws that were identified by Indian country. The committee has the ability to fix these flaws on a bipartisan basis.

The settlement has been changed by the administration and the plaintiffs four times already. While the House won't be allowed to vote on this amendment to improve the settlement to better benefit individual Indians, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the Senate will act to make the improvements that Indians, tribal leaders, and respected tribal organizations are asking Congress to make.

Congress should be afforded the opportunity to fix the settlement in response to requests from our Indian constituents. By refusing to make my amendment in order, Democrat leaders have turned their back on these requests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the legislation before us today, which adds $54 billion to the deficit and imposes new taxes on job-creating businesses.

Make no question, Mr. Speaker, that I support a number of the provisions within this bill, including the extension of the state sales tax deduction that is so important to residents of my home state of Washington. In 2004, I was part of the effort that reinstated the state sales tax deduction for the first time in nearly 20 years. Since then, I have worked long and hard with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to extend this important provision and make it permanent.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated that instead of simply extending the state sales tax deduction and the other tax relief provisions that help Americans reinvest in our economy, the Democrat majority has chosen to tie these policies to a hodge-podge list of government spending programs that will have nothing to do with creating jobs and will balloon the deficit.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill includes permanent tax increases on job-creators--supposedly to ``offset'' the costs of extending current tax relief measures for one year. It simply makes no sense to give just a one-year temporary extension of the state sales tax deduction while permanently raising other taxes. At the same time, those who control Congress made no effort to offset $54 billion in government spending included in the bill.

This defies logic, and increases the already stifling burden of debt this Congress has saddled on our children and grandchildren.

While this bill includes some very worthy proposals that Congress needs to pass, I can't support permanent new taxes on business investment and job creation--especially at a time when our economy is struggling.

I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this bill, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues on legislation that will actually help put our nation's economy on the road to recovery.

Madam Speaker, millions of acres across our Nation are owned by the Federal Government, including national parks, forests, monuments, wilderness areas, and other lands. These lands belong to the American people and should be accessible to the public to enjoy.

The Hanford Reach National Monument located in my hometown includes Rattlesnake Mountain. I've been to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain, and it provides unparalleled views of the Monument, Hanford, and the Columbia River, and everybody should have an opportunity to appreciate that.

I'm introducing legislation that would ensure public access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain. My bill simply is about making sure that land owned by the American people is accessible to the entire Tri- Cities community--not something to be admired from afar and from behind a fence. Recognizing that people are allowed to go to the top of Mount Rainier, there is no reason why safe and regular access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain for the general public cannot and should not be provided.

Mr. Speaker, as today's debate begins on this very important issue, where opposition is obviously on both sides of the aisle, there are two basic points I wish to make: first, to express the fundamental unfairness of this rule for debate, as the previous speaker just pointed out; and second, to explain why the underlying bill violates this Nation's established precedents when it comes to admitting States in the Union.

First, this rule is unfair to both Republicans and Democrats. It is astonishing to me to see how the Democrat leaders are denying the amendments proposed and offered by Members of their caucus. Senior Democrat Members are being limited. Their amendments were blocked. Their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. And for what possible reason, Mr. Speaker? By what justification is this necessary and how is it fair?

In 1998, when the House last debated a similar Puerto Rican bill, there was an open rule, as Mr. Gutierrez mentioned. That rule was supported by both the Republican chairman and the ranking Democrat at that time, and it resulted in a full, all-day debate on this very important issue. So what is wrong with an open rule and a fair debate in 2010? This bill isn't about naming a post office; it is a bill that Congress is asking Puerto Rico if they want to become the 51st State. This is an important issue.

Amendments of importance, of ensuring Second Amendment rights by Puerto Rico if it becomes a State were blocked. Amendments to address the issue of English as an official language, that too was blocked.

Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. Actually, the previous question should be defeated. And if the House is going to consider this bill, it should do so under an open process.

Second, the reason why such a thorough debate is necessary is that this bill is a dramatic departure from past procedures by which a State has sought and been admitted into the Union. Look at Alaska, look at Hawaii just in the last century. Look at numerous other States. They all held local referendum on the question of their desire to become a State. When a strong majority expressed their desire to become a State, the results of those individual referendum were communicated to Congress, and it was then that Congress responded to those referendum.

In this bill that process is exactly backwards. This bill is asking if Puerto Rico wants to become a State.

This bill has Congress blessing statehood before Puerto Rico even expresses its will. This bill isn't needed for Puerto Rico to hold a self-determination vote on what they desire of their future political plans. Puerto Rico can conduct a vote right now, just like they have done three times previously.

Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to deviate from the precedent of Alaska, Hawaii, and other States where those territories self-initiated a communication to Congress and Congress responded by making them States.

So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unfair rule for those reasons. I think that Republicans and Democrats on this important issue ought to have as much time as we had in 1998 to debate this issue. With that, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

But there will be a rollcall vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In response to my good friend from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the committee, yes, it's true, I voted for the bill, but there is always more to the rest of the story.

In my opening remarks, I expressed doubt that this is the proper way to go. I expressed those doubts, but I know that this issue is something that needs to be resolved. I was hoping when it got to the floor of the House it might have an open rule so it could be perfected, but I wanted to find out more about this issue, and I found out more about these issues and why now I believe I should be in opposition to it. I called Governor Fortuno last Friday and told him of my decision on that, and he was very gracious when we had that conversation.

Now, as to this amendment, as I had mentioned, I think the Velazquez amendment accomplishes what I would want to accomplish in my amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Velazquez amendment when we have the rollcall.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have my amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the bill on Puerto Rico's future, this motion to recommit provides Members of the House an opportunity to register their views on questions of English as an official language and on the importance of protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, two amendments were filed with the Rules Committee to directly address the issues of the English language and Second Amendment gun rights. Both were blocked by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.

What that means, of course, is that Members have no opportunity to debate this issue. Making an amendment in order does not guarantee, obviously, the outcome. Yet we are even denied the opportunity of English as the official language and Second Amendment rights. So this motion to recommit simply combines these two issues in the motion to recommit. Let me explain specifically what the motion will do.

It will amend the description of ``statehood,'' which will appear on the plebiscite ballot authorized under this bill, to state: one, English will be the official language of the State, and all official business will be conducted in English; two, laws will be in place that will ``ensure residents have the Second Amendment right to own, possess, carry, use for self-defense, store assembled at home, and transport for lawful purposes, firearms and in any amount ammunition, providing that such keeping and bearing of firearms and ammunition does not otherwise violate Federal law.''

This MTR simply expresses the views on these two important issues. It has been asserted during the debate that providing for English as the official language is something unprecedented or that it is something which hasn't been talked about or whatever. That is simply not true, because four States were admitted to the Union, and part of that admittance was a requirement that English would be the official language.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty straightforward motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's past time for this Congress to stop jamming through massive expansions of the federal government and instead support commonsense reforms that will lower health care costs and increase choices for all Americans.

A bipartisan coalition in Congress and a vast majority of the American people today rejected the premise that government knows best how to run our American health care system. While it was impossible to stop the liberal majority from pushing through their government takeover of health care, House Republicans will lead the effort to repeal this legislation and replace it with real solutions to improve our health care system, without driving our nation deeper into debt.

House Democrats today went around the regular lawmaking process and pushed through their government takeover of health care using a closed approach that blocked consideration of any Republican amendments.

Improvements must be made to our health care system, but I reject the premise of this bill that government knows best how to run our health care.

I am disappointed that House Democrats voted for the very backroom deals and political payoffs that the American people are so tired of and for a massive health care plan that most Americans simply don't want.

This bill is about more spending, higher taxes, and more government control, all without lowering health care costs. This Congress is going in exactly the wrong direction by forcing every American to purchase government-approved insurance only, cutting Medicare, limiting who can own and operate hospitals, and eliminating health care choices.

There is something very wrong when this Congress is passing a bill that arbitrarily restricts the ability of doctor-owned hospitals like the Wenatchee Valley Medical and its clinics to grow, rather than working to expand access to health care in areas like Central Washington.

In the past 14 months, Democrats have given the federal government control of our banks, our car companies, our loans for college, and now our health care. I rejected those bills, and I oppose this government takeover of health care because I'm deeply concerned about the consequences that will be felt by every American.

I am committed to doing everything possible to undo this bill and get to work on commonsense reforms that will actually lower health care costs and increase choices.

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, when gas prices reached $4 a gallon, Republicans took to this House floor demanding that Congress take action.

The good news for Americans is that Congress responded by lifting the ban on offshore drilling, opening up over 500 million new acres to energy production.

The bad news is that immediately when President Obama took office, he completely halted this potential production. Now his Interior Secretary has announced a new Obama moratorium, a delay on leasing any new offshore areas for drilling until 2012.

That means that Americans will have to wait 4 years for a plan to open up new areas for offshore energy production. That means that no new drilling will occur during President Obama's entire term in office. And this means that Americans will lose out on new jobs while this administration keeps dragging its feet.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the delays and say ``no'' to the Obama moratorium and implement the 2010 plan to expand offshore drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, due to an unexpected illness I missed two votes on Thursday, March 18, 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 129 and 132. I would further like to note that I am a cosponsor of Mr. Griffith's resolution, H. Res. 1190, requesting an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill.

Madam Speaker, with millions of phone calls, emails and personal visits, the American people have made it clear to Congress that they want health care reform that lowers costs, not a government takeover of their health care system.

I support reforms that will lower the cost of health care and increase choices for Americans, but the fact is that the bills being pushed through Congress won't achieve these goals. They, instead, lead to higher spending and more government control.

Instead of listening to the American people, Democrats in Congress have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to have their trillion dollar health care proposal become law. These bills making their way through Congress ignore the clear desire of Americans to scrap the government takeover of health care, and they ignore the clear desire of Americans to start over again.

Congress must, instead, focus on commonsense solutions that reduce costs, increase choices, and help more Americans afford the coverage they deserve.

The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that Congress needs to start over on a new bill.