Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the most forceful and ambitious statehood admission bill for Puerto Rico in U.S. history. The bill, fittingly, has 51 original cosponsors from both parties.

Before I describe the bill, let me explain its background. In 2012, the Puerto Rico government sponsored a referendum in which voters rejected Puerto Rico's current territory status and expressed a clear preference for statehood.

In the 113th Congress, at my initiative, the President proposed and Congress approved an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored status vote in Puerto Rico's history. The funding will remain available until it is used by the Puerto Rico government.

While the law does not prescribe the exact format of the ballot, it does establish important conditions; namely, the law provides that the U.S. Department of Justice must certify that the ballot and voter education materials are consistent with U.S. law and policy.

The bipartisan bill I am introducing today flows from and builds upon the 2012 referendum and the Federal appropriation enacted in response to that referendum. In other words, this bill is being filed now because the strategic foundation is firmly in place.

Every action I take is designed to advance the statehood cause because it is beyond dispute that territory status is the main source of Puerto Rico's grave economic and social problems. My constituents have no interest in symbolic gestures or empty rhetoric. They care only about concrete steps that bring Puerto Rico closer to equality.

My bill would authorize a vote to be held in Puerto Rico within 1 year of the bill's enactment--that is, by no later than the end of 2017. The ballot would contain a single question: Shall Puerto Rico be admitted as a State of the United States?

To conduct this vote, the Puerto Rico government may use the $2.5 million that Congress already approved since this format clearly satisfies the conditions of the appropriations law. If a majority of voters affirm their desire for admission, the bill provides for an automatic series of steps to occur.

First, by February 2018, the President would issue a proclamation to begin Puerto Rico's transition to statehood.

Second, the President would appoint a commission to prepare a report that describes the Federal laws that treat the territory of Puerto Rico differently than the States. The commission would complete the report by July 2018. The congressional committees of jurisdiction could then enact legislation to phase in equal treatment of Puerto Rico during the transition period so the admission process is structured and orderly.

Third, in November 2020, the American citizens of Puerto Rico would vote for President and Vice President, two U.S. Senators, and voting Members of the U.S. House.

Finally, on January 1, 2021, the President would proclaim Puerto Rico to be a State. Puerto Rico's congressional Representatives would be sworn into office, and Puerto Rico would be treated on equal footing with all other States.

My bill is modeled on the legislation enacted by Congress with respect to Alaska and Hawaii. When Alaska and Hawaii were territories, they each held votes sponsored by their local governments in which voters expressed a desire for statehood. This is also what occurred in Puerto Rico in 2012.

Ultimately, Congress enacted an admission act for Alaska in 1958 and an admission act for Hawaii in 1959. Those acts of Congress provided for admission to occur once a majority of voters in each territory affirmed in a federally sponsored vote that they desired statehood. That is precisely what my bill would do with respect to Puerto Rico.

Every Member of Congress who cosponsors this bill is standing up for a powerful, powerful principle, which is this: the people of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, they have enriched the life of this Nation for generations, and they have fought and died to defend her.

If a majority of Puerto Rico's voters affirm their desire in a federally sponsored vote to become a full and equal part of the American family, the will of the people should be honored. Democracy requires no less.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Nation, including Puerto Rico, celebrated Martin Luther King Day. It is important to pause and reflect upon Dr. King's legacy and its relevance to the issue of Puerto Rico's political status.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. King was the most prominent leader of the civil rights movement for racial equality in the United States. He was physically brave, leading peaceful marches and other protests in parts of the country where some government officials and residents were willing to use violence and intimidation to maintain a system of segregation and discrimination.

Dr. King was also remarkably eloquent. His speeches and writings inspired men and women who already supported the campaign for racial equality, but they also changed the hearts and minds of individuals who initially opposed the cause. He helped many Americans who were living in moral darkness to see the light.

Dr. King was motivated by a sense of urgency. In a letter written from an Alabama jail, he stated that ``justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' But Dr. King was also strategic. Every action he took was carefully designed to advance the cause. He knew that means matter as much as ends, and he had little patience for advocates who lacked a sense of tactics and timing.

Dr. King traveled to Puerto Rico on at least two occasions, but it does not appear that he expressed a considered opinion about the island's political status. Nevertheless, based on Dr. King's philosophy, it is fair to presume that he would be very troubled by the situation in Puerto Rico.

Dr. King regarded the right to vote as sacred. In a 1957 speech delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he said:

So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the

right to vote, I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my

mind; it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic

citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact; I can

only submit to the edict of others.

Nearly 50 years after Dr. King's death from an assassin's bullet, the right to vote in Federal and local elections is guaranteed to all American citizens regardless of race, but only if they reside

in a U.S. State. The 3.6 million American citizens residing in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico are denied this sacred right, unable to vote for the Federal leaders who make the laws that govern every aspect of their lives. We lack the very right that Dr. King lived for and the right he died for.

The movement that Dr. King led was a quest for equal rights and equal opportunities for African Americans. However, the principle that lay behind the movement and that gave it such moral power has broader application. It is the belief that there is only one category of American citizenship, not a first-class citizenship for some and a second-class citizenship for others. Every day that Puerto Rico remains a territory, an undemocratic and undignified status, this principle is violated.

Dr. King taught us that achieving equality requires hard, determined, relentless work. It requires leaders who are both passionate and strategic, just as Dr. King was, but above all, it requires thousands upon thousands of ordinary men and women to unite around the principle, the principle of equality, and to fight for it until it is attained.

Dr. King's life is a testament to the fundamental truth that there is no force on Earth strong enough to stop a righteous cause pursued by righteous means. Our struggle to obtain equal rights and equal opportunities for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico is a struggle for justice, and with tireless effort, we will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke about Puerto Rico's mission to discard its status as a U.S. territory and to become a U.S. State. Today, I rise to inform my colleagues about the most recent phase of this mission.

A brief word of background. Puerto Rico has been a territory since 1898. Its status is incompatible with the principles this Nation strives to uphold at home and promotes abroad. There are 3.6 million American citizens in Puerto Rico. My constituents cherish their U.S. citizenship and have made countless contributions to this country in law, science, business, government, the arts, the armed services, and every other field of human endeavor. Yet they cannot vote for President, have no U.S. Senators, and send one Delegate to the House who has a voice but no vote in this Chamber.

The people of Puerto Rico, beyond lacking democratic rights, are deprived of equality under law. Congress has a license to discriminate against the territories, and Puerto Rico is treated worse than the States under a range of Federal programs. To compensate for the shortfall in Federal funding, the Puerto Rican government has borrowed heavily in order to provide adequate public services. This disparate treatment is the principal reason why Puerto Rico has endured severe economic problems for decades.

Inequality, both political and economic, is driving thousands of my constituents to depart for the States every month. It is human nature to go where you believe you can secure a better future for yourself and your family. However, residents of Puerto Rico have finally said enough is enough. They demand a status that is democratic and dignified, a proud status for a proud people.

In a referendum organized by the local government in 2012, voters in Puerto Rico rejected territory status and expressed a clear preference for statehood. In response, Congress provided an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history, with the clear goal of resolving the territory's status. This is the most significant step the Federal Government has ever taken to settle the status debate in Puerto Rico.

I have proposed that the funding be used to hold a federally sponsored ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State. Some have complained that Puerto Rico has already voted for statehood and should not have to vote again. This argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how Washington works. After expressing a strong desire for statehood in local referenda, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii each held federally sponsored ``yes'' or ``no'' votes on admission that led to statehood. If Puerto Rico wants to become a State, it must do the same.

My proposal has broad congressional support, since a bill I filed last Congress that endorsed this approach obtained 131 cosponsors and led to the filing of an identical Senate bill. My proposal also has significant local support. Yesterday, in a remarkable display of unity and resolve, all 22 members of the statehood delegation in the Puerto Rico house and all eight members of the statehood delegation in the Puerto Rico Senate introduced identical bills that proposed to use the appropriation from Congress to conduct a federally sponsored vote on Puerto Rico's admission as a State. Now all that remains is for Puerto Rico's Governor, speaker of the house, and senate president--each a defender of the failed status quo--to show some courage and schedule this vote. Real leaders do not fear the democratic process or its results.

Meanwhile, statehood forces continue our forward march, expanding in size and strength. Indeed, today statehood supporters are rallying outside the White House and are holding meetings here in Congress. In the coming weeks and months, our advocacy efforts will only intensify. As individuals, our ability to effect change is inherently limited, but as a united movement, we are as strong as steel. We are fighting for equality, and we will not stop until we achieve it.

Madam Speaker, as the new Congress begins its work on behalf of the American people, I rise to address my colleagues about an issue of national importance, namely Puerto Rico's quest to discard its status as a U.S. territory and to become a U.S. State.

Puerto Rico has been a territory since 1898. If Puerto Rico does not desire to remain a territory, it can follow one of two paths. The territory can become a State or it can become a sovereign nation, either fully independent from the U.S. or with a compact of free association with the U.S. that either nation can terminate. If Puerto Rico becomes a nation, future generations of island residents would not be American citizens.

My constituents have made countless contributions to the United States in times of peace and war, serving in every military conflict since World War I. They fight today in Afghanistan and other dangerous locations in the same units as young men and women from States such as Florida, Texas, and New Mexico. Many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice in battle. When they do, their casket is flown back to this country draped in the American flag.

It takes a special kind of patriotism to fight for a nation that you love, but one that does not treat you equally. Although Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 21 States, my constituents cannot vote for President, are not represented in the Senate, and have one nonvoting delegate in the House. Moreover, territory status gives Congress license to treat Puerto Rico worse than the States, and Congress often uses that license.

Everyone, other than apologists for the status quo, comprehends that territory status is the root cause of the economic crisis in Puerto Rico. As a result of the structural problems this status has created, residents of Puerto Rico are relocating to the States in staggering numbers.

I know it breaks their hearts to leave behind the island they love, but most see no other option; yet through the clouds, a bright sun is emerging. The people of Puerto Rico have finally said, ``No more.'' They have come to the conclusion that they deserve a status that is both democratic and dignified.

They will no longer tolerate being second-class citizens. They do not want special treatment; rather, they demand equal treatment, nothing more but nothing less.

The will of the Puerto Rican people was expressed in a 2012 referendum sponsored by the Puerto Rico Government. There, a majority of my constituents expressed their opposition to territory status.

Statehood received more votes than territory status, and statehood received far more votes than independence or free association, proving that Puerto Rico has no desire to weaken the bonds forged with the United States over nearly 12 decades. In short, statehood is now the predominant force in Puerto Rico.

At my urging and in response to this landmark referendum, the Obama administration proposed and Congress approved an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally-sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history with the stated goal of resolving the status issue.

I have proposed that the funding be used to hold a simple, federally sponsored yes-or-no vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State, just as Alaska and Hawaii did. This approach would yield a definitive result that nobody could reasonably question, and it has broad congressional support, since a bill I introduced last Congress that embodies this approach had 131 cosponsors and led to the filing of an identical Senate companion bill.

All that remains is for the Governor of Puerto Rico to schedule the vote; yet a year has passed, and we have seen only inertia and indecision, all talk and no action.

For my part, I will continue to press for action both in San Juan and in Washington, D.C., using any strategy and technique that will advance the statehood cause.

Since none of my colleagues in this Chamber representing States would accept territory status for their constituents, I know they will understand that I will not accept it for my constituents either.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 83, and commend my colleague, Mrs. Christensen, for her leadership in sponsoring this legislation. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and want to express my support for its passage by the full House of Representatives. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a team of experts to develop, and help implement, a plan for each territory to reduce reliance on imported oil and to transition to cleaner energy sources that will improve the environment and lower electricity costs.

A typical territory resident pays two to four times more for electricity than the U.S. national average. As an island that does not produce oil, coal or natural gas, Puerto Rico faces inherent energy challenges. Notwithstanding the progress that was made under the last administration in San Juan, which oversaw a nearly 15 percent increase in the use of natural gas and a doubling of the use of renewable sources, Puerto Rico still generates most of its electricity from imported oil.

Burning oil pollutes the air and explains why Puerto Rico has the highest rate of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in the nation. Oil is expensive and subject to sudden price shocks. The high cost of electricity strains family budgets and harms businesses.

The plan called for by H.R. 83 will help the governments of Puerto Rico and the other territories diversify their energy portfolios and reduce electricity rates. It is for these reasons that I urge passage of this bill. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for working with us to advance this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to provide an update on Puerto Rico's political status, which is an issue of national significance.

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States. Territory status is undemocratic. Although Puerto Rico is home to more American citizens than 21 States, island residents cannot vote for President, are not represented in the Senate, and have one nonvoting Delegate in the House.

Territory status is also unequal. As a recent GAO report confirms, Puerto Rico is deprived of billions of dollars each year because it is treated worse than the States under a range of Federal programs. Every objective observer understands that territory status is the underlying cause of the economic, fiscal, and demographic crisis that has enveloped Puerto Rico. History teaches a simple lesson: no people have ever reached their potential while being deprived of political rights and denied equality under the law. Puerto Rico is no exception to this rule.

If the people of Puerto Rico wish to discard territory status, there are two--and only two--paths forward. The territory can become a State on equal footing with the other States, or the territory can become a sovereign nation, either fully independent from the U.S., like the Philippines, or with a compact of free association with the U.S. that either nation can terminate, like the Republic of Palau. If Puerto Rico becomes a sovereign nation, future generations of island residents would not be American citizens and would receive reduced Federal support.

In a 2012 referendum sponsored by the Government of Puerto Rico, a majority of my constituents expressed their opposition to territory status, which means that Puerto Rico is being governed without its consent. Statehood received more votes than territory status, which is unprecedented. And statehood obtained far more votes than either of the two nationhood options, which demonstrates that Puerto Rico has no desire to weaken or break the bonds forged with the United States over nearly 12 decades.

At my urging and in response to this landmark vote, the Obama administration proposed an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored referendum in Puerto Rico's history with the stated goal being to resolve the territory's status. Earlier this year, Congress approved this appropriation with bipartisan support.

Although the law does not specify how the ballot should be structured, it does require the Department of Justice to ensure that any option on the ballot is compatible with the Constitution, laws, and public policy of the United States. Therefore, the ballot cannot contain the status proposal known as ``enhanced commonwealth'' that one political party in Puerto Rico has consistently put forward over the years and that Federal officials--including the Obama administration, Senators Wyden and Murkowski--have just as consistently rejected as impossible.

Moreover, the ballot should not contain the current territory status as an option because it was rejected in the 2012 referendum. It is the primary source of Puerto Rico's problems, and it does not resolve the island's status since, as long as Puerto Rico remains a territory, it has the potential to become either a State or a sovereign nation.

Last week, the Governor of Puerto Rico announced his intention to use the $2.5 million to conduct a federally sponsored vote by the end of 2016. I have proposed that the Federal funding be used to hold a yes- or-no vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State, just as Alaska and Hawaii did. This approach would yield a definitive result that nobody could reasonably question, and it has broad congressional backing, garnering support from 135 Members of the House and the Senate.

If the Governor of Puerto Rico resists this approach, he will face a problem. The party he leads has never been able to agree upon a status proposal that does not conflict with U.S. law and policy.

But let me be clear. If a vote does occur, statehood advocates will show up in force. Any time, any place, an army of men and women will be there to seek equality and justice, and we will prevail.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Hahn from California and Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, which would increase the appropriation provided in the underlying bill for Army Corps operations and maintenance dredging of harbors by $57.6 million. This amendment would fulfill the obligations made in the recently-enacted Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121), an important one of them being the increase in expenditure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a way to adequately address maintenance needs at our nation's ports and harbors.

Specifically, I support adoption of this amendment because it would position the Army Corps to be more responsive to the maintenance needs at Puerto Rico's six federally-authorized harbors, which are located in Arecibo, Fajardo, Mayaguez, Ponce, San Juan and Yabucoa. Through these harbors, Puerto Rico engages in domestic trade with U.S. states and territories and international trade with foreign countries. In 2012, the San Juan and Ponce harbors alone accounted for over 13 million tons in trade of commodities, making them some of the busiest ports in the United States. Access to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain these harbors at their federally-authorized depth levels is crucial to the expanding $103 billion trade industry in Puerto Rico. Maintenance and development of the harbors is essential to Puerto Rico's waterborne economy and its ultimate its viability as a commercial maritime waypoint hub between North and South America.

Additionally, I take this opportunity to note that the underlying bill includes an appropriation of $800,000 specifically for maintenance dredging of the harbor in San Juan--which ranked as the 52nd busiest port in the nation in 2012 in terms of tonnage of total cargo handled. I also appreciate the Committee's expressed concern in its report accompanying the bill about the accessibility of navigation maintenance funds for small, remote and subsistence harbors and waterways across the United States. I believe the Army Corps should review its criteria for allocating harbor maintenance funds in order to develop a more reasonable and equitable allocation for small, remote or subsistence harbors. The current criteria results in those ports with the heaviest cargo traffic being allocated funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The criteria presents a paradoxical situation in that harbors that are not maintained to their federally-authorized depth become less available and less attractive over time to the berthing of maritime vessels. As a consequence, the diminishing number of port calls reduces cargo volume, which in turn makes the harbor less likely to receive maintenance funding. If the overall Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund allocation criteria are not realigned to better account for maintenance needs at smaller harbors, designing a separate budgeting mechanism or criteria to address these needs would be warranted.

In Puerto Rico, for example, although the San Juan Harbor has been given regular maintenance attention in recent years and the harbor in Arecibo recently received maintenance dredging as a result of sediment buildup associated with a hurricane, the island's four other federally- authorized harbors have received minimal to no HMTF funds for much- needed maintenance dredging. Potential improvements to these harbors would be beneficial to the economic revitalization of some of Puerto Rico's 44 coastal municipalities. For

these reasons, I support the renewed call for the Army Corps to update Congress on its review of criteria used for determining which navigation projects at harbors across the United States are funded.

In closing, I urge adoption of this amendment. It is through increased expenditure in 2015 by the Army Corps of Engineers of funds available through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that the domestic economy will be strengthened, and that our constituents who rely upon the free, timely and safe flow of goods at our nation's ports will be supported. This amendment gives us an opportunity to better ensure operations at the nation's federally-authorized harbors--including the harbors in Puerto Rico--can reach their full capacity.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to enable DOD to remove unexploded ordnance from certain areas on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, which was used as a military training range for decades.

Under the FUDS program, the Army Corps of Engineers is decontaminating limited areas of Culebra. However, DOD asserts that a 1974 law prohibits the use of Federal funds to decontaminate land that constituted the bombardment zone. Approximately 400 acres of this land were conveyed to the government of Puerto Rico in 1982 for use as a public park. DOD contends that the 1974 law has not been superseded by Federal cleanup authorities enacted in 1986.

As a result of this rigid interpretation, Culebra is the only former defense site of several thousand across the United States that

DOD claims it is barred by statute from decontaminating. The resulting state of affairs poses a direct threat to public safety, since this land encompasses popular beaches, campgrounds and a trail. In a congressionally-required study, DOD reported that there have been many incidents where members of the public encountered unexploded munitions that could have caused serious harm.

My amendment would authorize the Corps of Engineers to decontaminate those areas within the 400-acre parcel where the risk to public safety is the greatest. It will ensure that the 1974 Act ceases to serve as an obstacle to implementation of current Federal policy, which provides that the federal government is responsible for cleaning lands that were contaminated as a result of its actions. The amendment ensures that Culebra will be treated the same--no better and no worse--than other formerly used defense sites.

The U.S. citizens living in Culebra sacrificed so that our military could receive the training it required. Congress, in turn, should now take this small step to enable DOD to remove unexploded munitions from the island.

I thank the Committee leadership and, in particular, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for working with me on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1726, a bill that would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Army's 65th Infantry Regiment in recognition of its pioneering military service, devotion to duty, and many acts of valor in the face of adversity.

The regiment was composed largely of soldiers from the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico; and members of the unit are called the Borinqueneers, which is derived from the Taino word for Puerto Rico, meaning the ``land of the brave lord.''

Since the term was first used over 60 years ago, coined by members of the regiment on their way to Korea, it has become synonymous with honor, courage, redemption, and pride.

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to Mr. Posey of Florida. Working with him on a bipartisan basis to move this bill forward has been a pleasure. I know that Congressman Posey, like me, feels a profound sense of responsibility to these veterans and their families.

The surviving members of the regiment are in the twilight of their lives, and so we hope our colleagues in the House and in the Senate, acting on behalf of a grateful Nation, will see fit to honor the Borinqueneers while these humble heroes still walk among us.

Mr. Speaker, we are honored that the oldest living Borinqueneer, Don Leonardo Martinez, who is 96 years young, is here with us today.

Of course Congressman Posey and I are not on this mission alone. We are working shoulder to shoulder with an army of individuals and organizations from Puerto Rico and the States. These advocates have been inspired by the legacy of the regiment and are mindful of its special contribution to the tapestry of American life. Their campaign on behalf of the Borinqueneers has been exceptional. I want to publicly thank each and every one of them because they are the heart and soul of this movement. I must highlight, in particular, the tireless efforts of the Borinqueneer Congressional Gold Medal Alliance, led by National Chairman Frank Medina.

To place the achievements of the regiment in context, it is important to understand that for generations--from World War I, almost a century ago, to Afghanistan today--American citizens from Puerto Rico have built and maintained a rich record of military service.

If you visit any U.S. military installation, you will see men and women from Puerto Rico fighting to keep this Nation safe, strong, and free. They may speak English with an accent, like I do, but they are just as devoted to this country as their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from the States. If you need proof, there is a frame on my office wall containing photographs of the servicemembers from Puerto Rico that have fallen since 9/11--row after row of young faces, sometimes smiling and sometimes stern, usually posing in their dress uniforms against the backdrop of the American flag.

In a book he wrote about Puerto Rico, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh observed that:

Historically, Puerto Rico has ranked alongside the top five

States in terms of per capita military service.

In the forward to that book, former President George H.W. Bush noted:

This patriotic service and sacrifice of Americans from

Puerto Rico touched me all the more deeply for the very fact

they have served with such devotion, even while denied a vote

for the President and Members of Congress who determine when,

where, and how they are asked to defend our freedoms.

No unit better epitomizes Puerto Rico's distinguished tradition of military service than the 65th Infantry Regiment, which was constituted just after World War I, participated in an honorable--albeit limited-- fashion during World War II, and came into its own during the Korean war, earning admiration for its outstanding combat performance.

Like society more generally, the U.S. military in the 1950s was different than it is today, and attitudes toward ethnic minorities could be harsh. The men of the regiment not only had to fight the enemy on the battlefield, which they did with bravery and skill, but they also had to overcome negative stereotypes held by some of their commanders and comrades. For example, then-Colonel William Harris, who commanded the regiment during the early stages of the Korean war, later recalled that he had been reluctant to assume command of the unit because of prejudice within the military but that his experience eventually led him to regard the Borinqueneers as ``the best damn soldiers that I had ever seen.''

Such sentiments would be expressed by many others who witnessed the regiment in action, including General Douglas MacArthur, who wrote the following in 1951:

The Puerto Ricans forming the ranks of the gallant 65th

Infantry on the battlefields of Korea . . . give daily

testament to their invincible loyalty to the United States .

. . They are writing a brilliant record of achievement in

battle; and I am proud, indeed, to have them in this command.

I wish that we might have many more like them.

The experience of the Borinqueneers during the Korean war was perhaps best encapsulated in September 2000, at a ceremony held at Arlington National Cemetery in honor of the regiment, by secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, who observed that the Borinqueneers ``fought with rare courage even as they endured misfortune and injustice.''

The Borinqueneers earned many unit-level awards for their service in Korea, including two Presidential Unit Citations. Soldiers in the regiment earned many individual awards, including nine Distinguished Service Crosses, about 250 Silver Stars, over 600 Bronze Stars, and more than 2,700 Purple Hearts.

In March of this year, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor-- the military's highest individual award for bravery--to four deceased American soldiers from Puerto Rico, including Master Sergeant Juan Negron, who became the first Borinqueneer to be accorded this honor.

Moreover, in recent years, the achievements of the regiment have been recognized in many ways. A multitude of State legislatures have approved resolutions in their honor, while numerous parks, streets, and monuments bear the regiment's name. I hope Congress will pay tribute to the Borinqueneers by conferring upon them the Congressional Gold Medal.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the GAO published a report about the fiscal impact of Puerto Rico statehood on the Federal Government.

In a 2012 referendum, a majority of voters in Puerto Rico said they didn't want Puerto Rico to remain a territory, and more voters favored statehood than any other option. In January, at my initiative, a law was enacted to provide funding for the first federally-sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history. Meanwhile, in the past year, Puerto Rico's longstanding economic problems have devolved into a crisis. Every week, 1,000 of my constituents move to the States in search of opportunity and equality. Thus, the GAO has released its report at a time when island residents are voting for statehood--at the ballot box and with their feet--in unprecedented numbers.

The momentum in favor of statehood continues to build with this report, which supports the conclusion that statehood will be beneficial to Puerto Rico and to the U.S. as a whole.

The report confirms that statehood will enhance the quality of life in Puerto Rico. As a territory, Puerto Rico is treated unequally under key Federal spending and tax credit programs. As a State, it will receive equal treatment. Based on the GAO's analysis and taking into account programs the GAO did not examine, it can be calculated that statehood will inject an additional $10 billion into Puerto Rico's economy each year. This underscores the scope and severity of the discrimination Puerto Rico faces as a territory.

The report also alleviates the concern that statehood would have an adverse impact on the U.S. Treasury. As the GAO explains, new Federal outlays to Puerto Rico will be significantly counterbalanced by new Federal revenues generated from the island, which could amount to $7 billion a year. As Puerto Rico prospers, collections will increase further.

The report, thus, reinforces that statehood, which is so plainly in Puerto Rico's interest, is also in the national interest. This Nation will benefit when Puerto Rico's economy is strong, when its residents don't need to move to the States to achieve their dreams or vote for their national leaders, when individuals and businesses on the island flourish, and when the tax base expands. The U.S. will profit from the state of Puerto Rico's success, just as it currently pays an economic and a moral price for the territory's shortcomings.

The reaction to the report from politicians in Puerto Rico who favor the status quo has been dishonest. Their strategy is clear: if you cannot convince the public, try to confuse the public.

For example, they claim the report concludes that hardworking island residents would have a large Federal tax liability under statehood. The report says no such thing, and the assertion is false. A typical household in Puerto Rico will pay the same or less in total taxes under statehood than it pays now due to the application of Federal tax credits and the ability of the Puerto Rico Government to reduce its high local rates once it no longer needs to finance a disproportionate share of public services.

In any event, this inaccurate argument shows disrespect for the people of Puerto Rico, who will be proud to assume both the rights and responsibilities of statehood. Throughout history, men and women have fought and fallen for equality and dignity. These principles are priceless.

My colleagues who requested the GAO report should now schedule a hearing on it. Seventy-five days have passed since the enactment of the law authorizing Puerto Rico to hold a federally-sponsored referendum, and 132 Members of Congress have sponsored my legislation that calls for a referendum on Puerto Rico's admission as a State, which requires Federal action if a majority of voters chooses statehood. If the Governor of Puerto Rico believes his claim that the GAO report is somehow damaging to statehood, he should have the courage of his convictions to conduct a statehood admission vote with the available Federal funds without delay. His inaction speaks louder than his words.

Mr. Speaker, Vieques and Culebra are two island municipalities of Puerto Rico. Each is home to beautiful beaches, to rich animal and plant life, and to warm, welcoming people.

For decades, the two islands were used as military training ranges. The U.S. citizens living in Vieques and Culebra were required to make tremendous sacrifices to ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces and to enhance our national defense.

Although Vieques and Culebra are no longer used for training purposes, both islands bear the scars of their past. Some of those scars are easy to see, like the impact of bombing on the once pristine landscape or like the threat that unexploded bombs in the ground and surrounding waters currently pose to the safety of residents and visitors.

Other scars might be more difficult to discern, like the effect that bombing-related contamination may have had on public health, particularly in Vieques.

The Department of Defense is currently conducting decontamination operations in both Vieques and Culebra. The cleanup of Vieques is being conducted by the Navy, while the cleanup of Culebra is being carried out by the Corps of Engineers.

Several days ago, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense about DOD's responsibilities with respect to Vieques and Culebra. The letter, which was signed by 16 of my colleagues in the House and Senate, makes three specific requests.

First, although many years have passed since the military stopped conducting training exercises on Culebra and Vieques, there are still meaningful gaps in information about the types and amounts of munitions used on both islands.

My constituents have a compelling interest in knowing which types of weapons were used, where they were used, and in what volume they were used.

Congress agrees. As a result of bicameral efforts, the report accompanying the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act encourages DOD to make public all of its historical documents related to its training activities on both islands.

Our letter to the Secretary requests an update about how DOD intends to implement this Congressional language and strongly urges DOD to collect, organize, and publish the relevant documents on the Internet in a single location.

Second, the report accompanying the 2014 Defense Appropriations Act encourages DOD to accelerate cleanup efforts on Vieques. Therefore, my colleagues and I also urged the Secretary of Defense to implement this Congressional guidance by allocating the funding necessary to complete the cleanup of Vieques as rapidly as possible.

Finally, the letter reminds the Secretary that there is a serious public safety threat in Culebra that requires resolution. As a result of a rigid legal interpretation, DOD refuses to fund the cleanup of a 400-acre parcel that formerly served as the bombardment zone and which now has popular beaches, pedestrian walkways, and campgrounds.

This is unacceptable. Since 1995, there have been over 70 incidents in which members of the public have encountered unexploded bombs in this part of Culebra that could have caused them great harm.

Last March, a young girl visiting a Culebra beach suffered burns after she picked up an artillery shell containing white phosphorous.

Earlier this year, local authorities had to close the same Culebra beach when a 100-pound unexploded bomb was discovered underwater close to shore.

I have filed multiple bills to require DOD to fund the cleanup of this parcel and to remove this public safety threat, but DOD has opposed my efforts. The letter urges DOD to reconsider its position in this matter.

The use of Vieques and Culebra as training ranges may have ceased, but the legacy of such use must be addressed by DOD. Working with my colleagues, I will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that DOD fulfills its legal and moral responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the junior Senator from Mississippi and the junior Senator from West Virginia spoke on the Senate floor about Puerto Rico's political status. Because Puerto Rico is a territory and not a State, we have no Senators who can respond to these two Senators on the Senate floor. So, as the only elected representative in Congress of the 3.6 million U.S. citizens that live in Puerto Rico, I respond now.

The Senators discussed the referendum that was held in Puerto Rico in November 2012. However, neither Senator mentioned that, on the first question in that referendum, 54 percent of voters said they do not want Puerto Rico to be a territory, which means that my constituents no longer consent to the current status.

Likewise, neither Senator noted that, during a Senate hearing on the referendum held last August, the senior Democrat and the senior Republican on the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources agreed that it was indisputable and clear that the people of Puerto Rico oppose the current territory status.

Finally, in their remarks yesterday, neither Senator acknowledged that in the referendum, statehood received more votes than any other status option, including the current status. In short, the Senators' discussion of the historic referendum was clearly deficient.

In addition, both Senators expressed opposition to the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act, which I introduced last year in the House and which was introduced earlier this month in the Senate. The two Senators have every right to oppose this legislation, which calls for an up-or- down vote in Puerto Rico on the territory's admission as a State and outlines the steps the Federal Government would take if a majority of voters favor admission. But to argue, as the Senators did, that the bill excludes other options other than statehood makes no sense. A binary vote, by definition, is not exclusive. Those who support statehood can vote ``yes,'' and those who oppose it can vote ``no.'' This was precisely the format of the votes that led to Hawaii and Alaska becoming States.

I ask the Senators: Do you believe those earlier votes were unfair or exclusionary? In any event, there are now 132 Members of the House and Senate who have cosponsored the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act and, therefore, disagree with these two Senators' characterization of the bill. Both Senators sought to contrast their opposition to the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act with their apparent support for a Puerto Rico-related appropriation that the President included in his fiscal year 2014 budget request at my urging, and that recently became law. Under this appropriation, funding would be provided for the first federally sponsored vote in Puerto Rico's history, to be held among one or more options that are consistent with U.S. law and policy and that would ``resolve'' the status issue. Contrary to the suggestion made by both Senators, a vote on Puerto Rico's admission as a State is a perfectly valid and logical way to structure the federally sponsored plebiscite to be held pursuant to this appropriation.

Both Senators also expressed the view that the status debate is a ``distraction'' from efforts to tackle Puerto Rico's economic and fiscal challenges. This argument is familiar, but it is false. The reality is that Puerto Rico's economic problems are structural in nature and are rooted in the territory's unequal and undemocratic status. No wonder my constituents are relocating to the States in unprecedented numbers.

I look forward to the day when the men, women, and children I represent have the same rights and responsibilities as their fellow U.S. citizens residing in the States that the two Senators represent. We do not seek special treatment. We seek equality, and we intend to achieve it.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several months, the press has been filled with stories about the severe economic problems in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. These economic problems have aggravated social problems like crime, have generated anxiety for individuals and institutions that have invested in Puerto Rico's bonds, and have caused island residents to relocate to the 50 States in unprecedented numbers.

The statistics are staggering. In recent years, Puerto Rico's population has fallen by more than 4 percent, while the number of Puerto Ricans living in the States has increased by over 45 percent.

As Puerto Rico's representative in Congress, it pains me to read media accounts of the island's troubles, especially because I know that my constituents are just as capable and industrious as their fellow citizens in any other jurisdiction. Puerto Rico has enormous potential, but the reality is that this potential is not being fulfilled.

Although the island's problems have certainly grown worse in recent months, it is critical for policymakers and the American public to understand that these problems are not of recent vintage. To the contrary, for at least four decades, Puerto Rico's economic performance--and by extension, quality of life on the island--has been far worse than any State, according to every indicator, including unemployment, average household income, and the ratio of government debt to economic production.

In other words, Puerto Rico's difficulties have endured in more or less the same form, regardless of who holds power in Washington and San Juan and irrespective of the public policies they formulate.

To be sure, fiscal mismanagement at the local level and insufficient attention at the Federal level have both been factors contributing to Puerto Rico's problems, but the record clearly establishes that they are not the main factor.

What, then, is the principle source of Puerto Rico's longstanding woes?

In a recent editorial, The Washington Post correctly identified the culprit, noting that the territory's economic problems are ``structural--traceable, ultimately, to its muddled political status.'' Curiously, The Post then asserted that ``there will be time enough to debate'' the status issue later and that Puerto Rico, for the time being, should concentrate on fixing its finances.

As I observed in a letter to The Post's editor, this is like a doctor recommending medicine to alleviate a patient's symptoms but doing nothing to treat the underlying disease.

As long as Puerto Rico remains a territory, deprived of equal treatment under critical Federal spending and tax credit programs, forced to borrow heavily to make up the difference, and lacking the ability to vote for the President and Members of Congress who make our national laws, the island will be in a position merely to manage, rather than surmount, its economic problems. This is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from decades of empirical evidence.

A majority of my constituents understand this, which is why they voted to reject territory status in a referendum held 1 year ago. The Obama administration recognizes this as well, which is why it proposed the first federally sponsored status vote in Puerto Rico's history to resolve the issue once and for all.

And, finally, Members of Congress from both parties comprehend this, which is why 125 of them have cosponsored legislation I introduced that provides for an up-or-down vote in Puerto Rico on the territory's admission as a state and outlines the steps the Federal Government will take if a majority of voters favor admission.

There are many reasons to oppose Puerto Rico's territory status, which is unequal, undemocratic, and un-American. One of the most important reasons why Puerto Rico must discard this status in favor of either statehood or nationhood is because the current status has failed--and will continue to fail--to provide the island's 3.6 million American citizens with the economic opportunities and the quality of life they deserve.

Those who refuse to acknowledge this fundamental truth for ideological reasons are doing a great disservice to the people of Puerto Rico. They are on the wrong side of history.

Madam Speaker, Monday was Veterans Day, when our Nation pays tribute to those who have served honorably in the Armed Forces. Today, I rise to express my gratitude to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines from Puerto Rico, both those who are living and those who have left us.

Since World War I almost a century ago to Afghanistan today, American citizens from Puerto Rico have built a rich record of military service. If you visit any U.S. base, you will see warriors from Puerto Rico fighting to keep this Nation safe, strong, and free. They serve as officers and enlisted personnel; as special operators; in infantry, artillery, and armored units; as pilots and aviation technicians; in intelligence; on ships and submarines; in combat support positions; and in every military specialty.

In his book, ``Puerto Rico's Future: A Time to Decide,'' former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh observed:

Historically, Puerto Rico has ranked alongside the top five

States in terms of per capita military service.

In the forward to that book, former President George H.W. Bush noted:

This patriotic service and sacrifice of Americans from

Puerto Rico touched me all the more deeply for the very fact

they have served with such devotion, even while denied

a vote for the President and Members of Congress who

determine when, where, and how they are asked to defend our

freedoms.

As I address this Chamber, men and women from Puerto Rico are serving in harm's way in Afghanistan and other locations. Since the attacks of 9/11, island residents have deployed about 35,000 times in overseas contingency operations. Many have deployed on multiple occasions. Each time they go, they leave behind spouses, children, and parents. As veterans will tell you, military life requires enormous sacrifice from their loved ones, those quiet heroes who support our uniformed personnel who must live and work in their absence and who pray for their safe return. On Veterans Day, we honor not only those who fought, but their families, as well.

There is a frame on my office wall containing photographs of servicemembers from Puerto Rico that have fallen in the last 12 years. I often look at those photos, row after row of young faces, usually posing in their dress uniforms against the backdrop of the American flag. Those images make me sad, but they also give me strength. They inspire me to keep working for my people. They remind me what courage is and what sacrifice means. And they help me remember why representing Puerto Rico in Congress is the greatest honor I have ever known.

I have met many veterans from Puerto Rico. I have found that they value deeds over words. They expect their elected leaders to produce results, or at least to work tirelessly towards that end.

I am proud of the record we have compiled on behalf of veterans from Puerto Rico. We have obtained funding to renovate the VA hospital in San Juan, to improve existing clinics and build new clinics throughout the island, and to provide vehicles so that residents of our State veterans home can visit their families and travel to medical appointments. We also achieved Puerto Rico's inclusion in a Federal initiative to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.

And I am working to honor a military unit that perhaps best exemplifies the service that residents of Puerto Rico have rendered to this Nation. Congressman Bill Posey of Florida and I have introduced legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment known as the Borinqueneers, a unit composed mostly of soldiers from Puerto Rico that overcame discrimination and won admiration for their performance in the Korean war. Our bill has nearly 160 bipartisan cosponsors, and there is a companion bill in the Senate that has also garnered strong support. I hope all my colleagues will join me in honoring this special group of veterans.

This Veterans Day, I renewed my commitment to fight for the men and women who have fought so valiantly for us, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for their service. I do so again today.

Mr. Speaker, Monday marked the 10th anniversary of the passing of Luis Ferre. I rise this morning to pay tribute to this giant of a man whom The New York Times called the ``dominant force in the politics, economy and culture of Puerto Rico'' for much of the 20th century.

In a real sense, Don Luis personified his beloved Puerto Rico, embodying both its progress and its struggles. He was born in Ponce in 1904, a few years after Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory; was a teenager when island residents were granted American citizenship in 1917; served as a delegate to the convention that drafted Puerto Rico's local constitution in the early 1950s; was elected as the island's governor in 1968; served as a member of the Puerto Rico Senate, including as its president, in the late 1970s and early 1980s; and remained engaged in public life as a revered elder statesman well beyond his formal retirement from politics.

Don Luis lived to age 99, but it was the fullness of his life, not its length, that is so remarkable. Trained as an engineer at MIT and as a classical pianist at the New England Conservatory of Music, Ferre was a true renaissance man. He loved ideas, intellectual debate and culture, founding the renowned Ponce Museum of Art; but he was also at home in the practical world of business, taking a small company and transforming it into one of Puerto Rico's most successful conglomerates. He published a newspaper, now called El Nuevo Dia, which is run by his grandchildren, and has the largest circulation of any periodical on the island. Don Luis was also a committed philanthropist, who took to heart the biblical axiom: to whom much is given, much is expected.

In 1991, Ferre was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, by President George H.W. Bush, who called Ferre ``a public servant of the first order'' and an ``extraordinary leader in the life of Puerto Rico.''

On a personal level, Ferre refuted the notion that great men are seldom good men. Like any effective leader, he was tough when he needed to be, but he was also kind, warm and generous, inspiring affection and loyalty as well as respect. Don Luis was a gentleman through and through. He was ``old school'' in the best sense of the term.

Few, if any, Puerto Ricans have accomplished as much in their lives as Don Luis or have left behind such a lasting legacy. A proud Republican and founder of the local New Progressive Party, Ferre did not live to see his goal of statehood for Puerto Rico realized, but he encouraged and mentored a new generation of leaders who understand that Puerto Rico's ``colonial status,'' as Don Luis called it, deprives island residents of political and civil rights, hinders their economic progress and harms their quality of life. As I and other pro-statehood advocates work to perfect Puerto Rico's union with the U.S., we are guided by Don Luis' example and draw strength from his memory.

Ferre once described himself as revolutionary in his ideas, liberal in his objectives, and conservative in his methods. Thanks to Don Luis and others, statehood is no longer a revolutionary idea. It has become the predominant force in Puerto Rico politics while support for the status quo continues to decline and support for separate nationhood remains slight.

Last November, a clear majority of voters in Puerto Rico rejected territory status, and more voters expressed a preference for statehood than for any other status option. I wish Don Luis had been alive to witness this historic event. When Puerto Rico does become a state, as I know it will, we will look back upon Luis Ferre's life and say that this man, as much as any other man, was responsible for this crowning achievement.