Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I support the en bloc amendment, which includes an amendment I filed.

Since 1986, the other U.S. territories have been given partial relief--up to $200,000--from the local cost-sharing requirements for Army Corps projects. The bill increases this amount to account for inflation. My amendment extends this waiver to the territory of Puerto Rico. There are about 20 authorized flood protection, harbor, and other Army Corps projects pending in Puerto Rico, some of which are stalled due to the constrained ability of the local government to provide its share of project costs.

The two reasons that justified enactment of this waiver for the other territories three decades ago also justify its extension to Puerto Rico today. Puerto Rico is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. In 2011 alone, there were several federally declared disasters in Puerto Rico, with FEMA assistance totaling $95 million. In addition, Puerto Rico faces severe economic and fiscal challenges which are in large part due to the fact that, as a territory, Puerto Rico is shortchanged under key Federal programs.

I thank the chairmen and the ranking members for recognizing that critical Army Corps projects in Puerto Rico should not be deferred or deauthorized because of the unique circumstances in the territory.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the birthday of the late Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa, the father of the statehood movement in Puerto Rico, I rise to update my colleagues on the progress that has been made to resolve the territory's political status.

Last November, Puerto Rico held a referendum. As I described in a floor speech the following week, the results show that a majority of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico do not support the current territory status, a supermajority favor statehood among the three alternative options, and more voters want statehood than any other option, including the current status. These results are now part of the historical record, and they cannot be dismissed or diminished by those who find them inconvenient.

Now that American citizens living in an American territory have informed their national government, in a free and fair vote, that they do not consent to a political status that deprives them of the most basic democratic rights, it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to take appropriate action in response. For the President and Congress to do otherwise would be to contravene the principles that have made this country a light to the world.

Today, I can report that positive steps have been taken. In April, the administration requested an appropriation of $2.5 million, which would be provided to the Puerto Rico Elections Commission to conduct the first federally-funded status vote in the territory's history, with the specific purpose of resolving this issue. The administration's action was favorably received by Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, who rarely find common ground. Earlier this month, thanks to the leadership of Congressmen Wolf, Fattah, and Serrano, that funding was approved by the Appropriations Committee, confirming that the effort to secure fair treatment for Puerto Rico is not, and should never become, a partisan issue.

The committee's report endorses the conditions proposed by the administration stating that Federal funding will not be obligated until DOJ has certified that the ballot and voter education materials are compatible with U.S. laws and policies, thereby ensuring that the vote will deal with one or more status options that can actually be implemented and that would settle the issue.

I will continue to fight for the approval of this appropriation by the full

House and for its retention in any conference negotiation with the Senate.

There is additional progress to report on another front in this struggle. In May, I introduced stand-alone legislation that proceeds from the indisputable premise that statehood obtained more votes than any other option in the November referendum. The bill outlines the rights and responsibilities of statehood and asks voters in Puerto Rico whether they accept those terms.

If a majority says ``yes,'' the bill provides for the President to submit legislation to admit Puerto Rico as a State after a transition period.

Two months after its introduction, this bill already enjoys support from 100 Members of Congress from both parties and from every region of this country despite the predictable opposition of the status quo party in Puerto Rico and its allies in Congress. I always find it ironic when some of my colleagues from the States, who, along with their constituents, enjoy all the benefits of statehood, seek to prevent my constituents from exercising those same rights and responsibilities. I have concluded that these forces cannot be reasoned with. They must simply be defeated, and they will be.

Next week, I will appear as a witness at a Senate hearing on the November referendum and the Federal response to that vote. Just as I told a United Nations committee last month, I will testify that I have faith that the Federal Government will fulfill its obligation to facilitate Puerto Rico's transition to a democratic and dignified status but that deeds, not words, are required.

Much work remains to be done, and like any civil rights struggle, it will not be easy; but through our sound and steady action, we are closer than ever to finally realizing Dr. Barbosa's dream of equality for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico.

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

Mr. Chairman, this budget-neutral amendment, which I offer with Mr. Young of Alaska, would enable DOD to remove unexploded ordnance from land in Culebra, Puerto Rico, which was used as a military training range for seven decades.

In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing the Navy to cease operations in Culebra. A provision stated that the present bombardment area shall not be utilized for any purpose that would require decontamination at the expense of the United States.

In 1982, the Federal Government conveyed land in Culebra to the Government of Puerto Rico, including a 400-acre parcel within the former bombardment area. The deed provided that, in accordance with the 1974 act, the Government of Puerto Rico would not hold the Federal Government liable for decontamination of the land.

Four years later, in 1986, Congress enacted SARA, which amended the 1980 CERCLA law. SARA states that DOD is responsible for cleaning up contamination it caused on current and former military sites and established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for DOD to carry out these responsibilities. That program is funded by the bill under consideration today.

SARA directed DOD to clean up former defense sites conveyed to third parties prior to 1986. These sites are eligible for Federal funding, even though there were no specific authorities enabling their cleanup at the time they were decommissioned and conveyed. Nevertheless, DOD contends that the 1974 law and the 1982 deed that tracks it prohibits the use of Federal funds to decontaminate the 400-acre parcel on Culebra, and these prohibitions were not superceded by SARA. As a result of this restrictive interpretation, Culebra is the only former defense site in the Nation that DOD contends it is barred by statute from decontaminating.

This makes no sense. The 1974 act and the 1982 deed may have been consistent with Federal policy at that time since there was no legal framework in place that would have enabled the Federal Government to pay for the cleanup of the conveyed property. However, they're now squarely at odds with Federal policy that has been in place for more than 25 years under SARA. Accordingly, there's no principled basis to treat Culebra differently from thousands of other former defense sites conveyed out of Federal hands prior to 1986 which the Federal Government is obligated to decontaminate.

The status quo poses a threat to human safety since this parcel contains beaches, walkways, and campgrounds visited by over 300,000 people a year. A recent DOD report found that since 1995, there have been 70 incidents in which members of the public encountered unexploded munitions that could have caused great harm. In fact, in March of this year, a young girl visiting a Culebra beach suffered burns after she picked up an artillery shell containing white phosphorous. The FBI responded and found six other munitions which it detonated and removed. This potentially tragic incident underscores the need for congressional action.

This amendment would ensure that the 1974 act ceases to function as an obstacle to implementation of current Federal policy, as reflected in CERCLA and SARA. The amendment simply ensures that Culebra will receive the same treatment as other former defense sites in the FUDS program. The citizens in Culebra sacrificed so our military could receive the training it needed. Congress, in turn, should take this small step to remove the barrier that is preventing DOD from addressing safety hazards that remain on the island.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I look forward to working with the majority.

That's absolutely right. So I will withdraw my amendment. But let me just say that, again, this is one property. It's only one property out of thousands of properties facing these circumstances. So I hope we can work it out. It's not going to be costly. It makes sense to clean it up.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard. This amendment establishes a coffee plant health initiative to be led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with the goal of addressing the pressing needs of the coffee industry in the United States.

The U.S. coffee industry is principally based in my district, Puerto Rico, and in the State of Hawaii, given that both jurisdictions offer natural conditions ideally suited for cultivation of the coffee crop. The industry in both Puerto Rico and Hawaii is increasingly threatened by a nonnative insect commonly known as the coffee berry borer or the Broca del Cafe in Spanish. This agricultural pest arrived in Puerto Rico in 2007 and in Hawaii in 2010. The insect has emerged as the primary threat facing the coffee industry, adversely impacting both the yield and the market value of coffee crops.

The insect damages coffee plants by boring and depositing eggs into the berries. The larvae then hatch inside the berries and feed on the coffee beans, destroying them by creating holes. The Agricultural Research Service estimates that the coffee berry borer has caused over $500 million in losses worldwide. In Puerto Rico, production of coffee has recently fallen to an historic low, and the coffee berry borer is partially responsible. Annual coffee production in Puerto Rico is now valued at $21 million, less than half of what it was just five years ago and about a third of what it was at its peak in the mid-1990s. Most hard hit are the rural and mountainous municipalities where coffee has traditionally been a cash crop--Adjuntas, Lares, Utuado, Maricao, Jayuya, Yauco, Orocovis, Ciales, Las Marias, and San Sebastian.

Why should we care about this situation? Because without a coffee berry borer-free and controlled environment in which to plant coffee trees, our agricultural economies in Puerto Rico and Hawaii are in jeopardy. This means higher unemployment, reduced exports and increased reliance on imports. Simply put, we must protect the U.S. interests in this worldwide commodity. So research on the coffee berry borer should be made a high priority at the USDA.

This amendment is relevant not only to residents of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, but also to millions of coffee consumers around the country, who should be able to enjoy American-made coffee, such as Puerto Rico's 58 gourmet brands or the world famous coffee from the Big Island in Hawaii. Economically speaking, the United States benefits if we can increase the worldwide market share and quality of coffee that is produced in Puerto Rico and in Hawaii.

The latest statistics available reveal that my constituents consume about 30 million pounds of coffee each year. Local production in Puerto Rico, though, is roughly 10 million pounds, leaving 20 million to be imported--typically from countries in the Caribbean and Central America.

Since the berry borer emerged as a threat in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, the local governments in these two jurisdictions have worked diligently with farmers and the extension agents of our land grant universities to control the spread of the insect and to mitigate its impact. However, more must be done. Now that the insect is affecting more than just one jurisdiction, a Federal response is especially appropriate.

The amendment requires USDA to develop and provide science-based tools and treatments to combat the coffee berry borer and to establish area-wide integrated pest management programs in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and anywhere else in the U.S. that the coffee berry borer may affect. USDA would be authorized to collaborate with the land-grant universities of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, as well as with the state governments and outside organizations, to carry out scientific research and to develop and implement the integrated pest management programs.

For years, USDA has sponsored applied research targeted toward the Nation's most challenging agricultural pests and diseases. Targeted research has spanned the range of commodities and crops. The needs in tropical and subtropical agriculture are many, and the needs facing our coffee industry are pressing. Cutting edge research continues to be conducted at the U.S. Tropical Agriculture Research Station in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and at the U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center in Hilo, Hawaii, by a cadre of dedicated scientists, technicians, and agronomists.

This amendment is designed to buttress their mission and to give them the authority in law they need to expand their work to help local producers. The amendment also improves the capacity of the land-grant universities to address the problems presented by the coffee berry borer.

Finally, I would note that the research conducted at the ARS research stations and by the land-grant universities in Puerto Rico and Hawaii has national application. The techniques and technology developed there have proven their utility for increasing food production and controlling agricultural pests in the U.S. mainland. The research that stands to be enhanced through this amendment has a high probability of application benefiting agricultural production beyond coffee and beyond Puerto Rico and Hawaii.

For these reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment and I thank my colleague, Ms. Gabbard, for her leadership in bringing it forward for consideration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment last year, and it was adopted by voice vote. However, it was not included in the final Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted in March.

The homicide rate in Puerto Rico is about three times higher than any State, and most of these murders are linked to the international drug trade. Appropriately, the Federal Government is allocating substantial resources to combat drug trafficking organizations operating in the Central American corridor and along the Southwest border. However, those organizations are adapting, returning to smuggling routes through the Caribbean region that were heavily utilized in the 1980s and 1990s. As a result, the Coast Guard seized or disrupted over 17,000 pounds of drugs in the vicinity of Puerto Rico in 2012, a 600 percent increase over the previous year.

DEA seizures rose nearly 100 percent. CBP seizures were up nearly 40 percent. And in 2012, CBP seized more drugs in Puerto Rico than it did along the 180-mile border between Mexico and New Mexico. Meanwhile, the street price of drugs in Puerto Rico has decreased. This is a security problem of national scope, given that 80 percent of the drugs that enter Puerto Rico are subsequently transported to the U.S. mainland, where they destroy communities and lives.

Through various bills and accompanying reports, the House Appropriations Committee has expressed a view that DHS and DOJ should prioritize counterdrug efforts in the U.S. Caribbean to respond to the current crisis. As a case in point, the report for the 2013 DHS appropriations bill stated that the public safety and security issues of the U.S. territories in the Caribbean must be a priority, and that the committee expects the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate resources, assets, and personnel to these jurisdictions accordingly.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is on the front lines of the counterdrug fight. The agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in Puerto Rico. My amendment is designed to address a problem that arose in fiscal year 2011, one that continues to compromise the ability of CBP to carry out its vital counterdrug mission in Puerto Rico.

For over a century, Federal law has provided that the collection of certain duties and taxes in Puerto Rico by CBP or its predecessor agencies will be deposited in something called the Puerto Rico Trust Fund. Pursuant to the law and an implementing agreement between the Puerto Rico government and the Federal Government, a significant portion of that money is also used to fund certain Federal operations in Puerto Rico, including the maritime operations of CBP's Office of Air and Marine.

For many years, this arrangement worked well enough. However, because of a shortfall in the Puerto Rico Trust Fund of $1.7 million due to reduced customs collections in fiscal year 2011, CBP closed a critical boat unit in San Juan that in 2010 seized over 7,000 pounds of illegal drugs. CBP took this drastic action because it has interpreted current Federal law to require that it use either the Trust Fund or general congressional appropriations to fund its operations, but not both.

The amendment would simply give CBP the authority to supplement any funding from the Trust Fund with general appropriations made in this bill. This would make it easier for CBP to avoid any further reductions to its operations in Puerto Rico and, ideally, enable the agency to enhance those operations. The need for this amendment is underscored by the fact that the President's fiscal year 2014 budget predicts Trust Fund receipts of $98 million, which is $8.1 million less, or nearly 8 percent below Trust Fund receipts in fiscal year 2012.

I look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to ensure that this amendment, if adopted, remains in the final bill this year and to continuing to work with them to ensure the Department of Homeland Security, including CBP, has the resources it needs to adequately address the border protection challenges and drug-related violence in Puerto Rico.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered by: Mr. Pierluisi

Amendment No. 12. At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, today, joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues, I am introducing the Puerto Rico Status Resolution Act. This bill is a response to the results of a referendum held in Puerto Rico in November. The first question asked voters if they support Puerto Rico's current territory status, which deprives my constituents of the most fundamental democratic rights. Fifty-four percent said ``no.''

The second question asked voters for their preference among the three alternatives to the current territory status. Of those who chose an option, 61 percent favored statehood. More voters said they want Puerto Rico to become a State than to maintain the current status, which is unprecedented.

The White House has recognized the importance of the results, which is why the President is seeking an appropriation to conduct the first federally authorized vote in Puerto Rico's history, intended to ``resolve'' the territory's future status.

The legislation I am filing today is consistent with the President's budget request and serves as a blueprint for how the vote conducted pursuant to that appropriation could be structured.

After outlining the rights and responsibilities of statehood, the bill authorizes a ratification vote on whether Puerto Rico should be admitted into the Union as a State. If a majority of voters affirm Puerto Rico's desire for statehood, the bill provides for the President to submit legislation to admit Puerto Rico as a State after a reasonable transition period. The bill also expresses Congress's commitment to act on such legislation.

Now, I want to speak directly to the men and women who voted for statehood in November. Our movement has become a predominant force in Puerto Rico. Every day, we grow stronger. Like you, I believe that justice delayed is justice denied. And, like you, I find it difficult to be patient. But we fight with our heads as well as our hearts. Perfecting our Union requires passion, but it also demands perseverance. There are no shortcuts on the path to statehood, and politicians who suggest there are are leading us to a dead end.

The statehood movement is powerful because we are united by a single principle, the principle of equality. The November vote has fortified our spirit and renewed our sense of purpose. We will not shy away from a fight. History teaches that once a people have chosen democracy, self-government and progress, they are unlikely to reverse course. Rest assured, now that the people of Puerto Rico have withdrawn their consent to second-class citizenship, the question is not whether, but when, Puerto Rico will obtain equality through statehood.

To my colleagues who represent States, I know you will respect my constituents for seeking the same rights and responsibilities as your constituents. This respect must take the form of concrete action. The U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico have made their choices heard, and they deserve a meaningful response from their national government.

There is overwhelming evidence that territory status has affected Puerto Rico's political, economic, and social development; and it has become clear that the status quo does not serve the national interest, either. The U.S. succeeds when Puerto Rico succeeds; when the island is strong, stable and secure; and when its residents do not feel obligated to relocate to the States to achieve their dreams. From the U.S. perspective, a robust and resilient State of Puerto Rico would advance the national interest.

The position of every President since Harry Truman has been that their administration would accept whatever status choice is made by a majority of Puerto Rico's voters. The U.S. Government is a champion of democracy and self-determination around the world, and it must adhere to those principles with respect to its own citizens. This is essentially true in light of the service that generations of men and women from Puerto Rico have rendered to this Nation, most notably in the Armed Forces, but in so many other ways as well. In a very real sense, Puerto Rico has earned the right to be equal, and equal we will become.

Puerto Rico has been called the shining star of the Caribbean. The time has

come for our star to shine, alongside the others, on the Flag of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Bill Posey of Florida and I will introduce bipartisan legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 65th Infantry Regiment, a famed U.S. Army unit know as the Borinqueneers composed almost entirely of soldiers from the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico that overcame discrimination and earned praise and respect for its comeback performance in the Korean war.

The Congressional Gold Medal is considered the most distinguished form of recognition that Congress, acting on behalf of a grateful Nation, can bestow upon an individual or group in recognition of outstanding and enduring achievement. As our legislation states:

The highly decorated 65th Infantry Regiment is deserving of

this award because of its ``pioneering military service,

devotion to duty and many acts of valor in the face of

diversity.''

Between 1950 and 1953, the regiment participated in some of the fiercest battles of the Korean war; and its toughness, courage, and loyalty earned the admiration of those who had previously harbored reservations about Puerto Rican soldiers based on stereotypes.

One individual whose misconceptions were shattered was William Harris, who served as the regiment's commander during the early stages of the law. Harris recounts that he was reluctant to take command of the unit because, like many U.S. military leaders, he assumed that Puerto Rican soldiers were not as capable as other troops. Following the war, Harris recalled that his skeptical attitude did not survive first contact with the enemy and that, in fact, his experience ultimately led him to regard the men of the 65th as the best soldiers he had ever seen.

Another individual who came to hold the 65th in high esteem was General Douglas MacArthur. In March 1951, after months of heavy engagements with the enemy in which the 65th played a critical role, General MacArthur wrote the following:

The Puerto Ricans forming the ranks on the gallant 65th

Infantry on the battlefields of Korea by valor, determination

and a resolute will to victory give daily testament to their

invincible loyalty to the United States. They are writing a

brilliant record of achievement in battle, and I'm proud,

indeed, to have them in this command. I wish that we might

have many more like them.

By the time fighting came to a close in Korea in July 1953, soldiers in the 65th had earned 10 Distinguished Service Crosses, about 250 Silver Stars, over 600 Bronze Stars, and nearly 3,000 Purple Hearts. As a collective, the regiment won numerous awards, including two Presidential Unit Citations, the Nation's highest unit-level recognition for extraordinary heroism. The unit's disproportionately high casualty rate underscored the fact that it had been serving on the front lines, face to face with the enemy at the very tip of the spear.

In a 2010 obituary that appeared in The New York Times for 87-year- old Modesto Cartagena, one of the most decorated soldiers from the regiment, it was observed that in Korea:

Puerto Rican soldiers surmounted not only the Communist

enemy, but also prejudicial attitudes.

This same point was made with particular eloquence in 2000 by Secretary Louis Caldera during a ceremony honoring the regiment when he said that the soldiers of the 65th were fighting to protect the people of South Korea, even as they struggled against the injustice

in the ranks of the military that they loved and served so well.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of unique challenges, the men of the 65th regiment served our Nation with great skill and tremendous grace. Their contributions to our country have been recognized in many forms. Streets and parks bear their name. Monuments and plaques memorialize their accomplishments. And cities and States have approved resolutions in their honor. I believe it is time that Congress pay tribute to the 65th, and so I ask my colleagues to join me in the effort to award the regiment with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. Speaker, in November 2012, Puerto Rico held a referendum on its political status. The results demonstrated that a clear majority of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico want to end the island's current territory status, that a supermajority prefers statehood among the possible alternatives, and that--for the first time in history--more voters favor statehood than the current status.

As I have remarked before, not a single one of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept territory status for their own constituents. So they must recognize and respect that the American citizens of Puerto Rico no longer accept it either. I also trust that my colleagues who represent States will credit my constituents for aspiring to have the same rights and responsibilities as their constituents.

Last week, the President took an important step. As part of the proposed budget the administration submitted to Congress, the Justice Department is seeking $2.5 million to conduct the first Federally sponsored vote on Puerto Rico's political status in the 115 years that the territory has been under the U.S. flag. The funding would be granted to Puerto Rico's Elections Commission to conduct objective voter education and a vote on ``options that would resolve Puerto Rico's future political status.''

Key congressional leaders in the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, have already issued statements of support for the President's action, calling it an appropriate response to the local referendum.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents may not have a vote in the government that makes their national laws, but they do have a voice--and they made that voice heard loud and clear in November. A budget reflects one's priorities and values. I support the President's budget because it shows respect for the democratically expressed aspirations of the U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico. And it demonstrates a clear desire to

move forward on this complex but critical issue.

As the budget request states, the Federally sponsored vote is to be among options that would resolve Puerto Rico's political status. The only way to resolve the island's status is through statehood or national sovereignty. Puerto Rico cannot resolve its status by maintaining the same undemocratic status that my people have endured since 1898 and that they soundly rejected in November. The current status is the root cause of Puerto Rico's political, economic, and social problems, so it cannot also be the solution to those problems.

In addition, the budget language clearly states that the Department of Justice shall not provide funding until it certifies that the ballot and voter education materials are consistent with the Constitution, basic laws, and policies of the United States. The purpose of this language is to ensure that the ballot does not include impossible status proposals that have been repeatedly declared unworkable as a matter of both law and policy by the Federal Government. I am pleased that the administration understands that true self-determination is a choice among options that can be implemented, not an exercise in wishful thinking.

The President's request represents one path forward, but it is important to underscore that it is not the only path forward. In the coming weeks, I will introduce stand-alone legislation on the status issue that will both complement President Obama's request and reflect the undisputable fact that statehood won the November referendum.

Puerto Rico stands in a far different place today than it did six months ago. A historic referendum was held, the President responded to the results, and Congress now has a responsibility to act. Those who seek democracy, equality, and progress for Puerto Rico are on the forward march, while those who support the failed status quo are in retreat. We drive the debate, while they merely react to the debate. And, in the end, mindful that the arc of history is long but that it bends towards justice, I am confident we will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, although I strongly support the TANF program, which provides payments to low-income families with children, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. Yesterday, I filed the budget-neutral amendment to H.R. 890. However, the Rules Committee reported a closed rule, thereby foreclosing debate, and a vote, on my amendment.

My amendment sought to eliminate disparities that the territories face under TANF. Under current law, the territories are not eligible for TANF supplemental grants, contingency funds, and mandatory child care funds.

Moreover, Federal law imposes an annual cap on the overall funding that each of the territories can receive under a variety of public assistance programs, including TANF. I have introduced legislation to repeal this funding cap, which has not been increased since 1996, and to make the territories eligible for TANF grants they do not presently receive. The amendment I filed yesterday was rooted in this legislation but modified to comply with PAYGO rules.

Those who seek evidence of how Puerto Rico is hurt by its territory status need look no further than the unequal treatment my constituents receive under TANF and other safety-net programs. These programs are designed to help our Nation's most vulnerable residents, none of whom-- I must emphasize--earn enough to pay Federal income taxes.

This treatment would be unprincipled under any circumstances, but it is particularly unfair when one considers that, last November, voters in Puerto Rico rejected the current status and expressed a desire for statehood, a status that would entitle them to equal treatment under all Federal laws. If Congress elects to undertake a comprehensive reauthorization of the TANF program, I hope my colleagues will work with me to eliminate the disparities that Puerto Rico faces under current law, especially in light of the fact that my constituents have rejected the political status that allows for such unequal treatment.

Mr. Speaker, today I'm introducing a modified version of bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress. The bill would amend a provision in Federal law that applies only to Puerto Rico and that has harmed thousands of Medicare beneficiaries on the island. My legislation would eliminate this problem for future beneficiaries and provide appropriate financial relief to current beneficiaries who have been adversely affected. Senator Schumer is introducing a companion bill, and I want to thank him for his support on this issue.

Most individuals become eligible to enroll in Medicare part A, which covers inpatient hospital care, when they turn 65. In every State and territory except Puerto Rico, individuals enrolled in part A are automatically enrolled in part B, which covers doctors' services and outpatient hospital care and requires the payment of a monthly premium. Individuals can opt out of part B if they don't want it. In Puerto Rico, by contrast, individuals enrolled in part A are not automatically enrolled in part B but, rather, must opt in to receive this coverage.

The problem with the opt-in requirement is that the law requires individuals to elect part B coverage within a 7-month initial enrollment period or to pay a penalty to the Federal Government. The penalty is substantial--a 10 percent increase in the monthly part B premium for every year of delayed enrollment. It is also permanent, lasting as long as the individual has part B, which can be decades.

Over the years, the responsible Federal agencies have done a poor job informing beneficiaries in Puerto Rico about the opt-in requirement and the consequences of late enrollment. Therefore, many of my constituents fail to realize they lack Part B until they get sick and need to visit a doctor, by which point significant time may have elapsed. To illustrate the repercussions, consider the standard Medicare Part B monthly premium of $105. An individual who enrolls 2 years late must pay a 20 percent surcharge--an additional $21 per month. Over 1 year, that is $252. Over 20 years, it is $5,000.

The combination of the opt-in requirement and inadequate beneficiary education in Puerto Rico has led to consequences that are both severe and

predictable. Puerto Rico has the lowest part B participation rate in the country--81 percent compared to the national average of 92 percent. There are least 130,000 island residents enrolled in part A but not part B. Without this coverage, beneficiaries have limited access to doctors' services and outpatient hospital care. If these individuals do eventually enroll in part B, as most will, the 7-month window will have closed and they will be required to pay a lifetime penalty.

Moreover, there are at least 53,000 seniors or disabled individuals in Puerto Rico who are already paying a lifetime penalty for enrolling late in part B. Each year, in fact, island residents pay a total of over $7 million in late fees. This is profoundly unfair. Through no fault of their own, my constituents are required to forfeit money to the Federal Government they should be using to meet their basic needs and support their families.

On the administrative front, I have worked hard with Senator Schumer to ensure that the relevant Federal agencies improve the educational materials provided to Puerto Rico beneficiaries, and I am pleased they have taken positive steps in response to our demands. But the only true solution to this problem is legislative.

My bill would do three things:

First, it would amend Federal law so that, going forward, beneficiaries in Puerto Rico are treated like their counterparts in every other jurisdiction, automatically enrolled in part B with the option to opt out of coverage;

Second, to ease the burden on those who enrolled late in part B, usually with no understanding of the consequences of that choice, the bill would reduce the monthly penalty they are required to pay by 85 percent;

Finally, to address those beneficiaries who are enrolled in part A but not B and who will pay a late penalty whenever they do enroll, the bill would authorize a special period during which those individuals could enroll in part B and pay a monthly surcharge that is 85 percent less than the penalty they would be subject to under current law.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the House and the Senate to enact this much-needed bill into law.

I should also mention that I was impressed with the State of the Union delivered by President Obama last evening, and I particularly support his call for democracy in America. But I remind, respectfully, both the President and all Americans that Puerto Rico has a status that is undemocratic. There are 3.7 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico who lack the most basic voting rights in a democracy. They cannot vote for the President, and they do not have voting representation in Congress. They have rejected this status, and the least that this Congress should do is give Puerto Rico the choice of joining the Union as a State or be treated as a sovereign nation.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will reintroduce two bills: the first to extend the SSI program to Puerto Rico, and the second to provide fair treatment to Puerto Rico under TANF.

SSI provides assistance to blind, disabled, and elderly individuals with low incomes. Congress has chosen not to extend the program to Puerto Rico, which instead receives a limited block grant. The average SSI payment to residents of the States is $500 a month, while the average payment to residents of Puerto Rico is just $70.

The TANF program provides payments to needy families with children. The territories are not eligible for certain TANF grants. Moreover, Federal law imposes a cap on the aggregate funding that a territory can receive under a combination of safety net programs, including TANF. My legislation would eliminate this cap, which has not been increased since 1996, and make the territories eligible for TANF grants they do not currently receive. Equality under TANF would mean at least $40 million in additional funding for Puerto Rico each year.

Those who seek evidence of how Puerto Rico is harmed by its territory status need look no further than the treatment it receives under SSI and TANF. I will fight to secure parity under these two programs. But as long as Puerto Rico remains a territory, it will be an uphill battle.

Mr. Speaker, Puerto Rico recently held a referendum on its political status. Under the current status, the 3.7 million American citizens living in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the leaders who make their national laws and are treated unequally under those laws, as the examples of SSI and TANF well illustrate.

The ballot had two questions. On the first question, voters were asked if they wanted Puerto Rico to remain a territory. Of 1.8 million voters, 54 percent said they do not want the current status to continue, while 46 percent say they do.

On the second question, voters were asked to express their preference among the alternatives to the current status. Of the 1.4 million people who chose an option, 61 percent voted for statehood, 33 percent for free association, and 5.5 percent for independence.

The 834,000 votes for statehood on the second question exceeded the 828,000 for the current status on the first question. For the first time ever, more people in Puerto Rico want to be a state than to continue as a territory.

True to form, defenders of the status quo have tried to distort the results of this referendum, making claims that are intellectually dishonest and divorced from the facts. These critics ignore the results of the first question and argue that, because close to 500,000 people left the second question blank, statehood did not prevail in the referendum.

Let me be clear so there is no confusion. A majority of voters in Puerto Rico soundly rejected the current status. Among the three alternatives, statehood won a decisive victory, and statehood obtained a greater number of votes than any other status option, including the current status.

Mr. Speaker, at yesterday's inauguration, President Obama invoked the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

President Obama then emphasized, while these truths may be self- evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

To uphold this Nation's core principles and values, the President and Congress must respond to the democratic expression of their fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, who have withdrawn their consent to a political status that makes them second-class citizens and who have made clear that they aspire to have full democratic rights and full equality under the law. None of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept territory status for their own constituents, so they must recognize and they must respect that the American citizens I represent no longer accept it either.

Mr. Speaker, Puerto Rico recently held a plebiscite on its political status. I want to convey the results to the American public, describe their significance, and outline the next steps I will take.

As background, Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory since 1898. The island is home to 3.7 million American citizens who cannot vote for President, are not represented in the Senate, and elect one nonvoting Member to the House. Federal law is supreme in Puerto Rico, but its residents are treated unequally under many Federal programs.

Plebiscite voters were first asked whether they want Puerto Rico to remain a territory. Over 1.7 million people answered, which is about 75 percent of registered voters on the island. Fifty-four percent said they did not want the current status to continue, while 46 percent said they did.

Voters were then asked to express their preference among the three viable alternatives to the current status: statehood, free association, and independence. Over 1.3 million people chose an option. Sixty-one percent voted for statehood, 33 percent voted for free association, and 5.5 percent voted for independence. In addition, 472,000 voters did not provide an answer.

This plebiscite marked the first time voters were directly asked whether they want Puerto Rico to remain a territory. One of the two main political parties in Puerto Rico urged a ``yes'' vote. Nevertheless, the ``no'' vote won by eight points. Those voting ``no'' included statehood supporters, as well as advocates of independence and free association. These three groups are united in their opposition to the current status which is colonial in nature. It deprives Puerto Ricans of their right to choose their leaders who make their national laws and to equal treatment under those laws.

Not one of my stateside colleagues in Congress would accept this response for their constituents. So they should respect that my constituents no longer accept it either.

The rejection of territory status fundamentally changes the terms of this debate. After this vote, the question is not whether but when Puerto Rico will cease to be a territory and will have a fully democratic status. Defenders of the status quo may obstruct change in the short term, but in a democracy, the will of the people ultimately prevails.

Let me turn to the second question in the plebiscite, asking voters which status should replace the current status. Of the 1.3 million people who voted for one of the three options, a supermajority chose statehood. Of critical importance, the 810,000 votes for statehood on the second question exceeded the 803,000 votes for the current status on the first question. For the first time, there are more people in Puerto Rico who want to become a State than who want to continue as a territory. This fact further undermines the democratic legitimacy of the current status.

Some wish to downplay the results of the plebiscite by citing the voters who left the second question blank, but this argument does not withstand scrutiny. In our democracy, outcomes are determined by ballots properly cast. Power rests with the citizen who votes, not the one who stays home or who refuses to choose from among the options provided.

Some voters may have left the second question blank simply because they prefer the current status to its alternatives. Those voters were able to vote for the current status in the first question. So their viewpoint was reflected in the plebiscite results. Others may have declined to answer because they were led to believe there was another option that should have been on the ballot, a best-of-all-worlds proposal called ``enhanced commonwealth.'' But each of the last four Presidential administrations has rejected this proposal, as have all key congressional leaders. A blank vote to protest the exclusion of an impossible status proposal is entitled to no weight.

As Puerto Rico's representative in the U.S. Congress, I will work with my allies to ensure that the President and Congress take appropriate action in light of these results. The people of Puerto Rico have spoken, and I intend to make certain that their voice is heard loud and clear.

On November 6, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico will hold a plebiscite on the island's political future. Voters will be asked if they want to continue the current status or to seek a new status. Voters will also be asked to express their preference among the three alternatives to the current status recognized as legally and politically viable by the Federal Government and international law: independence, nationhood in free association with the United States, and statehood.

This plebiscite is different from previous plebiscites in Puerto Rico. It will be the first time that island residents have an opportunity to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' to the question of whether they support the status that Puerto Rico has had since 1898. This question has inherent value in a democracy where a government's legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. And this plebiscite will only include those status options identified as valid by Congress and the White House. True self-determination is a choice among options that can be implemented, not an exercise in wishful thinking.

If a majority of voters express satisfaction with the current status, Puerto Rico's status would not change at this time. Likewise, if there is majority support to change the current status but not majority support for one of the three alternatives, Puerto Rico's current status would also continue. However, if the majority votes against the status quo and in favor of statehood, free association, or independence, Congress and the President should take action that honors that choice.

Top Democratic and Republican leaders have indicated they will take the results of this plebiscite seriously. That is as it should be. The United States is the greatest democracy in history and a champion of peaceful self-determination around the world. Consistent with this principle, I am confident that Federal officials will respect the choice made by their Federal citizens from Puerto Rico if they express a clear desire to change the island status.

Now I want to speak directly to the men and women I represent in Congress. This plebiscite will have a real impact on you, your family, and the future of the island we love. It is important that you make your voice heard and your vote count.

It is well-known that I oppose the current status and advocate for statehood for Puerto Rico. Whether it is called ``territory,'' ``commonwealth,'' or ``colony,'' the current status denies us the most fundamental rights in a democracy: the right to choose the leaders who make our national laws, and the right to equal treatment under those laws. In my view, the current status is an affront to our dignity.

In my office hangs a framed photo of servicemembers from the island who have lost their lives since 2001. They're the latest in a long line of Puerto Rican patriots who have fought and fallen for this Nation. This photo inspires me, but it also makes me sad. I cannot understand how we, such a proud people, can voluntarily submit to a status that makes us second-class citizens in the country that we have defended for generations.

I realize that after nearly 115 years, the prospect of change can be unsettling, but I also know that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. We deserve better than what we have, and the time has come for us to seek a new status that will empower us to realize our full potential.

Among the alternatives to the current status, I believe statehood is the right choice. Independence and free association are worthy options, but both would place at risk our U.S. citizenship and Federal support under programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for future generations of Puerto Ricans. Because I believe the overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans are opposed to breaking or substantially weakening the strong political, social, and economic bonds that have formed between Puerto Rico and the United States, I think the only viable alternative to the status quo is statehood. At this critical moment in history, we should aspire to perfect our union, not to sever it.

The current status is about second-class citizenship, which we should rise up to reject. Independence and free association are about separation, which would diminish the opportunities available to our children and grandchildren. Statehood is about equal treatment. It would deliver to Puerto Rico what all free people deserve: full voting rights, full self-government, and full equality under the law.

This November, I hope that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico will send a clear message to Congress that they're ready to make a change.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a great Puerto Rican and a great American, Anibal De Jesus Rodriguez, who passed away on June 26, 2012. Army Staff Sergeant De Jesus Rodriguez was a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War. He served with distinction from September 1943 until December 1964, retiring after more than 20 years of active-duty service to our nation.

In recognition of his achievements while in uniform, De Jesus Rodriguez was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the American Theater Service Medal and the World War II Victory Medal.

In addition to his own extraordinary service, Sergeant De Jesus Rodriguez helped cultivate a tradition of service in his family. His brothers also served in the U.S. Army, as did his three sons: Anibal, Efrain and Juan. Moreover, three of his grandsons have served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. It is families like his that keep our nation safe and strong. And it is families like his that make our country great.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of this proud veteran, American patriot, family patriarch and role model, Anibal De Jesus Rodriguez. I know he will be greatly missed by those who had the privilege to know him. But I also know that he will never be forgotten.