Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to respond to remarks delivered yesterday on this floor by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, in which he harshly criticized the duly elected government of Puerto Rico and the island's chief Federal judge. The speech was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. I hope such action will not be repeated, but if it is, make no mistake: I will return to the floor of this House again to defend my constituents and the government they chose in free elections from all unwarranted attacks. I will rise then in the same capacity that I rise now, as Puerto Rico's only elected Representative in Congress and the only Member of this Chamber who can make any claim to speak on behalf of the island's nearly 4 million American citizens. I will fight for my people because it is my privilege, my honor, and my duty to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican rules package, because it sends a message of exclusion and indifference to my constituents and those of my fellow delegates from the other U.S. territories and the District of Columbia.

As the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, I represent nearly four million U.S. citizens, far more than any other member of this Chamber. Together, the delegates from the other U.S. territories and the District of Columbia represent over one million people. Our constituents are part of the American family. They pledge allegiance to the same flag as their fellow Americans in the 50 states. They fight-- and many of them have died--in defense of our nation.

Under a rule in place for the last three Democratic-controlled Congresses, the Representatives from the territories and the District were given a single, extremely circumscribed privilege on the House floor. We were permitted to vote on amendments when the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole, a parliamentary device designed to allow greater participation by Members in debate. The rule provided for an automatic revote to be held in the exceedingly rare instance where our votes affected the outcome. This rule was upheld by the federal courts and did not impede the work of this House in any way.

This simple privilege promoted responsible and transparent government. By obligating us to take public stands on issues of importance, it enabled our constituents to better evaluate both our governing philosophy and the quality of our representation. The privilege also sent a clear moral message--a message of inclusiveness-- conveying to our constituents that their voices counted.

In a move that is as unnecessary as it is unjust, the Republican package will deprive us of this privilege, which may have been small in their eyes, but which held significant meaning for us and those we represent. The Republican package dishonors men and women from the territories and the District of Columbia. And in so doing, it does grave damage to the principles of equality and justice that our constituents, side by side with all of your constituents, fight to defend here at home and in distant lands. This is a true shame.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the inclusion of increased funding for the Federal Pell Grant Program in the Continuing Resolution. Pell Grants are instrumental in helping students obtain college degrees and further prepare themselves to join the modern workplace. In Puerto Rico, over 280,000 students benefit from this funding each year.

Last year, I was proud to join my colleagues on the House Education Committee in voting to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,550 for the current academic year and to tie future awards to inflation. However, this increased funding will be put in jeopardy if Congress does not act today. Largely as a result of the economic downturn, Pell Grant applications have increased by 20 percent during the past year. Without an additional investment in the Pell Grant Program, the maximum award could be cut by more than 15 percent, putting college out of reach for many students.

I urge my colleagues to support the Continuing Resolution to ensure that college remains affordable for our Nation's students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the DREAM Act. This bill has been nearly 10 years in the making, and its consideration by this House is long overdue.

The DREAM Act reflects our highest American values--that those who are willing to work hard will be given the chance to succeed. Members of this chamber often speak eloquently about America being the land of opportunity. Today, we can make these words a reality for those young people who were brought to this country as children years ago, who have done well in school, and who now seek to pursue higher education or military service.

I cannot imagine another group of potential Americans more deserving of this opportunity to resolve their immigration status. The DREAM Act would provide conditional immigration status to individuals who were brought to the U.S. when they were 15 years old or younger, have lived in this country for 5 years, and have graduated from a U.S. high school or obtained a G.E.D. Only after completing a 13-year-long process would these individuals be eligible for citizenship.

Let's be clear: These young people have done nothing wrong. They had virtually no choice in coming to the United States, just as all of us here had no choice over whether we were born in the United States--and thus were automatically granted U.S. citizenship--or were born in another country. We should not continue to punish these commendable young men and women for the actions of others by denying them the opportunity to attend college or serve in our Nation's armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1430, which honors ``Chi Chi'' Rodriguez for his commitment to Latino youth programs.

Chi Chi was born into a poor family in Puerto Rico and began working at the age of 7. He taught himself how to play golf and enjoyed a very successful professional career, becoming the first Puerto Rican inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame.

I rise today, though, to commend Chi Chi not for his extraordinary golf skills but for his philanthropy. His civic work has helped countless youths and earned him membership in the World Humanitarian Hall of Fame.

Yesterday, it was suggested on the floor of this House that it is a waste of time and resources to consider and pass this resolution. With all due respect, it is never a waste of time to recognize and praise the actions of a great human being, particularly when those actions help our youth.

It is one thing to promote fiscal responsibility; it is quite another to ignore or, even worse, intend to demean the feats of an extraordinary American.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for House Resolution 1430.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I requested $150,000 to purchase equipment for a community and recreational park for low- income children in Yauco, Puerto Rico, a city in the southwestern part of the island. The park will be constructed so that it is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This funding will supplement funding already provided for the project by the city of Yauco. This is one of the smallest earmarks in this bill. It is unquestionably an appropriate and viable use of Federal funds.

There currently is no recreational park in Yauco, which is home to approximately 50,000 residents, has a poverty rate of 56 percent and has an unemployment rate of over 17 percent. Furthermore, although there are over 75,000 children in Puerto Rico, I am advised that there is not a single recreational park in the entire southwestern region of Puerto Rico that is ADA compliant and thus meaningfully accessible to children with disabilities.

Earlier this week, Mr. Chairman, this House proudly commemorated the 20th anniversary of the ADA's passage. What better way is there to promote the goals of this landmark Federal law than to provide a reasonable amount of funding to help equip a recreational park that children with disabilities can enjoy side by side with their able- bodied friends.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development states that a core part of its mission is to build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination, and HUD's EDI program regularly funds acquisition of equipment for public facilities like the recreational park in Yauco.

In closing, I would gently remind my friend from Arizona that a State with Puerto Rico's population would benefit from congressionally directed spending requests from six Representatives and two Senators. However, because Puerto Rico is a territory, I alone am responsible for protecting the interests of 4 million American citizens.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Let me just say that there are 435 Members of this House; there are five Delegates representing the territories. Each and every one of these districts and the territories has its own peculiar needs, and the Members should be entitled to do something like what I am trying to do, help a town in Puerto Rico with the highest poverty rate in the region where kids do not even have a place to play, particularly meeting the needs and the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

There cannot be a more justified earmark than this one. The amount at stake is $150,000.

So I urge my friend from Arizona to withdraw this amendment because, clearly, it has no merit.

I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, 58 years ago this Sunday, the Constitution of Puerto Rico took effect. As we

mark this occasion, it is appropriate to reflect on the progress that Puerto Rico has made in fulfilling the aspirations expressed in our Constitution and to acknowledge the distance we have left to travel.

Our Constitution reflects the values and dreams of our people. Its words reinforce our commitment to democracy and equality and confirm that we treasure both our Puerto Rican roots and our American citizenship.

Over time, the bonds between Puerto Rico and the United States have grown stronger. Like so many American stories, this is the chronicle of progress, evolution, and the steady march towards a more perfect Union.

But the aspirations of our Constitution have yet to be realized. There will be no democracy for Puerto Rico until its people have a real voice in making the national laws that govern their lives, and there will be no equality so long as they can be treated differently than their fellow citizens simply because they live in a territory.

Today I renew my pledge to fight so that one day democracy and equality will prevail in Puerto Rico.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a magnificent Puerto Rican Hero, Sgt. Carlos Rafael Evans Toro of The United States Marines, 1st Battalion 2nd Marine of Fajardo, Puerto Rico. Carlos was born on October 17, 1979, along with his twin sister Carla. He is married to his lovely wife Rosemarie and they have two children, Noroby and new born Genesis. Sgt. Evans had served three tours in Iraq, and was on his first tour of duty in Afghanistan in Salam Baezar when an IED went off during a foot patrol on May 16 2010. Losing his legs and part of his arm, he somehow held on to fight his next battle. To walk again, and he will! His courage his faith, and his character is an inspiration to us all. And with his family's help, the key to all great recoveries, this mountain they will climb together! I ask that this poem penned in honor

of him and his family by Albert Caswell, be placed in the Record.

Carlos Can

Carlos Can!

And Carlos Will!

All of our hearts, so instill!

As we watch him climb, each and every mountain . . . and

every hill . . .

Moving onward, moving forward . . . ever onward still!

All but with his fine heart, as he somehow rebuilds . . .

Carlos Can, all because . . . lie's A United States Marine

. . .

One of the best things that this country has ever seen!

Arms and legs, yea we all need!

But, without a heart . . . one can not so surely breath!

Carlos Can, and Carlos Will . . . all of his dreams, one

day fulfill . . .

As This Pride of Puerto Rico, so fills...

So fill's all of our hearts, with all of his courage . . .

and so iron will!

While, against all odds . . . he will not be stilled!

For he has a life to live, and to our world so much more to

give!

For on that fateful morning, as he awoke . . .

And so saw, what this dark war had invoked . . .

As the tears, upon his fine face so gently broke . . .

As in that moment, his fine heart to him so spoke!

So spoke to him, about faith and courage . . .

And how not to somehow be discouraged!

For only from ones soul, so conies hope . . .

As it was all in that moment, that he so made that choice .

. .

As through him . . .

All in his actions, we so heard our Lord's most beautiful

voice!

Calling To Us!

To Teach Us . . .

To Beseech Us . . .

All in Carlos's choice!

And, if ever I have a son . . .

I but pray, he could but be like this fine one!

To have the strength and courage, like Carlos could!

Carlos Can! And Carlos Will!

Marine Take That Mountain, Climb That Hill!

Hoorah Jar Head, for God and Country you so bled!

Showing us all, That God Is Great! And God Is Good!

Like Carlos, do you think that you so could?

I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), and thank you for your eloquent explanation as to why H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, is a fair bill, a necessary bill, and a bill that is long overdue. I'm also thankful for the kind words given by the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Diaz-Balart, and for his support for H.R. 2499.

I'm so grateful to you and to the hundreds of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support H.R. 2499. I cannot cast a vote this afternoon, but please know that your vote will give voice to the aspirations of 4 million men, women, and children from Puerto Rico whom I am honored to represent. I'm also grateful for the support of diverse organizations such as LULAC, the Nation's oldest Hispanic civil rights organization, the Young Democrats of America, and the Puerto Rico Republican Party.

I want to say a special thank you to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. The majority leader has been a champion without peer for the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico. My constituents and I owe him a debt of gratitude that no words, however sincerely uttered, can ever repay.

Mr. Speaker, this has not been easy, but I am a firm believer that nothing truly worth doing ever is. The fundamental justice of our cause, to enable a fair and meaningful self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico after more than 110 years of inaction, is beyond question. Patience is a virtue, but my people have been patient enough.

H.R. 2499 is a simple bill designed to address a longstanding problem. Since joining the American family at the close of the 19th century, the Puerto Rican people have enriched the lives of this Nation in many ways. For generations, the island's sons and daughters have fought proudly alongside their fellow citizens of the States to protect freedom and democracy around the world. Many have given their lives in defense these values. Many more have borne the scars of their service to this great country.

Notwithstanding their contributions, my people have never expressed their views in a fair process authorized by Congress as to whether Puerto Rico should remain a U.S. territory or seek a nonterritorial status. If the majority of the voters express a desire for a nonterritorial status, the bill would authorize the government of Puerto Rico to conduct a second-stage plebiscite among the three alternatives to territorial status: independence, free association, and statehood. The bill before us would, for the first time, provide the people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to be heard on the fundamental question of their political destiny.

Thank you, Congressman Polis.

This bill does not favor or exclude any valid status options, and claims to the contrary are without merit.

In the 21st century, shouldn't this Congress at least ask the people of Puerto Rico, the 4 million citizens living in Puerto Rico, whether they want to continue to be treated differently, different than their fellow citizens in the States? That is the question posed by H.R. 2499.

I ask for your support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in representation of the people of Puerto Rico. In fact, I am the only elected representative of the people of Puerto Rico in this Congress. In such capacity, I introduced

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

As I was saying, during a late night patrol behind enemy lines, soldiers from Puerto Rico, Utah, Georgia watch each others' backs. Any differences in culture or language mean nothing. I went to Afghanistan recently to visit our troops in Afghanistan. I know what we're talking about. What matters is that the flag on their uniform is the same.

As I have said many times before, I support statehood because I believe the people of Puerto Rico have earned that right, should they choose to exercise it, to become full and equal citizens of the United States. But this is not a statehood bill. And that's why, with all due respect to the gentleman from Washington State, we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

The time and the day that Puerto Rico, the majority of the people request for statehood, you will have ample time to debate it, to deal with it, to impose a transitional period, whatever this Congress or a future Congress might want to do.

I was elected to represent all of the people of Puerto Rico, including those whose vision for the island's future differs from my own.

I yield myself 15 additional seconds.

The intention of H.R. 2499 is to sponsor a fair process of self- determination in Puerto Rico, not to predetermine the outcome of that process. I have to say, in the 21st century, it is about time that this Congress, at the very least, ask the 4 million American citizens if they want to continue having the second-class citizenship they're earning and they're having today.

Vote in support of H.R. 4599.

I yield the gentleman from Alaska 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).

It is time. It is time for this Congress to hear from the people of Puerto Rico. A lot has been said about this process of self-determination. And what is self-determination? It is to allow the people of Puerto Rico to express their wishes on their political destiny. H.R. 2499 does exactly that. The only possible options that the people of Puerto Rico have concerning the subject matter are the following: remaining as a territory, which is called a Commonwealth, but the label does not change the status. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth, yet it is a State. Puerto Rico is a territory. And there is a clause in the United States Constitution that provides and has so been interpreted by the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, that this Congress has plenary powers over the territories, including Puerto Rico. And we do not fail to exercise them on a daily basis, for better or worse, to the people of Puerto Rico, who do not have voting representation in this Congress, who do not vote for the President, and who do not participate in Federal programs on an equal basis with their fellow citizens in the States. That is one of the choices. And this bill, this plebiscite, the plebiscite in H.R. 2499, provides for that. If the people want to remain under the current status, they can, like they should be.

Now if the people of Puerto Rico say we no longer want to be a territory of the United States, we should know that, all Members of Congress. This bill then asks them their choice among the only three options that are accepted under U.S. and international law: statehood, independence, and there has been some talk about free association.

Let me tell you something. I agree with Congressman Serrano. Libre asociacion is that term in Spanish. In Puerto Rico everybody knows what libre asociacion is. In fact, there is a faction within one of our main parties that advocates for that. And what is that? Simple; what Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau already have--an association between Puerto Rico and the U.S. as sovereign nations that is not a territory of the United States. That option is included. So all the options are there. It is only fair to ask the people of Puerto Rico to express themselves in a way that is not binding on this Congress.

We will always have, the Congress will always have the last word on this topic, as it should be. So that's why I have put forth this bill before this Congress on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico as the only elected Representative

of the people of Puerto Rico, and I ask for your support. Vote for H.R. 2499.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. The reason is rather straightforward. In a democracy, the majority rules. The threshold question, the first question that H.R. 2499 poses, is precisely to determine whether the majority of the people residing in Puerto Rico, the American citizens residing in Puerto Rico, want to remain as a territory. Once the majority speaks, we will abide by that. If the majority says they want change, they do not want to continue being a territory, called a commonwealth as it is, then it is only fair to ask a second question. Choose among the only available alternatives. The results will speak for themselves.

Some here seem to be convinced that the result will be that the people of Puerto Rico will choose statehood. It remains to be seen. We don't know the percentage. We don't know what other percentages we will have on the first vote, on the second vote. Let's allow the people of Puerto Rico to express themselves. It is only fair. And the Congress will have the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I rise in opposition because some of my colleagues here have been talking about one term, ``free association,'' being an ambiguous term. Well, there cannot be anything more ambiguous than ``none of the above'' when you know that all the options that are available are the four options that we have been talking about.

The first option is for Puerto Rico to continue being a territory, and we all know what a territory is. Our Constitution provides for such. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory. That is an option. And there are only three other possible options as a matter of settled U.S. law and international law: independence, statehood, and free association. It serves no purpose, no real purpose to include a ``none of the above'' option when those are the options that we all know exist for the people of Puerto Rico.

If we want to effectuate self-determination, if we want to facilitate self-determination, if we want to give a voice to Puerto Rico, to the people of Puerto Rico, with a meaningful purpose, we cannot include a ``none of the above'' option. That was, indeed, the result of the last plebiscite that was done in Puerto Rico, which did not follow the bill that this House approved or the Senate failed to act upon. It added this ``none of the above'' option, and what happened is, to this day, nobody can understand what that means. It served no purpose. That's why I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard here, and it is unfortunate, some colleagues talk about this being rigged, using terms of that nature. And I can take it because I know that this is a fair bill.

Now I just heard that somehow we are opposing this amendment because of the way that this bill is drafted. Let me say for the record of this House that the language that provides for having the ballots in both Spanish and English was offered in committee, in the Committee of Natural Resources at the markup by Mr. Henry Brown from South Carolina who belongs to the Republican Party. And we voted on it.

The reason I am opposing this amendment is it is totally unnecessary. As a matter of local law in Puerto Rico, we need to provide the ballots in both English and Spanish, and that is what we are doing. We are just being fair. This amendment requires as an alternative that now we need to print separate ballots in English and force those who feel more comfortable with the English language to request them. It is not necessary. We oppose it. I oppose it. And that's all I'll say. I needn't say anymore.

I rise in support of this amendment. It is a sensible

amendment. It basically provides that whatever legal requirements apply in the States will apply in Puerto Rico on this issue.

At the same time, it expresses a sense of Congress that we should improve the teaching of English in Puerto Rico. I am all for that. Ninety percent of the parents in Puerto Rico want to improve the teaching of English in Puerto Rico to their children. I have two bills pending before this Congress seeking additional funding, one, and the other creating a teacher exchange program so that we have more English teachers in Puerto Rico.

This is not an issue. We have two official languages in Puerto Rico, English and Spanish, the same way Hawaii has two official languages. We want all of our children to be fluent in English and to facilitate the government processes in Puerto Rico to the extent necessary so any English speakers will be well served.

So I support the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Indiana as well as the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The bill before us is a product of careful deliberation. We worked hard in reaching the right and correct balance in terms of determining who should be eligible to vote in the plebiscites provided for in the bill.

Before reporting it, the committee considered, as we had in previous Puerto Rico status bills, which voters should be participating, and we had to strike a balance. The bill makes both

residents of Puerto Rico who are otherwise eligible to vote under Puerto Rico electoral law and U.S. citizens who were born in Puerto Rico but who may not reside in the territory at the time of the plebiscite eligible to vote.

The committee recognized that a substantial number of individuals born in Puerto Rico but not currently residing there hope to return to live in Puerto Rico one day. Accordingly, they can be said to have a practical stake in helping to determine Puerto Rico's future political status. Such argument does not hold, though, for those who are of Puerto Rican descent but who were born outside of the territory, which the pending amendment would allow. The bill chooses place of birth rather than ethnic identity as the eligibility criteria. I urge this criterion to be maintained and that this amendment be rejected.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

In listening to the gentleman from Illinois, I keep hearing that he wants Puerto Rico to become independent, that he sees Puerto Rico as a nation. So be it. That's a dignified status, and that is one of the options that this bill provides for.

In crafting the bill, we tried to be as inclusive as we could, recognizing that Puerto Ricans, people born in Puerto Rico, might be interested in participating in this plebiscite, might want to return to Puerto Rico; and for the purpose of being as fair and as democratic as we could, we drew the line on requiring birth in Puerto Rico. More than that, we think it would be too encompassing and not necessary.

So I oppose this amendment. I believe that the current bill is fair; it might not be perfect, like any piece of legislation. You draw lines when you're legislating, but this is a reasonable line.

I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York.

This amendment would replace the plebiscite process authorized by the bill with an entirely new process, including a runoff with a problematic none-of-the-above option, which is unsound, confusing, and unlikely to produce a clear expression of the voters' views on the status question.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. The amendment would delete the two-step process authorized by the bill, and it would replace it with a one-step process that uses the term ``commonwealth'' to denote Puerto Rico's current status.

As I said before, the term ``commonwealth'' is the legal name. It is the title given to the territory of Puerto Rico. Including the term when giving the people of Puerto Rico an option is confusing in and of itself, particularly because it could imply that it is more than what it is. This has been debated long enough. A territory is a territory is a territory. Call it whatever you may.

By limiting the plebiscites I authorize to one, the amendment fails to accomplish one of the primary purposes

of the bill: to determine whether the people of Puerto Rico consent to an arrangement that, whatever its other merits, does not provide them with self-government at the national level. The amendment includes a runoff process that provides for a none-of-the-above option. By including this option, the amendment undermines the purpose of the legislation, which is to enable a fair and informed process of self- determination for the people of Puerto Rico. ``None of the above'' is not a valid status. The last plebiscite provided that, and to this day, we cannot even interpret it. Including it on any ballot misleads voters into thinking that there is a possible alternative to the three available options.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York.

This amendment is in the nature of a substitute and seeks to postpone an informed self-determination process along the viable status options in Puerto Rico. Postpone. Delay.

We've waited long enough. We have been waiting for 112 years.

In addition, it basically opts out. This is an opt-out. Congress is basically saying I'm not going to deal with this. Easy for Congress to do, but it is not the right thing.

Congress should be engaged in this process like it has never done before. Why? There are 4 million American citizens living in that territory, and they are being discriminated against every day in legislation that is pending before the Congress. If they want to live under those conditions, so be it. They should tell this Congress. But if they want a different status, nonterritorial, they should be given the chance also to express themselves along those lines. And the options are clear.

The gentleman from Illinois, it looks like he favors one of those options, independence for Puerto Rico. He keeps talking about Puerto Rico's being a nation and so on. I respect that. If that's the will of the majority of the people of Puerto Rico, I am sure this Congress will respect it as well. But there are two other options. Yes, free association, it has been done before, and in Puerto Rico, people know very well what free association is all about. And the other one is statehood. There has been lots of talk about statehood here. And what I tell to all those who have raised concerns about the potential admission of Puerto Rico as a State is that we're not there yet. When we get there, then we will address it. But at least this bill allows the people of Puerto Rico to express their will. What is more democratic than that? What is fairer than that? Nothing. To simply say we're not going to get involved in this, solve it among yourselves, easy way out, but that's not fair. We've waited long enough.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

The matters that are being raised in this motion are premature. They are irrelevant, actually, because all that H.R. 2499 does is to consult the people of Puerto Rico on the four available options that they have regarding our status--the current status of the territory, statehood, independence, and free association.

The people of Puerto Rico have not yet expressed by a majority that they want to join the Union as a State. I hope that it comes about, and when it comes about, Puerto Rico will comply with the Second Amendment in the same way that all the other States must comply with the Second Amendment.

The same goes for the English language. That shouldn't be an issue. It shouldn't be an issue now in Puerto Rico, and it will not be an issue, if the time comes, when we become a State. Puerto Rico now has two official languages--English and Spanish. Ninety percent of our parents want their children to be fluent in English. We are proud of having English as a language, and we want to improve it. In fact, I have two bills pending before this Congress for that very purpose.

So both issues are being unfairly placed--at least that is what the motion seeks--in the ballot that the people of Puerto Rico will be having in front of them. What the motion seeks is to somehow tell the people of Puerto Rico, You can have statehood, but just English only and only if you comply with the Second Amendment.

I oppose this motion because it is untimely, and it is premature. The day will come when we will debate these issues, but that day is not now.

I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I rise so that the record will reflect the following point about the Medicare Advantage program and its application in Puerto Rico. For a variety of reasons, relatively few Medicare beneficiaries in

Puerto Rico are enrolled in Part B. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) has determined that, as a result, fee-for-service reimbursement rates for providers on the Island are artifically low and unstable. Over the past year, I have worked with the House Committee on Ways and Means to examine ways to address this problem. In the report accompanying the health care reform bill it approved, the Committee candidly acknowledged the problem and urged CMS to use its existing authority to adjust the reimbursement rates in Puerto Rico. I strongly supported this language and believe it is still operative. Working with Committee leadership and my colleagues, I will do everything within my power to ensure that CMS uses its current authority to make certain that reimbursement rates to MA providers in Puerto Rico are fair.

The language included in the House Ways and Means Committee report is:

The phase-down of MA payments to FFS costs applies equally to all 50 states and the territories, however, Puerto Rico is a unique situation that the Committee expects that the Secretary will use authority under current law to examine. Specifically, very few Medicare beneficiaries in Puerto Rico choose to enroll in Part B; instead, MA plans buy down the Part B premium for enrollees and therefore many Medicare beneficiaries enroll in MA to receive all of their Medicare services.

With only a small population enrolled in Part B through traditional Medicare, the county FFS expenditures calculated by the Secretary are artificially low and unstable from year-to-year. Therefore, the Committee expects that when calculating county FFS rates in Puerto Rico, the Secretary will use utilization and expenditure data from MA plans under current authority and adjust these rates and risk scores appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1047) commending The Ohio State University Buckeyes football team for its victory in the 2010 Rose Bowl.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise, extend, and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 1047 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to congratulate the Ohio State University Buckeyes football team for their victory in the 2010 NCAA Rose Bowl. On January 1, the Ohio State Buckeyes of the Big Ten Conference faced off against the Oregon Ducks from the Pac-10 Conference for the 96th Rose Bowl game. The Buckeyes defeated the Ducks by a score of 26-17, collecting their seventh Rose Bowl crown.

The Buckeyes finished their season with an 11-2 record and a fifth national ranking. In addition to winning its seventh Rose Bowl title, Ohio State won its fifth consecutive Big Ten title, playing in its fifth consecutive BCS bowl game. The Buckeyes have played in eight BCS games, the most of any school. The players and coaches deserve to be recognized for their outstanding accomplishments.

Congratulations are in order for Terrelle Pryor, Ohio State's quarterback and 2010 Rose Bowl MVP. Pryor threw for 266 yards, ran for 72 yards, and scored two touchdowns, leading all players from both teams in these categories.

I also want to extend my congratulations to Head Coach Jim Tressel. Coach Tressel just completed his ninth season with the Buckeyes. Since taking the position, Tressel has led the Buckeyes to an overall record of 94-21, with nine bowl appearances and one national championship.

The extraordinary achievement of this year is a tribute to the skill and dedication of the many players, coaches, students, alumni, families, and fans that have helped to make the Ohio State University Buckeyes a great football program. Winning the Rose Bowl and finishing the season with an 11-2 overall record have brought acclaim to the school and to the Buckeye football team. I know the fans of the university will revel in this victory as they look forward to the 2010 season.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I congratulate the Ohio State University Buckeyes for their success and thank Congresswoman Kilroy for bringing this bill forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy), the sponsor of this legislation.

I now urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution congratulating the Ohio State Buckeyes for their Rose Bowl victory, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1142) congratulating Silver Lake College for 75 years of service as an undergraduate institution of higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise, extend, and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 1142 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1142, which congratulates Silver Lake College for 75 years of service as an undergraduate institution of higher education. Founded in the late 1800s by the Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity, Silver Lake College has emerged as a strong academic environment for students looking for one-on-one attention. The school educates approximately 1,000 students annually, offers a seven-to-one student-to-teacher ratio, and provides 24 different areas of study for its students. The small, intimate setting Silver Lake College champions gives students and teachers opportunities to excel in and out of the classroom.

Silver Lake College was founded on Franciscan Catholic values. These values focus on a commitment to community, compassion, peace, and reverence for creation. Through a quality liberal arts education, students at Silver Lake College learn to connect the mind and spirit through Franciscan traditions. Leadership and service ideals are instilled in the student body at Silver Lake College. These ideals are best exemplified by students' commitment to volunteerism. This past February, three student organizations at the school partnered to raise funds for victims of the Haiti earthquake. Students hosted a rock and roll concert and sold food at fundraisers throughout campus, with all proceeds going to earthquake victims.

This year Silver Lake College will celebrate 75 years of providing excellent education and cultivating young women and men to be well- rounded young adults with promising career paths.

Mr. Speaker, once again I express my support for Silver Lake College, and thank Congressman Petri for bringing this bill forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution congratulating Silver Lake College for 75 years of service.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1091) expressing support for designation of the week of February 28 through March 7, 2010, as ``School Social Work Week'', as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 1091 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1091, a resolution to recognize the week of February 28 through March 6, 2010, as National School Social Worker Week.

School social workers have long played a critical role in schools and in the community as a whole. They are professionals with training in social support and mental health intervention who work with youth to address their emotional, social, and developmental needs. For example, students in elementary school are just beginning to develop their academic skills and their feelings of competence. School social workers help students build their confidence as learners.

In middle school, many new challenges arise. During this passage from childhood to adolescence, students are characterized by a need to explore a variety of interests, connecting their learning in the classroom to its practical application in life. In middle schools, school social workers provide leadership to engage all stakeholders in the delivery of programs and services to help students navigate the challenges of early adolescence to achieve academic, social, and behavioral success.

And in high school, students begin separating from parents to explore their independence and define their individuality. They face increased pressures to engage in risky behaviors involving sex, alcohol, and drugs, and many students seek support in choosing acceptable behavior and establishing mature, meaningful relationships. School social workers help them

make thoughtful and appropriate decisions.

On top of this, school social workers must be responsive to the range of challenges that young people face every day such as poverty, disability, discrimination, abuse, addiction, bullying, divorce of parents, loss of a loved one, and other barriers to learning.

School social workers are also on the front lines when disaster strikes, such as the suicide plane attack in Austin, Texas, that killed a number of people last month, Hurricane Katrina, as well as our traumatic events such as 9/11 or school violence incidents like Columbine.

There is documentation of the growing need for school districts to expand mental health and student support services in schools. The numbers indicate that less than 1 in 5 of the 17.5 million children in need of mental health services actually receive any support from qualified professionals. Many students go underserved primarily because the national average ratio of students to school social workers is far higher than the 400 to 1 ratio recommended by the School Social Work Association of America.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution serves to recognize the tremendous importance of school social workers and acknowledge the valuable role that they play in guiding our students' success. I want to thank Congressman Kennedy for bringing this resolution forward. I urge my colleagues to resoundingly pass this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution recognizing National School Social Work Week.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support health care reform, but I do not support the proposal put forward by the White House, because it mistreats 4.4 million Americans living in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories. They are treated like second-class citizens.

My loyalty to my party and to our President is beyond question, but my principles and my people come first. This proposal violates my principles, and it mistreats my people.

In Puerto Rico, the Federal Government pays less than 25 percent of the cost of providing Medicaid services. That is a national travesty. The House took important steps to mitigate this disparity in funding. Yet the White House proposal does not make a good-faith effort to address this inequality. Moreover, the proposal excludes Puerto Rico from the exchange but allows noncitizen residents of the States to participate. This is discrimination, and it is no way to treat one's fellow Americans.

I do not believe this proposal reflects the President's thinking, and I cannot believe my colleagues will allow it to stand. The people of Puerto Rico and the other territories fight proudly for their country. Their country should fight for them, too.